17-102320May 30, 2017
Mr. Steven Quarterman
Landau Associates Inc.
130 2nd Avenue South
Edmonds, WA 98020
sq11arterrnan@landauinc.com
L
Re: File #17-102320-00-AD; STREAM/WETLAND DELINEATION PEER REVIEW
Woodmont Storage Stream Buffer Intrusion
CITY HALL
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
(253)835-7000
www.cityoffederalway.com
Jim Ferrell, Mayor
27824 & 27818 Pacific Highway South, Federal Way/ Parcels: 720480-0164 and -0166
Dear Mr. Quarterman:
Enclosed please find the task authorization form with documents for the abovementioned tax parcel numbers
and related project files #17-102253-00-UP and 17-102254-00-SE. Please review the scope of work contained
in the task authorization form and the task cost on page 2. Once complete, please return the signed original
to the city. Following the deposit of funds by the applicant, staff will provide authorization to proceed with
the scope of work.
For the purposes of expediting review timelines, the city requests the proposed tasks be completed within 10
business days of receiving the notice to proceed from the city.
Please contact Associate Planner Leila Willoughby-Oakes at leila.willoughby-oakes@cityoffederalway.com, or
253-835-2644, if you have any questions regarding this task or the proposed scope.
Leila Willoughby-Oakes
Associate Planner
enc: Task Authorization Form with Documents
File 17·102320-00-AD Doc. l.D. 75961
~ Federal Way
June 16, 2017
Jeff Old right
Woodmont S torage, LLC
601 Valley Avenue NE
Puyallup, WA 98372
-Cl1Y HALL
33325 8th Avenue So uth
Federal Way, WA 98003 -6325
(25 3) 835-7 000
www.cityoffederalway.com
Jim Ferrell, Mayor
Emailed: Jeff@da ffod i !storage.com
RE: File #17-102320-00-AD; (17-102253-00-UP & 17-102254-00-SE); PEER REVIEW COST ESTIMATE
Woodmont Storage; 27824 & 27818 Pacific H""1' S, Fede raJ Way
Dear Mr. Oldright:
Please find the enclosed co ns ultant task autho rization with a scope of work for review of Critical Areas
Report -27818 Pacific Highway S outh for the above-refere nced sel f -storage project. The Department's
co nsultant, Landau Associates Inc., was asked to provide an e stimate for their review of information
revised by Soundview Cons ultants June 201 7 .
The norm a l course of action is for the City to set up an account to be funded by the app li cant and drawn
down by the work p_erfonned by Landau. Please note that if any of th e funds are not used , t hey wi ll be
returned to the applicant. A check in the amount o f $5,9 60.00, pa ya b le to the C ity of Federa l Way, and a
signature on the authori zati o n fo rm must be s ubmitted in ord e r for the review to begin. P lease note-this
fee will cover the review of the materials, field review, and techni c al m e rno rand um(s). Any meeting
wou ld occur during Landau's field review if requested by th e applicant. Additional reviews or meetin gs
beyond that will require a supplemental cost and authorization.
If you h ave any ques tio ns regard ing this letter or your project, please contact m e at 253-835-2644, or
leila.willoughby-oakes@c ityoffederalway.com.
Sincerely ~
-
_/
Leila Willoughby-Oakes
Associate Plann e r
enc: Task Autho ri1111 i o n Form
Landau A ss ociates Sc ope o f Services
Fee Invo ice
-,,
!loe I D 75%2
~ Fe'deral Way
N ovember 17, 2017
Jeff Oldright
Woodmont Storage, LLC
601 Valley A venue NE
Puyallup, WA 98372
~ ~
I., oz::
CITY HALL
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
(253) 835 -7000
w ww.cityoffederalway.com
Jim Ferrell, Mayor
Emailed: Jeff@daffodj Jstor age.com
RE: File #17-f.@0258•00-AD; 3RD PARTY REVIEW -INFORMATION REQUEST
Woodmont Storage, 27818 & 27824 Pacific Hwy. S., Federa l Way
Dear Mr. Oldright:
On August 4, 20 17, I emailed yo u technical commen ts from the city's biologis t, Landau , for the
Woodm o n t Storage critical area rep ort prepared by Soundview Consul ting (rev ised June 2017).
Landau's findings are inclu ded in the enclosed memorandum and the Dep artment concurs with
their comments regarding the Type-F s tream classification and additional site investigatio n(s)
neede d to characterize wetlands within 225 ft.1 of parcels 720480-0164 and 720480 -0 166.
Once the wetland report is revised and resubmitted, Landau will review the materials and
provide input to the City on whether they concur or do not concur with your biologist's findings.
NEXT STEPS
When you are ready to submit your revision materials provide the following hardcopy items with
the enclosed resubm ittal form:
o Three (3) copies of the revised critical area report or applicant response memo, containing
responses to each item (#1-3) in the Landau review memo dated July 27, 2017.
o During your land use resubmittal, submit two (2) copies of the revis ed/updated site plans,
removing the depicted stream buffer intrusion per correspondence from Planning Manager
Robert 'Doc' Hansen dated Octobe r 12, 20 17. The Division determined the reque s ted stream
buffe r intrusio n cannot be approved per review criterion FWRC 19.145.330(3)(£).2 As
discussed in an applicant meeting held November 3, 2017, the storage facility redesign will
resu lt in a p roj ect g ross floor are·a of 65,000 square feet+/-.
1 Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19.145.4 IO(e)-{f)
2 'lt is necessary for the reasonable development of the subject property.'
Mr. Oldright
November 17, 2017
Page2
CLOSI NG
Wetland identification and delineation reports and investigations are valid for five (5) years; after
s uch date the city shalJ determine whether a revision or additional assessment is necessary.
Should you have any questions about this letter please contact me at 253-835-2644 or
lei la .willougbby-oakes@cityoffederalway.co m.
Leila Willoughby-Oakes
Associate Planner
c: Robert "Doc" Hansen , Planning Manager
Ann Dower, Senior Engineering Plans Re viewer
Kyle Mauren, EIT, Contour Engineering, PO Box 949, Gig Harbor, WA 98335
enc: Landau Technical Memorandum, July 27, 2017
Email to J. Oldri ght from R. Hansen, October 12, 2017
Resubmittal Form
17-102320-00,AD Doc I D 76269
' -
June 15, 2017
City of Federal Way
Community Development Department
33325 8th Aven ue Sou th
Federal Way, Washington 98003
Attn: Ms. Leila Willoughby-Oakes, Associate Planner
RE : Proposed Scope of Services and Cost Estimate
Third -Party Review Stream and Wetland Report Peer Review
IA
Parcels 720480 0164 and 720480 0166 (Woodmont Storage LLC -Owner)
File 17-102320-00-AD
Federal Way, Washington
Dear Leila:
LANDAU
ASSOCIATES
Landau Associates, Inc. (LAI) is pleased to provide this proposed scope of services and cost estimate to
provide peer review services to the City of Federal Way (City) for the above-referenced project. This
proposal is in response to your request dated May 25, 2017 and is based on a brief review of the
information provided with your request and our experience on similar projects.
The City has received the Critical Areas Report -2 7818 Pacific Highway South, Revised June 2017
(Report), prepared by Soundview Consultants for the above-referenced project. The Report identifies
a stream on the project property and impacts and mitigation associated with proposed development.
We understand that the City is requesting peer review of the Report. LAI will provide the services
requested in the May 25, 2017 Consultant Authorization form (attached).
Assumptions
• The City will coordinate necessary access permissions to the property and offsite properties as
necessary.
• Onsite soil sampling test pits, if necessary, will be excavated by hand for comparison with
conditions noted in the Report.
• Written responses to the Report and resubmitted/corrected documents will be provided in
memorandum format.
• We will provide a draft version of the memorandum for City review, and will provide a final
version after addressing/incorporating any City comments, as appropriate.
• This scope of services does not include delineation of waterways or wetlands.
Deliverables
• Electronic (Adobe PDF) copies of the draft and final Third-Party Review memorandum.
130 2nd Avenue South • Edmonds, Washington 98020 • (42S) 778-0907 • www.landauinc.com
Third-Party Review Stream Rating/Critical Area Report Landau Associates
Cost Estimate
We propose to provide the above-described services on a time-and-expenses basis in accordance with
our existing professional services agreement with the City for Third-Party Wetland/Stream Review and
Evaluation (Amendment No. 1 signed August 11, 2015). The estimated cost for the scope of services is
$5,960, which includes $4,020 for review of the initial application materials and $1,940 for review of
revised documents, if necessary (see attached table).
If project requirements change or unforeseen conditions are encountered that require services
beyond the scope outlined above, we will bring these to your attention and seek approval for
modification to the scope of services and budget, as appropriate. We will not exceed the total
estimated cost for our services without prior authorization from the City. lfthe above-described scope
of services and cost estimate are acceptable, please provide us with written authorization.
We appreciate the opportunity to work with the City of federal Way on this project. Please contact us
if you have any questions about our proposed scope of services and cost estimate for this project.
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
Steven J. Quarterman
Senior Associate
SJQ/tam
X:\C_fe<lorol W•y\2017-06 Woodmont Storaa o\Woodm<>ntPeer_pro ,do«
2017 -4994
Attachments: Cost Estimate Table ·
Consultant Authorization Form
June 15, 2017 2
COST ESTIMATE TABLE
Project Number:
Project Name : Wo odmont Peer
Prepared By: SJQ
Reviewed By:
Date: 6/15/2017
Senior Proj Tota l Tota l Nonlbr l andau Task
Assoc Coord l b r Hrs Lbr$ Exp ens es Total $ Total
TASK Billing Rate; $170 $80
1 . Peer Review
1.1 Review report/code 2 2 $340 $340 $340
1.2 Field review 6 6 $1,020 $40 $1,060 $1,060
1.3 Draft/Final TM (Initial) 14 3 17 $2 ,620 $2,620 $2,620
1.4 Draft/Final TM (R esubmittal) 10 3 13 $1,940 $1,94-0 $1,940
Sub total Ta sk 1 32 6 38 $5,920 $40 $5,960 $5,960
TOTAL ALL TASKS 32 6 38 $5,920 40 $5,960 $5,960
611 5/2017 s : \sha redoc\OOOproposalltemplate\BGTFRM 13-Stan dard Rates.XIS>( Schedule A Landau Ass ociates
~ onor~
Federal Way
STREAM & WETLAND REPORT PEER REVIEW
Date:
Consultant:
Project:
File:
Related File(s):
Zoning:
Project Proponents:
Project Planner:
Project Background:
Task Scope:
Consultant Authorization Form
May 25, 2017
Steve Quarterman
Landau Associates Inc.
130 2"d A venue South
Edmonds , WA 98020
27824 & 278 I 8 Pacific Hwy. S., Federal Way
Parce ls: 720480 0164 and 72 0480 0166
17-102320-00-AD
17-102253 -00-UP / 17-102254-00-SE
BC (Community Busi nes s)
Jeff Oldright, Daffodi l Storage
Woodmont Storage LLC
601 Valley Avenue NE
Puya ll up, WA 98372
Jeff@daffodilstorage.com , 253 -564-2121 ext. 111
Leila Willoughby-Oakes, Associate P lanner
lei la.willoughby-oakes @c ityoffederaJway.com . 253-835-2644
The applicant propos es to develop a self-s torage facility composed of two three-story
buildings on 2 .59 acres . The city's critical area mapping depicts a stream and
associated wetlands and at the rear of the subject property. There are wetlands with in
225 ft. of the subject property; therefore the city must evaluate if wetland buffers will
impact the site.
The stream is rated as major with a I 00-ft. buffer under the city's former critic al are as
ordinance. The stream is classified a Type F with a 100-ft stream buffer under the
city 's upda ted critical areas ordi nance (adopted June 2015)
The applicant subm itted a I 00 -ft stream buffer intrusion request (Use Process Ill) in
order to install a 12-inch underground stonn wate r dispersion pipe (po lyethylene) and
trench. The reques t, proposed mitigation and buffer enhancement plan will be
evaluated under Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19.65 'Project Approval ' criteria
and FWRC 19.145.330 'Intrusion into stream buffers.'
I. Review the critical area report (stream/wetland delineation) an d proposed
buffer enhancement plan for consistency with Federal Way Revised Code
(FWRC) Chapter 19.145, "Environmentally Critical Areas ," es pecially:
a. Article TV Chapter 19.145 , "Wet lands "
b. Article ll1 Chapter 19 .145 , "Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas ",
particularly FWRC 19.145.330 "Intrusion in to stream buffers", FWRC
Stream & Wetland Buffo· lntrusion/17-102320-00-AD Page 1
. .
Provided Documents:
Task Cost:
Cooroltao t Authorizarioo F,>rm
19.145.130, ''Mitigation sequencing" and FWRC 19.145.140, "Mitigation
plan requirements."
2 . Determine if financial guarantees (i.e., bonding) required for mitigation plan
implementation is required per FWRC 19.145.140(10) and for how long.
3. Provide written response to findings , recommendations, and request
additional information from applicant if needed.
4. Review of resubmissions as needed.
5. Conduct a s ite visit.
Use Process Plan, prepared by the Keimig Associates. (received May 16, 2017)
'Critical Areas Report: 278{8 Pacific Hwy. S .', prepared by Soundview Consultants
(dated May 16, 2017)
City of Federal Way Wetland Inventory Fonns, prepared by Sheldon & Associates
City of Federal Way Critical Area Mapping
Not to exceed $ _____ without a prior Mitten amendment to this Task
Authorization.
Figure 1. City of Federal Way C ri tical Areas Map, 2016
Subject
Properties
Source: http://wa-fcdcralwa,•.civicplus.com/DocumcntCcnte r/Homc/Vicw/460
Legend
Nww ONfl Str.am cau.Kl .. dou
• Typ.f
• CannotAbMS
Figure 2. URS Stream Inventory (November 200 I )
Source: C ity of Federal Way
Sl:t'cam & Wetland Buffer Intrusio n / I 7-l 0 23 20 -00 -AD
Subject
Pl'operties
Page 2
lly of Federal Way (Associate Plan er Leila Willoughby-Oakes)
Consultant (Steve Quarterman, Landau Associates Inc.) Date
Applicant (Jeff Oldright, Daffodil Storage) Date
Consultant Authorization foan Stream & Wetland Buffer Iouusion/17-102320--00-AD Page 3
....
...
·,
City of Federal Way
Wetland Inventory Field Form
Wettand Number 'f'?rJ')<JY-f> 1/4 Sect/Twn/Rng f'W-2;;,~.,.. ??-aj/
. </ ~VJ J.i. ( ' ,......_ --ft,, p/ l ocat,on (address/cross-streets) o-'0 (T oe.. /· 9 , c-=-JO / !.
T eam Members /}f ff/ Date Field Check: .,1 /fid/tt?
Ba se Map#: d; ~
1
W indshield Acces~-Site Not Acce ssed
FIELD DATA
Cowa rdi n Class
Notable Wildlife Features -r
Snags;#'s ~6" ~12" /tJ ~24"
l ---
Heights:
L.) I ftr<-" 7"{~ (+
Inlet prese nttJ( N; ~idth "~,of1\ fi~w6)N I Oullet prese nt~; width
None Obse~ . L .J-None Observ ed
W ate r Sou rces r N) f Tre(lm r:2/
stream v : (di a m) J' sheet flow floodplain
Human Disturbances :
Buffer Conditions:
OFFICE DATA
% t otal WL
2' ;,,,;--M c 11
• fl owCk'..N
s ee ps
NRCS Soil Unit: ~ A,t;C' K\JJ.nweJ.
Approximate Size:
WL Rating --A=-----
500 to~ 2,500 sq.ft
~2.soo sf, ~ 1h acre
~ * acre ,~ 1 acre
~2acre
~
~5 acre
..
. ,
y
r.: . ~ .,.
'I•
, ..
RM18
... : c ..;
>,
"' u
RM1800
RM18
I "' >-~
l:
0 I -"" -0 # ~
.....
0,
O>
Q'.
(/) -
J
____ r~------r-----~.J--------_j~
r .. ..,
REDONDO
HEJGHTS
RM2400 ..
RS7.2
RM2400
•
I
,,:. :·«,('
°'"'"';...,. RM2400
1J4fl'
l,p:atla•C'II•
-=. ... ' RM1800,,.! • M
,
"' -..
r.r,
~11: ..
..,
RM1800 • :iM.,.
.,t,: R 2400
:,, ~ . Cl~tl.-w w.,t
Ap lllm«N.~
,o .. ~ --.. ..
·~:
'"" .. .. ,. 1.:.•
.... ;.1
... ~··
~ :!? -:>
~ ...
RS7 .2
Z:-'-91
~-" P.:l,.n; J.1.1
• .. r.
S CA P.60ROUGH
NO. 3
RS7.2,'
i:l.29~~.; . ~'
S282ND ST
RS 7.2 I
l o c 't ..,
RS7.2 ;I"\~
.,
~
Clt'tOf ~
Fe deral Way
STREAM & WETLAND REPORT PEER REVIEW
Date:
Consultant:
Project:
File:
Related File(s):
Zoning:
Project Proponents:
Project Planner:
Proj ect Background:
May 25, 2017
Sie ve Quarterman
Landau Associates Inc.
13 0 2"d Av enu e S out h
Edmonds, WA 98020
27824 & 278 18 Pacific Hwy . S .. Federal Way
Parcels: 7204800164 and 7204800166
17-102320-00-A D
17-10225 3-00-UP I 17-102254-00-SE
BC (Commun ity Busi ness)
JcffOldright. DatTodil Storage
Woodmont S torage LLC
601 Valley Avenue NE
Puya llup . WA 98372
JetT@daffodilstorage.com. 253-564-2 I 2 I ext. 111
Leila Will o ughby-Oa kes. Associate Pl anner
lei la. willoue.hbv-oakes'acitvoffederalwav.com, 253 -835-2644
The applicant proposes lo deve lop a self-storage facility com posed of two th ree -sto ry
buil dings on 2.5 9 ac res. The city's critical are a mapping depicts a stream and
associated wetlam:ls and at the rear of the subject pro perty. There are we tlands within
22 5 ft. oft he subj e ct property; there fore the city must evaluate if wet land buffers wi ll
impa ct the site.
The stream is rated as major wi 1h a I 00-ft. buffer un der the city's fom1er critical areas
ordinance. The stream is classified a Type F with a I 00-fl stream buffer under the
ci ty's upd ate d c ri tical areas ord in ance (adopted J une 2015)
The appl icant submincd a 100-ft stream buffer intnision reques t (Use Process Ill ) in
order 10 install a 12-i nch un dergrou nd s torm water dispersion pipe ( polyethylene) and
trench. The request. proposed mitigation and buffer enhancement plan will be
eval uated under Federal 11'<{1 ' Revised Code (FWRC) 19.65 ·Project Ap proval' crite ri a
and FWRC 19.1 45.330 'Int rusion i111 0 strea m buffers .·
Task Sco pe: I. Review the cri ti cal area re port (stream/wetland delineation) and proposed
butler enhancement plan for consistency with Federal Way Re,·ised Cocle
(FWR C) Chapter 19.145 , "Environme nt a ll y Crit ical Areas,·· especiall y:
a. Article IV Chapter 19.145. '·Wetl ands'·
b. Art icl e Il l Chapter 19.145, "Fish and Wi ldlife Conservation Are•·
particul arly FW RC 19.145.330 "Intrus ion into strea m buffer."y
C:onsulmn1 :\u1h onz:1rioo Form Strc:un & \X'c1htnd l\uffcr h11n•sion/17-102320.00-!\D
Provided Documents:
Task Cost:
Con~ultant ,\utborizntion Form
19.145.130, 0 Mitigation sequencing" and FWRC 19. 145.J 40, "Mitigation
plan requirements.'·
1. Determine if financial guarantees (i .e .. bonding) require d for mitigation plan
implementation is required per FWRC 19.145.140( 10) and for how long.
3. Provide written response lo lindings . recommendati ons. and request
additional informa ti on from applicant if needed .
4. Review of resubmission s as needed.
5. Conduct a site vis it.
Use Process Plan, prepared by the Keimig Associates. {received May 16, 2017)
'Critical Areas Report: 27818 Pacific Hwy. S.'. prepared by Sound view Consultants
(dated May 16. 2017)
CiL) of Federal Way Wetland Inve ntory Forms. prepared by Sheldon & Associates
Cit) olTederal Way Critical Arc a Mapping
Not to exceed s-S q l ;C1wi1~;£ a prior written amendment to this Task
Authorization . ~
Figure I. City of Fcde'ral Way Critical Arcits !\lap, 2016
Subject
Properties
Source: h ll o://" a-fcdernh, m·.ci\'icpl us.com/l)ocumcn1Ccnter/l l o111c/\'icw/.160
-( / ·-i
\ I -{
) ·,
·-·-·. I • >' -.
... . ,i
· I ~ I
Legend
f I
;, ,. '., .-
.. .,. DHII •IN,aln. ca...tflutlOM . ,.,,. .
• CWt.rt.o.1AaNH
Fi1urc 2. URS Strc11m Inventory (November 2001)
Soun:c: City of Federal W11y
Srrt':lm & Wctl:ind B11ffor lntru~inn/17-lll2320-UO-J\D
/ .
S ubject
l'roper·t ics
1ty ofFederal Way (Associate Pinn er Leila Willoughby-Oakes)
.~(f
;1 u.3 J~ a--~==
~t(Steve Quarterman, Landau Associates Inc.)
t,/16 /12
Dale:
Ap licant (JeffOldright, Daffodil Stonige) Date
Cnnsuli:u,r ,\u1hori:r:1rion f'unn S1rcun & \V<:1faoJ Huff,..-ln1ru1100/17·1023l0-00-AO
City of Federal Way (Associate Planner Leila Willoughb y-Oakes) Date
Consulta nt (Steve Quarterman, Landau A ssociates Inc.) D ate
Ap~ff Ol drig ht, 9affo dil St o, age) Date
figure I. C ity of Federal Way Critica l Areas Map, 2016
So urce : http://wa-federa lwav.civicplus.com/Do cumentCen ter /Home/View/460
) I
• I
Subject
P r operties
I Subj ect Pro perties
t I
,_I
.
( ·/
/
Legend
P'te-W ON R Str•am Cln.,;ffi&~tiott &
e Typa P'
• Ca.,u,ot .-..e.••
Figure 2 . URS Stream In ventory (Nove mber 2001)
Source : City of Fede ra l W ay
Critical Areas Consultant Au thorization Fo r m Stream Ra ting/Buffer Intrusion/ 17-102320-00-AD Page 3
Leila Willoughby-Oakes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hi Jeff,
Leila Willoughby-Oakes
Monday, November 27, 2017 2:35 PM
'Jeff Oldright'
Woo dmont-2nd Critical Area Review
Steve Quarterman our biologist will be making some statements in his closing t echnical review memo on Soundvi ew's
most recent evaluation for the Woodmont site-more so corrections for city records. Planning city won't require that you
have Soundview r evise their analysis though.
Per Steve this year or last himalyan blackberries were add ed to the National Wetland Plant Li st as wetland indicator
species -this needs to be corrected-but Steve will state this i n his letter.
Also it will be made clear that no off-site wetland delineation or investigations were conducted as part of this project
using best available science in add ition to the data plots requested by Doc in the southeast corner of the property; as
you propose no development near the rea r property line. If development were occuring -the off-site information would
have be en required per our code and on call bios. -a bias would cou ld walk within the stream below the ordinary high
water mark to investigate the area off-site (I believe below the OHWM it is a a 'water of the state').
Any future proposed development on abutting properties (i.e. Barkley Ridge Apartme nts/Crestview etc.) would need a
current wetland report and data sheets co nfirming the presence or absen ce of wetlands (the complex to the south is
f airly large and a h igh cat., which explains the long permitting process had i that proposal in the mid-2000's).
No need for action , just updating you on Land a u's ),~ ('l IA -e.vJ / ( ,4-e e:_j /J&e._ fJzJ ~
Kind r egards ,
Leila
1
~ CITYOF ~
MEMORANDUM
Federal Way Community Development Department
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Hi Ann,
November 21, 2017
Ann Dower, Development Services
Steve Quarterman, Landau Associates Inc. (City Consultant)
Leila Willoughby-Oakes, Planning
Woodmont Self Storage (File #17-102320-00-AD)
27824 & 27818 Pacific Hwy. S., Federal Way
Find a critical area response memo for Woodmont Storage with soil test pits and the required field data
sheets evaluating the southeast corner of the subject property (abutting Barkley Ridge Apartments). Jeff
Oldright {Owner) anticipates a UP3 resubmittal early December.
Per the Planning Manager, he no longer requires a st ream buffer intrusion to accommodate a drainage
trench as a redesign of the project -reduces the gross floor area from 130,000 sf to 65,000 sf (approx.).
If you have any questions do not hesitate to contact me.
With thanks,
Leila
Ext. 2644
Leila Willoughby~Oakes
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Gentlemen;
Robert Hansen
Thursday, October 12, 2017 5:25 PM
'Matthew DeCaro '; 'Brett Allen'; 'Jeff Old right'
Ann Dower; Cole Elliott; Leila Willoughby-Oakes
Woodmont Storage Review
I apologize for not getting back to you before now. I know phone calls and emails have been made and I have posed
questions to staff after receiving your emails. I had understanding that a revised wetland report had been submitted
with the information requested in the landau review memo and that your emails to me were for response to initial
adequacy. I had forwarded the emai ls to staff and have had discussion regarding the issue.
At our meeting on August 7t\ there were two major issues that I indicated had to be resolved . First, and
foremost, there is a need to demonstrate that no matter what size of building placed upon the property, the stream
buffer intrusion could not be avoided with o r without the current proposal. On my review of the plans, the applicant
proposes an approximate 90 ft. buffer intrusion. We understood, and I received and forwarded to Public Works, the
information provided by Brett in h is August 101n letter sent via email. I requested Public Works to review it to provide
me an evaluation on whether it was adequate to determine whether or not the stream buffer intrusion would occur and
under what circumstances.
My first review of Brett's letter indicates from Brett that Intrusion of the buffer is necessary with the current
proposal. My statement at the meeting was that I needed information that was going to justify the intrusion even if
there was not a second building. I obtained this impress ion from your statement In the "Building Height Variance"
section that "building 2 would need to be raised by 5.0 f eet." I have to ask after reading that, "What if the re was no
Building 2?" We h ave to base our decision on the allowance of buffer intrusion that there is no "reasonable" use, and in
doing so, the applicant has to document other alternatives. It would be difficult for me to justify that Building 1, without
Building 2, is not a reasonable use on the property. Building 1 shown in your present proposal will provide at least
64,000 square feet of storage according to plans. It appears Building 1 could be split and/or expand ed to provide more
than 64,000 square feet of storage without intruding into the buffer through reduction in impervious su rface and
techniques that are available to manage the runoff from only one buildin g. Economic hardship is not a basis for
permitting an intrusion or can be used in determining "reasonable use." Not having "reasonable use" of the property is
the only basis upon which we can base a decision to allow intrusion.
In regards to the wetland analysis and stream buffer intrusion, you did provide soils information regarding two separate
test pits at point suggested. Thank you for that field work, however, there are no site notes or field data sheets related
to the test pits for our third party reviewer. I am sure that you have them but they were not provided. There is no
indication within the report why complete avoidance of intrusion is not feasible with any development, or, if not
feasible, how intrusion is minimized. I have to have that in order to meet the Code in 19.145.130 . We have to have the
Stream F addressed, since we are accepting our biologist's (on-call consultant Landau) opinion. You provided me
argument that it is not Stream F, but I have no choice but to accept their opinion.
In relation to the email sent me, Public Works had the following comments regarding storm water retention and
treatment:
• While staff agrees that an infiltration facility is not feasible, there are no infiltration tests establishing the
feasibility of pervious pavement or bio-retention.
1
• Several storm water treatment systems exist that do not require the 2.3' drop required by the Stormfilter
unit. Without the 2nd structure, options such as bioswales and fllter strips may be viable. There is no indication
that other systems, such as Filtera or Ecostorm units (which have passed extensive testing) will not work.
• There is no indication that a shallower detention system combined with a different treatment method would not
significantly reduce the intrusion.
• Staff defers to the engineer's judgement as to the success of boring the outfall pipe and agrees that pumping is
not a desi rable option, in this or many other, situations. However, using the space for storm water purposes in
the area which is propose d for Building 2 has not been presented. .
• The X mile downstream evaluation is required by King County Surface Water Design Manual and State
Law. Even if you can't get on the property, some evaluation of the impact of impervious surface ha s to be made,
even it is using assumptions, so that it can be reviewed. It can be documented that some effort was made be side
asking the land owner for access to the stream.
In summary, while you have provided information regarding the storm water and wetland analysis via email, I ask that
you provide those within a "revised" wetland report and engineering repo rt so that we can date it and separate the
two, the first and the "revised." I discovered since talking with you that this is the normal procedure within the City and
that with any additional information requested is included in a revised report. Again, the most important thing that you
will have to emphasize within the revised reports is why intrusion is unavoidable with any "reaso nable" building on the
property. This is what I need in order to justify approval.
This information will be provided you in a formal letter. I just wanted to get it to you in an emai l at this time so you can
get started on it. Because of the delays in this, I will monitor the progress of the project as soon as the information is
submitted. Call me if you wish to talk about it. Thanks .
Robert"Ooc"Hansen
Planning Manager
(fJT 0,
Federal Way
Community Development Department
33325 gth Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
Phone:253/835-2643
www .cityoffederalway.com
2
· ..
Leila Willoughby-Oakes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
St eve Quarterma n <squart erma n@landauinc.com> d, r,J,,..t/"\ t .fe.J
Fr iday, December 01, 2017 8:41 AM ~ O' \) U ~
Leila Willoughby-Oakes l
RE: Woodmont Storage-Critical Area Resub. (File #17-102320 -00-A D) \ .. Gcwll •
ResubWetland-Waterway Delin Peer Review_Draft TM.pdf -\-<) ~, (
Leila,
Please find attached draft peer review comments on the critical areas response to comments for the Woodmont Storage
project. Let me know if you have any questions/comments on the attached.
Thank you,
Steven Quarterman
Landau Associates
Ext. 121
Direct: (425) 329-0321
From: Leila Willoughby-Oakes [mailto: Leila. Willoughby-Oakes@cityoffedera!way.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 2:02 PM
To: Steve Quarterman <squarterman@landauinc.com>
Cc: Robert Hansen <Robert.Hansen@cityoffederalway.com>; Ann Dower <Ann.Dower@cityoffederalway.com>
Subject: Woodmont Storage-Critical Area Resub. (File #17-102320-00-AD)
Hi Steve,
We've received the applicant's critical area memo by Soundview in response to your July 27, 2017 technical
memorandum as the city's consultant. The applicant no longer proposes to intrude into the stream buffer.
The scope of work is unchanged. Please review per our CAO (wetland identification and delineation) and BAS; omitting
the proposed mitigation/stream buffer enhancement.
I will send a hard-copy with a covering letter next week. I suspect the remaining budget is enough? If not do let me
know. We kindly request a review by December 1.
Let me know if you have any questions,
L Willoughby-Oakes
Associate Planner
A Federal Way
33325 g•h Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 .
Phone: 253/835-2644 Fax: 253/835-2609
www.cityoffederalway.com
1
• I ,.... .. .
Land Use Applications•: 'f:ittp:j/www .cityoffederalway.corh[index.aspx,?ni d=481
Planner on Duty: 253-835-2655 I Plnglnguiry@cityoffed'eri'IWay.~om ., . .
• I · t .•• ~ ! _; \i ·1 \
,/ j
( •I~ •
. ! )
•., ..
~ ~
~-;,,,, ',
J '·~
.J
-.\.~-··~,'\ i' j .
' . , ..
• J r I ,.'-' r ·:
'
2
'1 RESUBMITIED
NOV 1 6 2017
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
33325 81h A venue South
Federal Way, WA 98003 -6325
253-83 5-2607; Fax 25~-8 35-2 609
www.cjtvoffcdcralwav.com
RESUBMITIAL INFORMATION
This completed form MUST accompany all resubmitta/s.
*•Please note: Additional or revised plans or documents for an active project will not be accepted
unless accompanied by this completed form. Mailed resubmittals that do not include this form or that
do not contain the correct number of copies will be returned or discarded. You are encouraged to
submit all items in person and to contact the P ermit Counter prior to submitting if you are not sure
about the number of cop ies required. ,.,.
N!YCHANGES TO DRAWINGS MUST BE CLOUDED.
t + DO ZS--8 _1{{)_ Project Number: _· __________ _
Proj ect Name: W0 ••trl ;<t•1~ S·tc.<,,u
ProjectAddress: 278lf> f'tt,~f;e,; l-l&.1) 5,, ltJe<,.I LJt,,.y UA Gt~.l
Proj ect Contact: :fell Ol&Ar .'1~
RE SUBMITTED ITEMS:
# of Copies •• Detailed Description of Item
z
** Always submit the same n um ber of copies a s required for your initial app lica tion.**
Resu bmittal Req uested by :
RESUB#: l
Dept/Div N ame
B uildin Q
)( Plann inQ l ~ l"
PW
Fire
Other
B ull eti n # 129 -January I , 20 1 1
~L_e.'....;.,•lOI.~~----Lette r Dat ed: _1_,_/~/~
(Stall Member)
OFFICE USE ONLY
Distlibution Oats: Ii\ I le !l By: ~\)
# I D ~sc ription
·i.----p., \ )
Page I ofl k:\Handouts\Resubmittal Info rmatio n
Leila Willoughby-Oakes
From: Robert Hansen
Sent:
To:
Wednesday, October 04, 2017 12:29 PM
Lei/a Willoughby-Oakes
Subject:
Attachments:
FW: Wood mont Storage -27818 Pacific Highway South
Woodmont Test Pit Locations.pdf
Robert "Doc" Hansen
Planning Manager
crtto,
Federal Way
Community Development Department
33325 81h Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
Phone: 253/835-2643
www.cityoffedera!way.com
From: Matthew DeCaro [mailto:matt@soundviewconsultants.com]
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 8 :42 AM
To: Robert Hansen
Cc: Jeff@daffodilstorage.com; Rich ard Peel
Subject: RE: Woodmont Storage -27818 Pacific Highway South
Doc,
Th e following su mmarizes the non-wetland conditions at the t est pits that were excavated on 3/10/2017 (in the height
of the record -high rainy season) in the southern parcel (test pits TP-3, TP-4, a nd TP-5) by our Professional Wetland
Scientist, Richard Peel.
• Hydrology -No indicators of wetland hydrology were identified at any of the test pit locations. No surface
water, groundwater, o r sa turation was observed to the maximum depth explored (-16 inches below ground
surface).
• Soils -No hydric soil indicators were observed at any of the test pit locations. The non-hydric soils were
consistent with the soils logged i n data plot DP -2 (i.e., lOYR 3/3 sandy loam with no redox features).
• Vegetation -Vegetation at the test pit locations is typic al of the upland portion of the site, including a forested
canopy (e.g., big leaf maple, red a ld er, Douglas fir) with an understory dominated by sala l, sword fern, and w e ll-
established Himalayan blackberry.
Hopefull y, this is sufficient information for you to conclude that no further data collection is necessary onsite. I also
gather from our phone ca ll that no further offsite assessment will be required. Please let me know if you need anything
else, and thanks again for y our assistance.
Matt DeCaro
Environmental Scientist/Proj ect Manager
Soundview Consultants LLC
Environ mental, N atural Resource, and Land Use Consulting
O ffice: 2 53.514.8952 x 025
1
Fax: 253.514.89 54
Email: Matt@SoundviewCo n su1tants .com
From: Robert Hansen [mailto:Robert.Hansen@cityoffede ralway.com]
Sent: Thu rsday, August 24, 2017 5:11 PM
To: Matthew Decaro <matt@soundviewconsultants.com>
Cc: Jeff@daffodilstorage.com
Subject: RE : Woodmont Storage -27818 Pacific Highway Sout h
Matt;
I will look into this some more . The map you provid ed is what w e need, but there is no data r elated to the Test Pits
noted on the Map. Your report shows data related to the DP points, but no data on the TP. Can you provide me t his?
Robert "Doc•' Hansen
Planning Manager
(flf'OI
Federal Way
Community Development De p artment
33325 gth Avenue south
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
Phone:253/835-2643
www.crtyoffederalway.com
------------------------------------
From: Matthew DeCaro [mailto:matt@soundviewconsultants.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 4 :19 PM
To : Robert Hansen
Cc: Jeff@daffodilstorage.com
Subject: Re : Woodmont Storage -27818 Pacific Highway South
Good afternoon D oc,
When we last talked, you indicat ed that you would be sending out your comments regarding our critical areas
assessment and whether any additional documentation wi ll be required to document the non-wetland conditi ons,
in addition to our report and the below email. Can you please let me know the status of your review? Our team
is eager to fulfill your requir ements so we can wrap up the critical areas review. On that note, we are also
curious if you or Leila has instructed Landau to finish their third party review (including the proposed buffer
intrusion/restoration).
Thanks for your continued help.
Matt DeCaro
Environmental Scientis t/Pro ject Manager
Soundview Consultants LLC
2
-~
i
Environmental, Natural Resource, and Land Use Consulting
Office: 253.514.8952 x 025
Fax: 253.514.8954
Email: Matt@SoundviewConsultan ts.com
From: Matthew Decaro
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 1:00 PM
To: Robert Hansen
Cc: Jeff Oldright; Brett Allen; Kyle Mauren
Subject: Woodmont Storage -27818 Pacific Highway South
Good afternoon Doc,
As we discussed, the attached figure depicts the approximate locations of data plots and test pits that were
excavated on the Woodmont Storage site to confirm the lack of onsite wetland presence. In addition, I want to
take this opportunity to restate the following conclusion from our Critical Areas Report (dated June 2, 2017);
"No potentially-regulated wetlands were identified on the subject property or within 225 of the site. The three
typical data plots (DP-1, DP-2, and DP-3) confirm the lack of onsite wetland presence ... The City of Federal
Way Critical Areas map erroneously identifies a potential wetland to the south of the subject property that
extends onto the far eastern portion of the subject property along Stream Z. This mapped wetland area is also
discussed in the pre-application meeting swnmary; however, the field investigations determined that no such
wetlands are present on or within 225 feet of the subject property due to a lack ofhydrophytic vegetation,
hydric soils, and/or wetland hydrology. Upland vegetation and dry soil conditions are clearly present south of
the site and landward of the OHW mark of Stream Z." (Page 9)
To add to that conclusion, the attached photo was taken on August 7, 2017, at the southeastern boundary of the
site. The photo is looking offsite to the south within the erroneously mapped area, and clearly depicts the upland
vegetation (primarily well-established Himalayan blackberry with lesser amounts of osoberry, sword fem, and
bracken fem beneath an overstory of Douglas fir and big-leaf maple) and non-wetland conditions to the south of
the site in further support of our non-wetland determination.
I hope that this is sufficient information for you to conclude that no additional off-site assessment is warranted,
as the Applicant is eager to complete the third-party review process. Thank you very much, we appreciate your
assistance.
Matt DeCaro
Envirorunental Scientist/Project Manager
3
Soundview Consultants LLC
Environmental, Natural Resource, and Land Use Consulting
Office: 253.514.8952 x 025
fax: 253.514.8954
Email: Matt@SoundviewConsultants.cotn
4
Leila Willoughby-Oakes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Robert Hansen
Wednesday, September 27, 2017 8:56 AM
Leila Wi r loug hby-Oa kes
FW: Woodmont Storage
l
Attachments: Woodmont Storage Stormwater Feasibility Summary.pdf
Robert "Doc" Hansen
Planning Manager
(lff O'
Federal Way
Community Development Department
33325 81
h Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
Phone: 253/835-264 3
www.cityoffederalway.com
From: Brett Allen [mailto:brett.allen@CONTOURENGINEERINGLLC.COM]
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 5:00 PM
To: Robert Hansen
Cc: Jeff Oldright
Subject: Woodmont Storage
Doc,
Attached is our feasibility summary that you reque sted for the Woodmont Storage project in the meeting the other day.
r really apprecia t e you looking at this and mediating the discu ssion. I have really not run into this before where a small
intrusion into a buffer would be so resisted like it has been by staff, however I know they are just trying to p rotect the
interests of the City. This is what I believe a net gain for the buffer, so should be easily supportable by City Staff.
I am wondering if you have reviewed the Soundview report? r think it is very professional and meets all the City's
requirements. I think some of the information that Leila was requesting was off base and not supported by City code
requirements, however I would like to hear your opinion.
My client, Jeff Oldright would just like to keep this project moving in a forward direction and has comp lied with all City
requests so far. I would appreciate ifyou could help facilitate closing out the review process.
Furthermore, I would like to discuss with you how the project has progressed thro ugh the process. I think the scope of
3rd party consultants should be dialed back a bit and I am pushing this in many jurisdictions. Could I set up a short
telephone conversation when you have some time available ?
brett M. Allen, f.E_.
Principal Engineer
Contour Engineering LLC
ph: 253.857.5454 Ext 101
Note: I will be on vacation from August 21 -25, returning to work on August 28th
1
<
'l _,~) MEMORANDUM
jZt Ui\~ He ~nity Development Department
CITY OF
Federal Way n( ~ .
DATJ:
TO:
FROM:
September 21, 2017 f &t\f'i"~ -=
Ann Dower, Senior Engineer Plans Reviewer
Cole Elliott, Development Services Manager
Steve Quartermann, Senior Biologist, Landau Associates ( emailed)
Leila Willoughb'y'.-Oakes, Planning
SUBJECT: WOE>DMGNT STORAGE (fka DAFFODIL STORAG6)
( 17-102253-UP f 17-102254-00-SE/17-102320-AD)
27824 PACIFIC HWY S.
..
The project planner, planning manager and development services manager met with the Woodmont Storage
project team on August 7, 2017.
City .staff conveyed in this meeting additional information shall be necessary for the Community Development
Director to evaluate the requested stream buffer intrusion under a Use Process III 'Project Approval'
application.
After the August 7, 2017 applicant meeting, the Woodmont project team provid~additional information to
the Planning Manager via received (stormwater response letter) composed by Kyle Mauren EIT, Contour
Engineering, the applicant's civil engineer.
Please find the enclosed memo (8-10-2017) for your review and evaluation pursuant to the Federal Way
Revised Code (FWRC) Use Process III 'Project Approval' and 'Stream Buffer Intrusion' decisional criteria
below: ~
FWRC 19.145.330.3:
(3) The city may approve a stream buffer intrusion based on the following criteria:
(a) It will not adversely affect water quality;
(b) It will not adversely affect the existing quality of wildlife habitat within the stream or buffer area;
(c) It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities;
(d) It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards;
(e) It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor to the city as a
whole; and
{f) It is necessary for reasonable development of the subject property.
FWRC 19.65.100:
(2) Decisional criteria. The director shall use the criteria listed in this subsection and the provisions of this title
describing the requested decision in deciding upon the application.
(a) The director may approve the application only if:
(i) It is consistent with the comprehensive plan;
(ii) It is consistent with all applicable provisions of this title/
(iii) It is consistent with the public health/ safety, and welfare;
(iv) The streets and utilities in the area of the subject property are adequate to serve the anticipated demand
from the proposal/
(v) The proposed access to the subject property is at the optimal location and configuration; and
(vi) Traffic safety impacts for all modes of transportation both on and off site, are adequately mitigated.
Let me know if you have any questions.
-Leila Ext. 2644
'---------------------------------!!!!!!!!--------·
ENGINEERING•LLC
CIVIL ENGINEERING <> SURVEYING <> LAND PLANNING
August 10th, 2017
City of Federal Way
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003
Woodmont Storage Stormwater Feasibility Summary
Contour# 16-304
P.O. Box 949, Gig Harbor, WA 98335
4706 97th St. NW, Suite 100
Gig Harbor, WA 98332
Phone: 253-857-5454
Fax: 253-509-0044
Email: info@contourpllc.com
This letter has been prepared at the request of City Staff in order to formalize our discussions relating to the
proposed stream buffer intrusion associated with the Woodmont Storage Project. The site is comprised of two
tax parcels (7204800164 & 7204800166) and is located at 272824 Pacific Avenue South, Federal Way,
Washington 98003 in the NW Y4 of Section 33, Township 22 North, 4 East, W.M. The site is situated near the
intersection of Pacific Avenue South and 16th Avenue South. The site is rectangular in shape, approximately
940-feet by 120-feet.
Stom,water Is proposed to be collected from the developed areas of the site and tightlined to a system of 8.0'
diameter underground pipe to provide detention. Downstream from the detention system, water quality
treatment is proposed through a stormfilter water quality device prior to discharge. In order to daylight the
storm outfall pipe from this system will require intrusion into the stream buffer resulting in approximately 928 ·
square feet of the stream buffer disturbance. As noted by the project biologist, the stream buffer currently is of
low quality consisting primarily of Himalayan Blackberry. The intrusion and subsequent restoration as proposed
will result in an improved buffer condition.
As part of the stormwater design we have reviewed all feasible alternatives in order to avoid the intrusion of
our stormwater outfall pipe into the stream buffer. As part of our discussions with City Staff, several
suggestions were mentioned and several of our own creative ideas were provided. Below is a summary of those
options:
• Infiltration Feasibility
o A geotechnical assessment of the site was performed by a qualified geologist and geotechnical
engineer who encountered undocumented fill extending 4.5-feet to 13.5-feet below the surface
overlying glacial till. Neither the undocumented fill nor glacial till is suitable for infiltration
facilities.
• Building Height Variance
o Currently Building 2 is situated at the highest elevation allowed by code. It is understood that a
variance could be applied for to raise the finfsh floor several feet. In order to completely
remove the buffer intrusion, building 2 would need to be raised 5.0'. This has trickle down
effects on the site grading. The site would change from a balance of cut and fill to require
approximately 6,500 cubic yards of imported structural fill and additional walls would be
needed. This will create a situation where the storage units would be higher in elevation than
the adjacent apartment buildings and Inconsistent with the neighborhood. The applicant has
gone to considerable lengths to make the building consistent with the neighborhood.
RECEIVED
AUG 11)2017
'<'-, I! .........
!
• Dispersion on the Adjacent Residential Property
o If dispersion were feasible on the adjacent property it would mitigate only a minor portion of
the proposed impervious surface and would not eliminate or minimize the need to intrude into
the buffer. We understand a variance would also be required in order to implement dispersion
BMPs on this property.
• Shift the Development West
o We understand the front yard setback could be reduced through FWRC 19.45 by up to 25%.
Shifting the development horizontally does not allow the storm drain outfall to gain any vertical
elevation. Further, due to emergency vehicle access requirements the proposed improvements
cannot be moved any farther westward in its current configuration.
• Other Proprietary Devices
o We have reviewed other proprietary water quality devices with GULD approval in order to
reduce or eliminate the drop in elevation through the water quality device. All but one of these
devices requires a drop in elevation through the device. The Ecostorrn system is an "upflow"
device which would eliminate the 2.3-feet of drop through the system. We are hesistant to
propose this system as there are not many currently in use to prove it functions correctly
outside that of a controlled situation and we have maintenance concerns with this style of
system. Since the project discharges in close proximity to the stream, we would recommend a
more standard water quality treatment device to ensure proper water quallty treatment.
• Reducing the Detention Tank Diameter
o The minimum height for an underground detention vault is 7.0'. We proposed an 8.0' diameter
pipe for this reason and because it is more commonly produced than a 7.0' diameter pipe.
Reducing the tank diameter will reduce the amount of buffer intrusion; however it makes
maintenance difficult and Increases the amount of lineal feet of detention pipe required further
complicating long term maintenance efforts.
• Boring the Outfall Pipe
o The outfall pipe could be bored through the stream buffer to greatly mrn1m1ze surface
disturbance. However, boring at a straight gradient is challenging especially at slopes below
1.0%, we are concerned that bellies could form within the pipe during construction as well as
over time given the variability of the undocumented fill placed onsite and inability to properly
place and compact pipe bedding material.
• Pumping
o Instead of a gravity outfall, stormwater could be pumped from the detention tank to a suitable
outfall location located outside the buffer. Pumps are used only as a last resort when a gravity
solution is not available. We understand City Staff does not approve of a pump in this situation
and we do not recommend it either as a failure could result in greater impacts to the stream
buffer.
• Relocating the Outfall to the Adjacent Residential Property
o The outfall could be relocated to the northern edge of the residential property the intrusion into
the stream buffer could be minimized. We understand a variance would be required in order to
relocate the outfall. The relocation to the residential property would not eliminate the need to
intrude into the buffer and would encumber the future development of this property.
, .. :
.. •. ___________________ !!I!!!!!!! _______ _
Based upon the natural conditions, applicable city codes, and site plan constraints of the project it is not
feasible to avoid intrusion into the stream buffer. In order to avoid Intrusion would require a development
which would require several variances and difficult stormwater facilities to maintain. We do not believe the
proposed buffer impacts to non-native invasive vegetation merit a variance from code or less effective
stormwater system.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,
Brett M. Allen, P.E.
Principal
Kyle M. Mauren, E.I.T.
Design Engineer
RE.CE.\\/E.D
~\JG , \ 10\1
ERJ\1.-. WA 'I
" C\ii' ~~EgE'JELOPMENi
Leila Willoughby-Oakes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Leila,
Steve Quarterman <squarterman@landauinc.com>
Thursday, July 06, 2017 8:44 PM
Leila Willoughby-Oakes
RE: Peer Review-Woodmont Storage
We completed our review of the critical areas delineation text in the report and site reconnaissance. In summary:
• We agree with the delineated onsite boundary of the ordinary high water line of Stream Z. We reviewed flags
23 through 27 in the field.
• We agree with approach of proceeding with permitting associated with Stream Z as a Type F waterway. Based
on review of the segment of stream delineated, it appears to satisfy the criteria of a fish habitat stream (in
accordance with the WAC, fish habitat streams have a bankfull width of 2 ft or greater and slope less than 16
percent; we can provide more thorough summary of the regulations if needed. We measured widths onsite
ranging from approximately 2 ft to more than 6 ft).
• There is a miscalculation in the sampling plot data sheet for DP-2 in that the dominant vegetation is more than
50% hydrophytic satisfying the Hydrophytic Vegetation parameter, but does not change the overall designation
of the plot as non-wetland.
We reviewed the City-provided Crestview PHASE II Approved Site Plan adjacent to the site and would like to discuss
further. Would you have availability Monday or Tuesday for a call?
Let me know if you have any questions or would like to discuss further.
Thank you,
Steven Quarterman
Landau Associates
Ext. 121
Direct: (425) 329-0321
From: Leila Willoughby-Oakes [mailto :Leila.Willoughby-Oakes@cityoffederalway.com ]
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 5:26 PM
To: Steve Quarterman <squarterman@landauinc.com>
Subject: Peer Review-Woodmont Storage
Hi Steve,
You can start your review of the Woodmont Storage facility for critical area report accuracy. Please note we in talks with
the applicant regarding the stream buffer intrusion extents and a redesign to avoid impacting the stream. Could you
place your review of the mitigation plan/intrusion on hold?
Kind regards,
1
Leila
L. Willoughby-Oakes
Associate Planner
33325 81
h Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
Phone: 253/835-2644 Fax: 253/835-2609
www.cityoffederalway.com
2
Leila Willoughby-Oakes
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Good morning Matt,
Leila Willoughby-Oakes
Wednesday. May 31, 2017 12:49 PM
'matt@soundviewconsultants.com'
'Fisher, Larry D (DFW)'; Jeff Oldright; Ann Dower
Woodmont Storage Site Meeting
Crestview Approved Talasaea Sensitive Areas Report appendix 5-5-2006.pdf; Crestview
Approved Talasaea Sensitive Areas Report revised 5-5-2006.pdf; Crestview II Sensitive
Areas and Mitigation Report 10-10-06 Report Addendum.pdf; Crestview Process IV Staff
Report 05-102533-UP.pdf; Crestview Process IV HE Dedsion.pdf
I may join you and Larry on site tomorrow at 8:30.
As promised please see the attached plans and study/HE UP IV Decision and Use Process Ill decision from 2006 for the
southern property (Tax parcel: 720480-0200) {Barkley Ridge Apartments aka Crestview}. The city accepted "'Sensitive
Areas Report and Mitigation Plan" prepared by Talasaea Consultants, Inc. revised May 5, 2006 and the Addendum to
Sensitive Areas Report and Mitigation Plan dated October 10, 2006.
The applicant's consultant requested to re-classify the stream from major to minor (I believe there were several
requests and the city's on-call consultant requested additional information). The information provided to the city was
not sufficient per the City's on-call consultant ((Sheldon and Associates) as outlined in the August 19, 2005 memo.
Talasea decided not to proceed with the re-classification request.
The city's on call consultant, delineated Wetland A on the property south of the subject property (Wetland A in the
Sensitive Areas Report and Mitigation Plan) and determined the wetland extends along the stream to the northern
prop~rty boundary which is within 225 ft. of the subject properties (Parcels: 7204800164 and 7204800166). The
delineated wetland edge with stream component is the stippled section of Wetland A on the approved site plan (Sheet
Al.1) (page 3 of the tech. memo). Although the NWI map and King County Sensitive Areas map do not identify any
wetland on or within 225 of the subject properties, a 2.58 acre with a 100-ft buffer was delineated in 2006. The
Department of Community Development HE findings and analysis for File #05-102533-UP (page 4) state that Wetland A
has been identified as a Category JI wetland (under the former FWRC Critical Areas Ordinance, one would need to
reclassify this to today's manual), occupying the full eastern portion of the site, extending up to the north property line,
co-terminus with the stream corridor.
Any revisions to the current Woodmont report should also include provide data as to why there are or are not
contiguous wetlands along the portion of the same stream located on the Woodmont properties (Section 5.2)( Parcels:
7204800164and 7204800166).
I have attached the approved wetland study revised for the stream buffer intrusion. Let me know if you have any
questions. I will be out of the office from 1-3 pm.
With thanks,
Leila
L. Willoughby-Oakes
Associate Planner
1
cm 0;t
Federal Way
33325 81h Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
Phone: 253/835-2644 Fax: 253/835-2609
www.cityoffederalway.com
2
Leila Willoughby-Oakes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Greetings Jeff,
Leila Willoughby-Oakes
Tuesday, May 30, 2017 10:54 AM
'Jeff Oldright'
Stream Buffer Enhancement Performance
I spoke with your biologist, unfortunately I do not have his email.
I have spoken with other staff planning staff about your stream buffer re-hab. A performance bond would be required to
insure compliance with any aspect of a permit, review or approval. Your consultant should suggest a length of time,
which will be reviewed by the on-call consultant. Under FWRC 19.145.100 a performance bond would be required for
the buffer enhancement plan (FWRC 19.25). Could you forward this email? I said I would get back Mark/Matt with a
code reference.
With thanks,
Leila
Associate Planner
City of Federal Way
1
'-·
Technical Memorandum
,,, ., .; J'' 1 ,/ ~
'~. '// ·lit ,,
"''1 : .... ··
TO: Leila Willoughby-Oakes, Associate Planner, City of Federal Way
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Steven Quarterman
July 27, 2017
Peer Review
Wetland/Waterway Delineation
Woodmont Storage LLC -27818 Pacific Highway South
King County Tax Parcel 7204800164 and 7204800166
Federal Way, Washington
0238076.010.0ll
Introduction
;; : .
.. \':
-r
This technical memorandum provides Landau Associates, Inc. (LAI) peer review comments regarding
the wetland and waterway delineation information presented in the Revised June 2017 Critical Areas
Report 27818 Pacific Highway South (Critical Areas Report) prepared by Soundview Consultants on
behalf of the applicant, Woodmont Storage LLC. We understand the City of Federal Way (City) is
coordinating with the applicant regarding proposed impacts and compensatory mitigation as a result
of the proposed project, and peer review of impacts and mitigation will be completed upon
completion of coordination between the City and the applicant. The purpose of this peer review is to
provide a professional opinion regarding applicable regulatory requirements in the City's Revised
Code (FWRC) Title 19.145, specifically under Article Ill. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
and Article IV. Wetlands.
Peer review comments regarding the identification of wetlands and streams in the Critical Areas
Report include:
1) LAI wetlands staff conducted a reconnaissance of Stream Z (flags 23 to 27) on July 3, 2017, and
agree with the segment of stream boundary flagged. It is noted that the delineation is limited to
the western bank ofthe stream (east edge is not delineated}.
2} The Critical Areas Report identifies "Stream Z is most likely an intermittent, non-fish stream
(Type Ns) ... " but that " .. .Stream Z will be treated as a Type F stream ... in order to proceed with
the permitting process." Based on review of the segment of stream delineated, it appears the
physical characteristics of Stream Z satisfy the criteria as a fish habitat stream (i.e., Type F),
which requires a 100 foot (ft} buffer per the FWRC, as identified in the Critical Areas Report.
Stream type is based on Section 19.145.260 of the FWRC, where streams are classified in
accordance with the Washington State Department of Natural Resources water-typing system
(Washington Administrative Code [WAC) 222-16-030). Stream classifications include:
• Type S: Streams inventoried as "shorelines of the state" under Chapter 90.58 of the
Revised Code of Washington (RCW) and the rules promulgated pursuant to Chapter
90.58 RCW.
• Type F: Streams that contain fish habitat.
• Type Np: Perennial non-fish habitat streams.
• Type Ns: Seasonal non-fish habitat streams.
IA LANDAU
ASSOCIATES 130 2nd Avenue South • Edmonds, Washington 98020 • (425) 778-0907
(l
(
"
\
Landau Associates
WAC 222-16-030 identifies fish habitat as " ... habitat which is used by any fish at any life stage at
any time of the year, including potential habitat likely to be used by fish which could be
recovered by restoration or management and includes off-channel habitat."
According to WAC 222-16-030, the Interim Water-Typing System established in WAC 222-16-031
is to be used until the "fish habitat water typing maps" are adopted by the state Forest Practices
Board. Water type descriptions summarized from the Interim Water-Typing System are as
follows:
• "Type 1 Water" means all waters, within their ordinary high water mark (OHWM), as
inventoried as "shorelines of the state" under Chapter 90.58 RCW and the rules
promulgated pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW, but not including those waters' associated
wetlands as defined in Chapter 90.58 RCW.
• "Type 2 Water" means segments of natural waters that are not classified as Type 1
Water and have a high fish, wildlife, or human use. These are segments of natural
waters and periodically inundated areas of their associated wetlands.
• "Type 3 Water" means segments of natural waters that are not classified as Type 1 or 2
Waters and have a moderate to slight fish, wildlife, or human use. These are segments
of natural waters and periodically inundated areas of their associated wetlands.
• "Type 4 Water" means all segments of natural waters within the bankfull width of
defined channels that are perennial non-fish habitat streams. Perennial streams are
flowing waters that do not go dry during any time of a year of normal rainfall and
include the intermittent dry portions of the perennial channel below the uppermost
point of perennial flow.
• "Type 5 Waters'' means all segments of natural waters within the bankfull width of the
defined channels that are not Type 1, 2, 3, or 4 Waters. These are seasonal, non-fish
habitat streams in which surface flow is not present for at least some portion of the year
and are not located downstream from any stream reach that is a Type 4 Water. Type 5
Waters must be physically connected by an aboveground channel system to Type 1, 2, 3,
or 4 Waters.
Conversion of the interim water-typing system to the permanent water-typing system, as
provided in WAC 222-16-031, is as follows:
Water Type Conversion .
Permanent Water Typing Interim Water Typing
Type"S" Type 1 Water
Type"F" Type 2 and 3 Water
Type "Np" Type 4 Water
Type "Ns" Type S Waters
In accordance with WAC 222-16-031, waters having any of the following physical stream
characteristics are presumed to have fish use:
a. Stream segments having a defined channel of 2 ft or greater within the bankfull
width in western Washington, and having a gradient of 16 percent or less.
Woodmont Storage -Wetland/Waterway
Delineation Peer Review 2 July 27, 2017
Landau Associates
b. Stream segments having a defined channel of 2 ft or greater within the bankfull
width in western Washington, and having a gradient greater than 16 percent and
less than or equal to 20 percent, and having greater than 50 acres in contributing
basin size in western Washington based on hydrographic boundaries.
Bankfull width is identified using the guidance provided in "Section 2: Standard Methods for
Identifying Bankfull Channel Features and Channel Migration Zones" ofthe Forest Practices
Board Manual1. Bankfull width for streams is the lateral extent of the water surface
elevation perpendicular to the channel at bankfull depth; where ba nkfu II depth is the
estimated water surface elevation required to completely fill the channel to the point above
which water would enter the floodplain or intersect a terrace or hillslope.
LAI measured bankfull widths between flags 23 and 27 ranging from approximately 2 ft to
more than 6 ft, and slopes appeared to be less than 16 percent. These conditions are
presumed to extend offsite.
3) Section 19.145.410 (e) and (f} of the FWRC include requirements for the identification and
characterization of wetlands within 225 ft of subject properties. The Critical Areas Report
provides a summary of Local and National Wetland Inventories, indicating that City mapping
identifies a Category II wetland offsite and extending onto the subject property, and a brief
summary of site observations indicating that no such wetlands are present on or within 225 ft of
the subject property. We understand that the City-mapped Category II wetland was delineated
south of the subject property by another applicant in 2006 that follows the general
configuration of the City-mapped Category II wetland. We understand the City has, or will,
provide a copy of the 2006 site plan to the applicant identifying the City-mapped Category II
wetland and extension of Stream 2 extending to the south of the subject property. The Critical
Areas Report indicates the lack of hydrophytic vegetation on or within 225 feet of the subject
property. At the time of LAl's site review, areas extending 225 ft south of the subject property
were not readily observable, and vegetation along Stream Z at the subject property boundary,
and presumably extending south, included hydrophytic vegetation {e.g., Himalayan blackberry
[Rubus ormenicus, FAC]) that may be present at a greater prevalence than documented in
Sampling Point DP-2. While wetlands/streams are dynamic systems, there has been
wetland/waterway conditions documented immediately adjacent to the subject property, and
hydrophytic vegetation observed on the subject property adjacent to Stream _Z.Jt is_~t..£.1!~-
what extent wetland parameters were evaluated south of Sampll!lg Point DP-2 as shown on the ~ Woodmont Storage-Existing Conditi~i~re {sheet 1 of .l}jn Appendix C~ nd off.::.:si.:.te~to~th;...;e::..-----
south. We request clarification as to whether data plots were recorded closer to the southern
boundary of t he subject prop erty and/or south of the subject property in areas previously
c identified as wetland to sub sta ntiate the assertion that no wetlands are present on or within
• 225 ft of the subject property. If no data plots were recorded, we understand the City may
_ request additiona l data plots be recorded, and may be able to assist in facilitating access to the
property to the south.
* * * * *
1 Forest Practices Board. 2004. "Section 2. Standard Methods for Identifying Bankfull Channel Features and Channel
Migration Zones." Forest Practices Board Manual. http://www.dnr.wa.gov/about/boards-and-coum::ils/forest-practices-
board/rules-and-guldelines/forest-practices-board-manual
Woodmont Storage -Wetland/Waterway
Delineation Peer Review 3 July 27, 2017
.J
Landau Associates
.:.···
This technical memorandum has been prepared for use by the City of Federal Way in evaluating the
adequacy of the Critical Areas Report for the 27818 Pacific Highway South property in satisfying the
City's Critical Areas reporting requirements. The focus of this review was the wetland and waterway
delineation. The purpose of this review was to assess the adequacy of the submitted documents for
compliance with City requirements as promulgated in FWRC Title 19 and in conformance with
conventionally accepted delineation standards and practices.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to the City. Please contact us if you have any
questions or if we may be of further service.
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
Steven J. Quarterman
Senior Associate Ecologist
SJQ/tam
P:\2:38\076\R\Peer Rev;ew Th1\Wetb11d•W.at~t\.VaV O~llneatJon Peer AevielH_TM.docx
Woodmont Storage -Wetland/Waterway
Delineation Peer Review 4 July 27, 2017
SC4LE r:2a.o-
l • r
I
PROPOSED
BUl~Dl"G
-.22,S89 SF
WOODMONT STORAGE -PROPOSED CONDIT10 NS
PlANT SCHEDULE
......... ,..,._ ,,_.,.,_
~, •. _....
~dN~ ,., .... ; ...... ,,.
=t.;:.. --:;:t.::-
)_,......_. -....,. ,-~ ~.~.-
' .. . .
,,,,,
I••• .__, ... I'•:
t •fll !Jr:,
PROPOSEO
BUllDING
-20,e54SF {
THE CITY OF FEDERAi. WAY CONSIDERS SlREMI Z -----'
~~ TO ee A "MAJOR' FISl<·BEARING STRE,\M (TYPE FJ ;
l', ~ \'i!U.: 'II.ERE 15 816Mlfl:EMEIITWIT14lli-
\: c• ·sco:;cu10>1 STREAl~ZWll.tSETR1'ATEOASA l'ltl(Ll;\tt:-i \R\
..__ TYPEF STREA)A \NITHA lll!).FOOTeUffER ~\;1·< 111:11 \'1'1 0:'\ fl'-1.Y
TO-PRGGEEO-wm~==i=.
r-, {!.C. lY l4.S -\~O-"\,~ly• , . ..., '' r,'H• .l(l .II'>'
\,,-(..,.) L •' ,r , 1:• .11 . A.\ ,((i,1'"'"'7 \fJ~1,"G,(t.(.,r\.{~ ,-1,1.11,1 Hhl,tttl1 •l411u,,llt Note: See Tree Retention and Landscape Plans prepared by Bradley OeStgn nl. \M ~ ' ._J U , .#> ... «i, 1;1 , f'-!Mtw l\.\l
Group for aoottional vegetation management details f-,.;f,...L \~. \'I~ l'lll(lo"J'""' • "'" 1101·>
f-. O lA•, /1,1
EXISTING CONDITIONS SITE PLAN
S;AI.E1*=80'-CJ'
WOODMONT STORAGE -EXISTING CONDITIONS
'~''-il11i'' ' I S '
'-(•' ....,, "···· ,-..,;,'1.rU1,i1,;1~.1" .1,T,L'''-"':' 1'11
I 'rn o ,h 111:., ,,,, r
-c 20480 01
-27721
720480 0195
.o 00·13
1 ·gos R
-~1
-.... "'480 01,,.·n /21) . ~ .. )
72 0480 0167
27802
\ ----:
720480 0202
C
101 A 102 101 B 102
720480 0200
1
27900
138 111
Crestview
101
101
K
101
F
~
RM2400
20480 0186 720480 0186
G
H 306
j(J.J. 101
J
101 -
-"r-·4 o1'"', n167 l L_•i_.t' Ou' v 11
720480 0166
27818
306 304 304
D F
t,Oi 101 101
101 G 102
RS7.2
720480 0174
720480 0 '17 4
72048 0 0·165
33-22
~FWR
304
H
101
101 J 102
$CARBO
NO
7S7562 0780
-, (.
757562 0350 1 ..
720440 TRCT 27803
75 7562 0360 757562 0
; 27807
757562 0370
27811
27815
75 7i 757562 038 en
27819 ..J
27823 a.
757562 040 :c
041 027827 t-
0
N
RS7.2
62
2~
2]
r:.7~ :) V
.!;!ila Willo u ghby-Oakes
From:
Sent:
To;
Subject:
Leila Willoughby -Oakes
Thursday, May 25, 2017 12:36 PM
'Jeff Oldright'
RE: Critical A reas Report
Attachments: 129 Resubmittal Information.p d f; W oodmont Storage Critical Area Report 052517.pdf
Hi Jeff,
Please see the critical area report red lines attached for So undview (but wait for the peer review com ments as welt). If
you/ consultant wish to reclass ify the wetland and stream s sh own on the city's critica l area mappin g, some of thes e
comments would be necessary. However, these r efe rences are to be removed as you are not requesting to .
I will send out the peer review task order by tomorrow. I will have to send a project incomp leteness letter as king for the
title with supplementary docs (unless you can submit 3 copies bound wit h a resub. she et t o day or tomorrow?).
I realize I sa id e mail, however the last applicant had a 300 -page title .... You can also m ail the m and provide me a picture
of the ad dressed enve lope .
Also another point in the report identify and on the plan how much dra inage will go into the stream? That t hreshold
m ight determine t he 404/401 State/Army Core p e rmits-that section in the re port is in conclusive .
Thanks,
Leila
L. Willo ughby-Oakes
Associate Pl anne r
~ Federal Way
33 325 8'~ Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 980 03 -6325
Phone: 253/835-2644 Fax: 253/835-2609
www.cityoffederalway.com
Fro m : Leila Willoughby-Oakes
Sent: Wed nesday, May 24, 2017 2 :58 PM
To : 'J eff Ol dright'
Subject: RE: Critical Areas Report
Just drafting the docs today or tomorrow. You will r e ce ive a completeness letter by the 9th.
Cheers,
Leila
From: Jeff Oldright [mailto:Jeff@daffodilstorage.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 2:57 PM
1
To: Leila Willoughby-Oakes
Subject: RE: Critic.al Areas Rep ort
Hi Leila,
Thank you for the update! Did you want me to post the peer review deposit yet?
Thank You,
Jeff Oldright
Managing Direct or
Daffodil Storage
P: 253.564.2121 Ext 111
F: 253.753.1114
601 Valley Ave NE, Ste A, Puyallup WA 98 372
From: Leil a Willoughby-Oakes [mailto:Leila.Willou ghby-Oakes@cityoffedera lway.com ]
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 1:19 PM
To: Jeff Old right <Jeff@da ffodilstorage .com>
Subject: Critical Areas Report
Hi Jeff,
I will be requesting revisions to Soundview's report.·, would ask they remove their disagreement with the City's current
classification of the stream if the city's con sultant agrees with the current classification. However, we will wait for the
peer review results . Documents will follow shortly.
With thanks,
Leila
L. Willoughby-Oakes
Associate Planner
~ Federal Way
33325 8 1
h Avenue South
Fe deral Way, WA 98003-6325
Phone: 253/835 -2644 Fax: 253/835-2609
www.cityoffederalway.com
Land Use Forms: http://www.dtyoffederalway.com/index.aspx?nid=481
For general planning inquiries please call: 253-835-2655. The on-call planner will assist you.
2
Leila Willoughby-Oakes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hi Jeff,
Leila Willoughby-Oakes
Wednesday, May 24, 2017 1:19 PM
'Jeff Oldright'
Critical Areas Report
I will be requesting revisions to Soundview's report. I would ask they remove their disagreement with the City's current
classification of the stream if the city's consultant agrees with the current classification. However, we will wait for the
peer review results. Documents will follow shortly.
With thanks,
Leila
L. Willoughby-Oakes
Associate Planner
~ Federa l Way
33325 81h Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
Phone: 253/835-2644 Fax: 253/835-2609
www .cityoffedera lway .com
land Use Forms: http://www.cityoffederalway.com/index.aspx?nid=481
For general plann;ng inquiries please call: 253·835·2655. The on-call planner will assist you.
1
Technical Memorandum
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Leila Willoughby-Oakes, Associate Planner
Steven Quarterman
December 1, 2017
Peer Review
Wetland/Waterway Delineation -Resubmittal No. l
Woodmont Storage LLC-27818 Pacific Highway South
King County Tax Parcel 7204800164 and 7204800166
Federal Way, Washington
0238076.010.011
Introduction
This technical memorandum provides Landau Associates, lnc.'s (LAI) peer review comments regarding
the wetland and waterway delineation information presented in the November 14, 2017 Response to
Comments -Woodmont Storage Facility 27818 Pacific Highway South (Technical Memorandum). The
Technical Memorandum was prepared in response to LAl's July 22, 2017 peer review 1 of the Revised
June 2017 Critical Areas Report 27818 Pacific Highway South {Critical Areas Report). Both the
Technical Memorandum and Critical Areas Report were prepared by Soundview Consultants on behalf
of the applicant, Woodmont Storage LLC. Jhe purpose of this peer review is to provide a professional
opinion regarding applicable regulatory requirements int.he City's Revised Code (FWRC) Title 19.145,
specifically under Article Ill. Fish ond Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas and Article IV. Wetlands.
Peer review comments regarding the Technical Memorandum include:
1) LAI notes that three additional data plots were evaluated on November 8, 2017, all of which do
not satisfy all mandatory wetland criteria and are, therefore, classified as upland plots. While
designated an upland plot due to absence of hydric soils and wetland hydrology, data plot DP-4
is noted as satisfying the hydrophytic vegetation parameter (all other plots do not satisfy any of
the three mandatory wetland criteria). ·
2) The Technical Memorandum indicates " ... vegetation near the southeastern corner of the subject
property {landward of the ordinary high water mark of Stream Z) is dominated by upland
vegetation: primarily Himalayan blackberry with lesser amo.unts of snowberry, osoberry, sword
fern, and bracken fern beneath an overstory of big-leaf maple ond Douglas fir." LAI notes that
data plot DP-4, which is located in the southeastern corner of the subject property, satisfies the
hydrophytic vegetation criterion, and that Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus} is currently
listed as a Facultative Wetland Plant species.
3) The Technical Memorandum indicates "SVC did not further assess off-site conditions as the City
of Federal Woy stated that no additional off-site assessment is required (personal
1 LAI. 2017. Peer Review Wetland/Waterway Delineation Woodmont Storage LLC-27818 Pacific Highway South. July 27 .
IA LANDAU
~ AsSOClATES 130 2nd Avenue South • Edmonds, Washington 98020 • (425) 778-0907
Landau Associates
communications with Doc Hanson, 11/6/2017). To reiterate our initial findings, no potentially-
regulated wetlands were identified on the subject property or within 225 feet of the site."
Based on the data plot information included in the Critical Areas Report and Technical
Memorandum, LAI concurs with the finding that no wetlands occur on the subject property.
However, the determination of wetland conditions within 225 feet of the subject property, as
specified in Section 19.145.410 {2}{e) and {f) of the FWRC, is inconclusive since off-site
determination was not completed and a Category II wetland has been previously mapped on the
off-site property to the south of the subject property. The existing condition and extent of this
potential off-site wetland has not been determined. For purposes of this project, we understand
that the City is not requiring assessment of the potential off-site wetland and that the applicant
is redesigning the project to avoid on-site stream buffers, which presumably also avoids buffers
associated with any potential off-site wetlands.
* * * * *
This techn ica I memorandum has been prepared for use by the City of Federal Way in evaluating the
adequacy of the Technical Memorandum, as supplement to the Critical Areas Report, for the 27818
Pacific Highway South property in sa_tisfying the City's Critical Areas reporting requirements. The focus
of this review was the wetland and waterway delineation. The purpose of this review was to assess
the adequacy of the submitted documents for compliance with City requirements as promulgated in
FWRC Title 19 and in conformance with conventionally accepted delineation standards and practices.
No other party is entitled to rely on the information, conclusions, and recommendations included in
this document without the express written consent of Lancia~J Associates. Further, tile reuse of
information, conclusions, and recommendations provided herein for extensions of the project or for
any other project, without review and authorization by Landau Associates, shall be at the user's sole
risk. Landau Associates warrants that within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our
services have been provided in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily
exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in the same locality under similar
conditions as this project. We make no other warranty, either express or implied.
This document has been prepared under the supervision and direction of the following key staff.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to the City. Please contact us if you have any
questions or if we may be of further service.
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
Steven J. Quarterman
Senior Associate Ecologist
SJQ/tam
P:\238\076\R\Resub\Vetlilnd·Wilten,o,,ay Oellt1 P~er Review_TM.doc:x
Woodmont Storage -Wetland/WQterway
Delineation Peer Review -Resubmittal No. 1 2 December 1, 2017
. '
To:
RESUBMITIED
NOV 1 6 2017
OITYOFFEDERAJ. WAY Soundview Consultants
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT . I , • , • " • " :
2907 Hm-borview Drive, Suite D
Gig I Iarbot. W r\ 9833S
Technical Memorandum
Leila Willoughby-Oakes, City of Federal Way File Number: 1519.0001
From: Matt DeCaro, Soundview Consultants LLC Date: November 14, 2017
Re: Response to Comments -Woodmont Storage Facility
27818 Pacific Highway South, Federal Way, Washington
Dear Ms. Willoughby-03lkes,
Soundview Consultants ILC (SVC) has been assisting Woodmont Storage LLC (Applicant) with
regulatory compliance and pet.mitring support for the redevdopment of an approximately 2.59-acre
site located at 27818 Pacific Highway South in Federal Way, Washington (King County Tax Parcel
Numbers 7204800164 and 7204800166). This Technical Memorandum is intended to provide
responses to a comment letter provided by your third-party consultant, Landau Associates, Inc.
(LAI), dated July 27, 2017, regarding their review of SVC's Critical Area! Report, dated June 2, 2017.
LArs specific comments are summarized in italics below.
1. LAI wetlands steff conducted a reconnaissance of Stream Z (flap Z3 to Zl) on Ju!J 3, 2017, and agree
with the segment of stream boundary flagged. It is noted that the delineation is li111ited to the western bank of
the stream (east edge is not delineated).
Comment noted. No response required.
2. The Critica/AreaJ Report identifiu "Stream Z is most ii.ke!J an intermittent, nonftJh stream (Type Ns) ... "
but that " ... Stream Z will be treated as a Type F stream ... in order to proceed with the permitti11g procm:"
Ba.;ed on review of the segment of stream delineated, it appears the pl?Jsical characterisli.s of Stream Z satiefj
the criteria as a fish habitat stream (i.e., Type F), which req11ires a 100 foot (ft) blljJer per the FWRC, as
identified in the Critical Areas &port.
Comment noted. No response required.
3. We requeJ1 da,ificati.on as to whether data pk,ts were recorded closer to the southern boundary o/ the sttbject
proper!) and/ or south of the subject proper!) in areas previo11S!J identified as wetland lo substantiate the
assertion that no 111etlands are present on or within 225 ft of the suiject propertJ. If no data plots were
recorded, 111e un derstand the City may reqtwt additional data plots be recorded, and mqy be able to assist in
fa cilitati11g ac,:ess to the propeyty to the so11th.
SVC's Critical Anos Report documents the formal data plots that were excavated on the subject
property during the January and March 2017 site investigations. SVC's report also states that
: "additional tests pits were excavated throughout the subject property to further confum wetland
·" .
Soun<lvicw Consultant~ LLC
1 St 9.0001 Woodmont Storage -Response to Thocd-Pacty Review
November 14, 2017
Page 1 of 4
absence" and concludes that "no potentially-regulated wetlands were identified on the subject
property or within 225 feet of the site."
Io their review, LAI appears to suggest the potential for wetland presence near the southeastern
corner of the site due to a prevalence of Himalayan blackberry; however, LAI does not provide any
other data (i.e., soil, hydrologic, or detailed vegetation assessment) to substantiate this speculation.
Further, LAI did not perform an off-site assessment because "areas extending 225 ft south of the
subject property were not readily observable" according to LAU. In fact, vegetation near the
southeastern corner of the subject property Qandwatd of the ordinary high water mark of Stream Z)
is dominated by upland vegetation: primarily well-established Himalayan blackberry with lesser
amounts of snowberry, osoberry, sword fern, and bracken fem beneath an overstory of big-leaf
maple and Douglas fir.
On November 8, 2017, qualified SVC staff pe.tfo.rmed an additional site investigation to further
document non-wetland conditions in the southeastern corner of the site. SVC excavated three
additional data plots (DP-4, DP-5, and DP-6) onsite; no indicators for the p!'.Csence of hydric soils
or wetland hydrology were observed at any of the data plot locations. The data plot locations are
illustrated on site plan in Attachment A, and completed data forms are provided in Attachment B.
SVC did not further assess off-site conditions as the City of Federal Way stated that no additional
off-site assessment is required (personal communications with Doc Hansen, 11/6/2017). To
reiterate our initial findings, no potentially-regulated wetlands were identified on the subject property
or within 225 feet of the site.
Propoi;ed Buffer [nttusion
The Applicant no longer proposes to install a 12-inch underground stonnwater pipe and dispersion
trench within the Stream Z buffer to provide reasonable conveyance of treated stormwatct.
Therefore, the stream buffer restoration and enhancement plan outlined in SVC's Ctitical Areas
Report is no longer proposed and will not be implemented. No direct impacts to the buffer will occur
as a result of the project, and the buffer will remain in its current, degraded state.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
k --t>C-
Matt DeCaro, Environmental Planner/Pro;ect Manager
Soundview Consultants LLC
Matt@soundviewconsultants.com
Souodview Consultants LLC
1519.0001 WoodmontSto1agc-Rc~ponsc to Third-Parry Review
Novernb~r 14, 2017
Page2of4
. '
Attachment A -Site Plan
Soundvicw Consultan ts LLC
1519.0001 Woodmont Storage-Response to Third-Party Review
November 14, 2017
Page3of4
WOODMONT STORAGE -EXISTING CONDITIONS EXISTING CONDITIONS SITE PLAN SCJi.LE 1•-= e.O' • O" ' :f''/ ,. : .:_ I /: -.,./ ··~ £."~. ALL TEST Prr LOCATIONS AFPROXIMATED • NOT SURVEYED NOT~~~~~~~~~~~~~-... ~ .t_...!° --~ lt,7,-· ~-~-. /l ' . ,, .,.,. ,:.. .. : I "\ J-• _, ADDITIONAL OFF-SITE POll'fl"S OEUNEATING OHW NOT DEPJCTEO DUE TO CHANGES IN SUBJECT PROPERl'I' BOUNDARIES. :.:.•:.,: 11 I -'-I· . ..• :"5 '• • ~.· : :-:• .• , t'Ji. ,• l''/ ,,.~,•I I/ r i::, l? J• .... t V /·· f;{ 1 ,'·rt~-e.=7< _ , _ . .. . . · ,· ,· · ..... _.,. ~ •op; ;, \i•e:,· fl • -,: l t .i' /"t'/• • -:-;;;-· ; ·;'"'" ~--_ ·.-....:._·;.. ~ ,;;_•·,....:!"~O!_E.~~~-: .:_·, .,· : ···;.··. ' · •.• _,' ' ~-:: . --,, ,····· . :, ,,. . ·-·:·-----rt·· ,, r:i ' ..... .,., ...... ., • • ~=-· --:--r • ••• •••• ~~ ... ; ••••• .,..~., ....... ,,.,. ,/ 4' \[ r ,ctf ,• • ,.. ,\{'.d· , .; ,···-·· .... /' ;l• • ;•. '-"·.,t.;t I '{, J' CP3• ·~ on• --#.···,'i:}~,-.:··.---.; ',-=-..: _ -_.--~--,.,,,:. -. --, . · ---I_ J: • ---•. ,., ~ ~ •' ,._ • ~ .... c.; • • -.· •..•.• ,~. -. • • I OP s l; ~ .:\0)• ,,· •. ::::-..... ~. -·;;·c .•. , : ,' ·-. :·.,.;.'' ~ ----'--,·.·> ·--• • , ~ ·a,;,. , "l 'o l i : • "'. .... .... • ..,. ..... • •• ~ ., .; -'II; ',--~~ # •• • , ... ,.. ~ ••• ... .,. • ... .. ~::~~ .~ .. 0~1 ., t< 1 · " -: ._,,..~i. . ,i l(,t;t ( ,~· ... \ ., ti ' j t ":f"'{'\•" 1 '°' ."' ,, 100" STREAM BUFFER l: ;11::~-" 1.:. · ~1 ;' p-. THE Cll'I' OF FEDERAL WAY CONSIDERS STREAM Z ,,· 127 J •• '!o STREAMZ f .._ .!f. t'; TO BE A 'MAJOR" FISH-BEARING STREAM (TYPE F): ""to·'/1 . · lliOUGH SVC CLASSIFIED STREAM ZAS A TYPE Ns , 0<::. , STREAM. STREAM Z W1LL BE TREATED AS A l'l'PE F , n. ·,'!~:: ,t,· STREAM wrn1 A 100.FOOT BUFFER IN ORDER TO l'Rl~J.1 :-,[[ i\i. \RY !NH m:-,1 \Tl< J;,,. c J'\,J Y i'j ~;2U; PROCEED WTTH THE PERMITTING PROCESS ,1,( ... .,,;;,;:, # ,;,_ls:.: .• Y. I '/".J ._ Ii' :-.< l I H 11( < :11:-,~ l'l<I •( .'i"iC l:S. SOUNDVTEW COSSIJI.ThNl'S, U..C..\.~l'M NO I.IABCIJTY OR llE$l'ONSlllC.rTY !IOR CONS'IJIU(TIO!".U\fl'ltOVE.\ll:NTS, OR ESTtUATES 8,\.\ED ON nm Pl.A." SH 3 ;;: ,j z G I~ ~ ~ ;2 ~ ~ E ~ -=.; &: :::, "' ~ C "' ~ :.--g ~ :/; t: "' u: ~ i oei : ' ~~~ i O>-E f !-<~:.e. !h u,:::= ~!I ~ !2~ :z~ Z:!3: o.., Q ~,: F,~ ..;:o~ ~o1 0;1: .. a o .. s >< o~lil ~ :,,. .. e ., :;> ... ~ D.\TIS 1 I/U/2017 JO& 1519,0001 9Y, OS/DLS SC>,J,£: ~E G"KAPH\Cj Sl4l!lrr 1 Of 2
Attachment B -Non-Wetland Data Sheets
Soundview Consulwits LLC
1519.0001 Woodmont Storage-RespO!lse to Third-Party Review
November 14, 2017
Page4of4
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
ProjecVSite : Woodmont Storage -1 s1 s.0001 Qty/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date: 11/08/17
Applicant/Owner: =Jeff~O=t~d=rig""h_...t _____________________ Stale: .,,.W.,_A~---Sampling Point-PP~-4~---
lnvestigator(s}: ,.E..._m .... ily...,.Swa=i"'-m __________________ Section, Township, Range : ..,33..,.,..,.2.::.2,..N._. 4...,E.._ ________ _
l andfonn (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope local relief (concave, convex, non e}: ~No""ne~-----Slope(%): _5 __
Subreg ion (LRR): =-------------Lat: 47.35199476 long: -122 .30819832 Datum : WGS84
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood Gravelly Sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes NWI classifica tion: ,.,Nl::.,;A2-______ _
Are climatic/ hydrologic c.ond itlons on the site typical for thi s lime of year? Yes D No 181 (If no, explain in Rematl<.s.)
Are Vegetalion __ , son __ , or Hydrology __ signi ficantly disturbed?
Are Vegetation __ , Soil __ , OJ' Hydrology __ naturally problematic?
Are "Norm al Circum stances" present? Yes 181 No D
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 181 NoO I& the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? YesO No 181 within a Wetlan d? YesO No l8J WeUand Hydrology Present? YesO No 181
Remarks: Not all three wetland criteria observed . Precipitation measured at 104% or nonnal MTO, and 127% of nonnal water year to date as per
NOAA NOWData .
VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants .
Absolute Oomrnant Indicator Dominance Test workshoot:
Ice11 stral!im (Plot size: llil..:f!;) % !".&Y!I[ Species?~ Number of Dominant Species
1 . 8!.fil "19!.!QQm!lltin 10 YM...__ ~ That Are OBL , FACW , or FAC: 2 (A )
2. ------Total Number of Dominant
3. ------Species Across All Strata : 4 (BJ
4. ------Percent of Dominant Species
lQ.._ = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: SQ (A/B)
Si!l!llnglSh!3.!!! S1£2\l!m (Plot size:~
1. Rul!u!i sirmeali!~'~ 30 Ya._ El!&__ Prevalence Index worbheet:
2. S!'!lilclii!!<h!l!J§l§ 15 i'.§L_ .EAQll_ T !m! I 0{q ~ver Q[; MuJ!ll2 1Yl!Y;
3. Th!,!ja l!ll!d!\i! (l!i!l!ling) 5 .t&___ .E8Q__ 0Blspecies X 1 =
4. A!.!!!'. cif'Cioe!slm 2 _N __ ill.__ FACW species 15 x2= 30
5. bszniQ!i!ra ia~lui.~~ 1 _N __ .Ee&_ FACspecies 38 x3 = 114
§1.._ = Tota l Cover FACU spe cies 15 x4=!lQ
l:!em §!ra1Ym (Plot size: .§..fl) UPL species x5=
1 . El~ridium i!Sll!l!inl,!!D 5 ~ ill.IL Column Totals: 68 (A) 204 (B)
2. ------
3. ------Preva lence Index = BIA = li
4 . ------Hydrophytlo Vegetation Indicators:
5. ------D Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8. D Domi nance Test is >50% ------
7. 181 Prevalence Index Is S3.0' ------
8. ------D Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
9.
data 1n Remarks or on a separate sheet) ------D Wedand Non-Vascular Plants'
10. ------D Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetafion' (Expla in)
11. ------'I ndicators of hydric soll and wetland hydrology must
.§_ = Tota l Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematlc.
Woody Vine Slra\um (Plot size: m)
1. ------Hydrophyt ic
2. ------Vegetation
o.__ = Tota l Cover Present? Yes 181 NoO
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum .I&
Remarks: HydrophyUc vegetation criteria observed v ia pre11alence index.
US Army Corp s or En gineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point: .Qf:i__
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confinn the absence of Indicators.)
Depth Mi!WX RedQX Fei!\Ur§lil
(inches} QQlor (!I!Q!lilll ~ QQIQr (mQj~I} ~ .TuruL _Y1.L Texture Rema!!!:;
!MO 10YB~la .lll.(L. --------Gr§fi!lo VeD,! Gravellll'. Sandll Loam
l!M~ 10YR3/4 .tllQ__ --------GrSaLo Ve!'.ll !'z!J!li§!lll §fi!nd:,t I oam
15-18 1~YR4/4 fill.._ 10YB,4/6 10 Qlle_ _M __ ij[~ill.2 G£!!v§ll:,t Ss!a~lr'. L2i!!I!
------------
------------
------
------
------------
irvce: C=Concentratlon. D=Deoletlon. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. lLocalion: PL-Pore Linina, M=Matrix.
Hy<frlc Soil Indicators: (Afiplicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solis':
D Histosol (A 1) D Sandy Redox (S5) D 2cm Muck{A10)
D Histic Epipedon (A2) 0 Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2)
0 Black Hlstic {A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)(except MLRA 1) D Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
D Hydrogen Sulfide (M) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D Ottler (Explain in Remarks)
D Depleted Below Dari< Surface (A11) D Depleted Matrix (F3)
D Thick Dark Surface (A12) 0 Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
0 Sandy Mucky Mineral (S 1) 0 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present.
D Sandy Gleyed Matrix ($4) D Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? YesD No 181
RemalkS: No hydric soil indicators observed .
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrolog:v Indicators:
Erimacv lm,11s:i12!:li (minimum Qf QOO ~9!.!lr!J!d; !1!:l!!9S i!!I !hat !i!l!l!l~} §§QQnda01 ln!!i!;;i!lOGi (2 Qr rn2re ~g!,,!ired}
0 SurfaoeWater(A1} D Waler-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA D Water-Stained Leaves (B9} (MLRA 1, 2,
D Hfgh Water Table {A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 4A,and4B)
0 Saturation (A3) 0 Sall Crust (B11) D Drainage Pattems (B10)
D Water Marks (B1) D Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) D Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
D Sediment Deposits (B2) 0 Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
0 Drift Deposits (B3) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Geomorphic Position (02)
D Algal Mat or Crust {B4) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4} D Shallow Aquitard (D3)
D Iron Deposits {B5} D Recent Iron Reduction in TIiied Soils (C6) 0 FAC-Neutral Test (D5}
D Surface Soil Cracks (B6) O Stunted or Stressed Plants (01) (LRR A) 0 Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) D Frost-Heave Hummocks {07)
D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BS)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? YesO No!81 Depth {inches):
Water Table Present? YesD No 181 Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? YesD No 181 Depth (Inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? YesD No !81
(includes cenillaru frfnc,e\
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos. previous inspections), ff available: 104% of normal MTD and 127% of normal
WYTD per NOAA NOW weatner accumulation data.
Remarks: No primary or secondary hydrologlc Indicators observed .
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Va!lays, and Coast -Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
ProJecl/Site: Woodmont Storage -1519.0001 City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:11/08117
Applicant/Owner: ,1.J!ijeff~O~ldri!!.!.·:.1Jah.!1t _____________________ State: .!;W::..::A:1.----Sampling Point: "'D"""P--=5 __ _
lnvestigator(s): .,.E:.:.m..,.lly...,.Swa...,,.,i.!J.m,._ ________________ Section, Township, Range: .,.3,..3,...,22=:,;:N,.. 4=:E=----------
Landfomi (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave. convex. none): ,.,N~on~e._ _____ Slope{%}: _3 __
Subregion (LRR}: A2 Lat: 47.35208113 Long: -122.3081 3210 Datum: WGS84
Soil Map Unit Name: Atcterwood Gravelly Sandy Loam. 8 to 15 percent slopes NWI classlflcation: :..:N,..,IA~-------
Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes D No 181 (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation __ , Soil __ , or Hydrology __ significantly disturbed?
Are Vegetation __ , Soil--· or Hydrology __ naturally problematic?
Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes l8l No D
(If needed, explair, any answers in Remarl(s.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects. Important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YesD Nol81 Is the Sampled Area
Hydrlc Soil Present? YesO Nol81 within a Wetland? Yes D No 181
WeUand Hydrology Present? YesD Nol81
Remarl<s: No weUand criteria observed. Precipitation measured at 104% of normal MTD, end 127% of normal water year to dale as par NOAA
NOWData.
VEGETATION-Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree ~l!l!MD (Plot size: 30 ft) °&~ll!!t Species?~ Number of Dominant Species
1 . ~r msicrgQhllllum 65 ~ FACU Thal Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
2. P!,!1!,lgJ;!~1U91i! ffi!;!OZi!;!~ii 5 J::!Q__ ~ Total Number of Dominant
3. ------Species Across All Strata: 4 (8)
4. ------Percent.of Dominant Species
TI)_ = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 25 (NB)
Sa12nngf~!m12 Stra\ym (Plot size:.!.[!!)
1. Ru!lua armenia~ 20 ~FAC Prevalence Index worksheet:
2 . Vacgnium paNifoliym 10 ~ FACU Total% Cover of: MulliQlll2ll'.
3 . Ry!lys SP!!!<l2!2ilis 1 Nll_. FAC OBLspecies x1=
4 . FACWspedes x2 = ----·--
5. FACspecies 21 x3= 63 ------
31 = Total Cover FACU species 111 114=~
~!R S!G!turo (Plot size: fil!) UPlspecies x5=
1. Po!Y!!li chum munitum 35 ~ EAQJ__ Column Totals: 132 (A) ~Q7 (B)
2. Pteridium aguillnum 5 ~ FACU
3. Prevalence lnde11 -BIA -~ ~ ------
4. ------Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
s. ------D Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
6. D Dominance Test is >50% ------
7. D Prevalence Index is S3.01 ------
8. ------D Morphological Adaptatlons1 (Provide supporting
data In Remar1<s or on a separate sheet)
9. ------D Wetland Non-Vascular Plants'
10. ------D Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 {Explain}
11 . ------'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
~ = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
WQQdll ~ine ~l!:l!l!.!!!l {Plot size:~)
1. ------Hydrophyt.ic
2. ------Vegetation
0 = Total Cover Pre&ent? Ye&O No~
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 60
Rema/ks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria not obseNed .
US Army Cofl)S of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Version 2.0
..
SOIL
Sampling Point: DP-5
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth M,!!riX R~!lQXF~a1!.!~
(inctieizi Color (moist} ~ Color (moist} ~~ __!.2!L ill!!!.!~ Remarl<s
Q:4 10YR2ra 1.QQ_ --------~rSilo Qr11v!:1l ll£ ~1111=21!m
4-16 10YB Jll .[t_ jQYR 3/2 L__C __ _M __ GrSilo Grav~lll( Sil! !,,Qam
---------
---------
---------
---------
---------
---------
'Tvne: C---Concentratlon, D=Deolelion . RM=Reduoed MaJrlx. CS=Covered or Coaled Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=?ore Linino . M=Matrix.
Hydrlc Soll lndicat«s: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwlso noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydrlc Soils3:
D Histosol (A1) 0 Sandy Redox (S5} D 2 cm Muek (A10)
0 Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2)
D Black Hlstic (A3) 0 Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) D Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
D Hydrogen SulMe (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (f2) D Other (Explain In Remarks)
D Depleted Below Dark Surface {A 11) D Depleted Matrix (F3)
D Thick Dark Surface (A12) D Radox Dari< Surface (F6) 3 1ndlcators of hydrophytic vegetation and
D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
0 SandyGleyed Matrix{S4) 0 Redox Depressions (F8) unless distu,ted or problematic.
RestricUve Layer (if present):
Type :
Depth (Inches): Hydric Soil Present? YesD No 181
Remarks: No hydtlc soll Indicators obseJVed.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrok)gy Indicators:
Prima01 Indicators {minimum of one r§g!,!irag; !l:!J~k all lhsit &!ll!ll£l ~~!.Qn!!i.!Ol la!!i!.!!!O~ (2 Qr m2r, r~g!.!if!!!:!l
D Surface Water (A 1) D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) {except MLRA D Water-Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2,
D High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 4A,and.48)
D Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust (811) D Drainage Patterns (010)
D Waler Marks (B 1} D Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) 0 Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
D Sediment Deposits (82) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) 0 Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
D Drift Deposits (B3} D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Geomorphic Position (02)
0 Algal Mat or Crust (B4) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D Shallow Aqultard (D3)
D Iron Deposits (BS) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 0 fAC-Neutral Test(D5)
D Surface Soll Cracks (86) D Stunted or Stressed Plants (01) {LRR A) 0 Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) D Other (Explain In Remarks) D Frost-Heave Hummod<s (D7)
D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface {B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Waler Present? YesO Nol8) Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? YesO No ]81 Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? YesO No181 Depth (inches): WeUand Hydrology Present? YesO No 181
£includes cagillarv frinaa}
Describe Recorded Data {stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections}, If avalrable: 104% of normal MTD and 127% of normal
WYTD per NOAA NOW weather accumulation data.
Remarks: No primary or secondary hydrologic indicators observed.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATfON DATA FORM-Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Sile: Woodmont Storage -1519.0001 City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:lllQll/17
Applicant/Owner: ,,.J,.,eff"'""'O"'ld""rig,.,hwt _____________________ Stale: .:.;W:;.,;A.,_ ___ Sampling Point: .,.D"'"P-'-6"-----
lnvestigator(s): .,E"'m..,il"'"y..,S""'w""aia.:m"-------------------Section, Township, Range: x3.,,,3,...,2,..,2,.,Ns..., 4:e,E=----------
Landfonn (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex. none): :.;N,,.o,..ne,._ _____ Slope(%): _2 __
Subregion (LRR): ..,A,.=.2 ____________ Lat: 47.35201173 Long: -122.30314163 Datum: WGS84
Soil Map Unit Name: A lderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam. 8 to 1 s percent slopes NWI classlftcation: "'N,../A..,_ ______ _
Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes O No 181 (If no. explain in Remat'l<s.)
Are Vegetation __ • Soil __ , or Hydrology __ significantly disturbed?
Are Vegetation __ • Soil __ , or Hydrology __ naturally problematic?
Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 181 No D
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS-Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophylic Vegetation Present? YesO No 181 Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? YesO No 181 within a Wetland? YesO No 181
Wetland Hydrology Present? YesO No 18[
Remarks: No wetland criteria observed. Precipitation measured al 104% of normal MTD, and 127% of normal water year to date as per NOAA
NOWData.
VEGETATION-Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tru SlGm.!II! (Plot size: m) 'l;'q !;;Ql£!lC Species?~ Number of Dominant Species
1. Acer macroQh)lllum 5 Yil-~ That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
2. ------Total Number of Dominant
3. ------Species Across All Strata: ~ (B)
4. ------Percent of Dominant Species
5 "Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 25 (NB)
~1!IID9l$l!ll!b S!ra!!.!m (Plot size: 1§.!!)
1 . Rubus armeniacus 45 ~ fh.Q_ Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. SJLm12horicamos atbus 15 ~ .EhQL Tg!ill "tq CSMl( Qf: MulliQlybic
3. OBL species x1= ------
4. FACW species x2 = ------
5. FACspecies 45 X 3 = 135 ------
filL__ = Total Cover FACU species 2~ x4 = 100
Hgd!S!m!l•r!l (Plot size:~) UPLspecies x5 =
1. Pteridium aguilinum ~ ~ FACU Column Totals: 70 (A) 23:i (B)
2. ------
3. ---Prevalence Index = BIA " ll ---
4. ------Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
5. ------0 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
6. ------D Dominance Test is >50%
7. ------D Prevalence Index is S3.0'
8. ------D Morphological Adaptations• (Provide supportin9
9.
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ------0 Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10. ------0 Problematic Hydrophytfc Vegetation• (Explain)
11. ------1lndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must _5 __ = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:~)
1. ------Hydrophytic
2. ------Vegetation
_o __ = Total Cover Present? YesO No181
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum fil?
Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria not observed.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point:~
Profile Description: (Describe to lhe depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redo)( Features
!in!.b§!il Color {mol§.t} ~ Color {moist} _Jg_~ Loc2 Texture Remarlcs
0-4 10YR2/1 1mL_ --------~iLo Si11Loam-di!rl<!;1n~d rc2m !3!,!ARl!iaves
4-16 1QYR3/4 fil!....._ 10YB 31§ 2-_~ _M __ ~r§ilo GraY!:!llll ~ilt L2am
------
------
------
------
------
---------
'Tvoe: C=Concentralion. D=Deoletion RM=Reduced Matrix. CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Localion: PL-=Pore linlnn. M=Malrix.
Hydrlc Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwi&e noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:.
D Histosol (A 1) D Sandy Redo)( (S5) D 2 cm Muck {A10)
D Histic Eplpedon (A2) 0 Stripped Matrix (S6) 0 Red Parent Material {TF2)
0 Black Hisllc (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (exceptMLRA 1) D Very Shallow Dari< Surface (TF12)
0 Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks)
D Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) D Depleted Matrix {F3)
0 ThickDar1<Surface(A12) D Redox Dark Surface (F6) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
0 Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) welland hydrology must be present,
D Sandy Gleyed Mattix (S4) D Redox Depressions (F8) unless dlstumed or problematic.
Res1rletlve Layer (If present):
Type:
Depth (inelles): Hydric Soil Present? YesO Nofgl
Remari<s: No hydric soil indicators observed.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology lndlcatorg:
E!:im!!01 ln!!il.il12!lii (minimum of 2~ r!jgl,!ir!i!d; S.h!il~ all !hllt a1212l:i'.l ~!i!,QnQl!!Y lm:li~l~ (2 Qr mo!]! BlQ!Jlr!iQl
D Surface Water (A 1) D Water-Stained Leaves (89} (except MLRA D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
D High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 4A,and4B)
0 Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust (B11) D Drainage Patterns (B10)
0 Water Marl<s (01) D Aqualic Invertebrates (B13) D Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
0 Sediment Deposits (B2) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) 0 Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
D Drift Deposits (83) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Geomorphic Position (D2)
D Algal Mat or Crust (B4) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D Shallow Aqultard (03)
D Iron Deposits (B5) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Solis (C6) 0 FAG-Neutral Test(D5}
0 Surface Soil Cracks (B6} D Stunted or Stressed Plants (01) (LRR A) D Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A)
0 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) D Other (Explain In Remarks) 0 Frost-Heave Hummocks {07)
0 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BS)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? YesD No 181 Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? YesD No 181 Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? YesD Nofgl Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? YesO No~
fincludes caclllarv frinoe \
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, moniloring well, aenat photos, previous inspections), if avallat>le: 104% of normal MTD and 127% of normal
WYTD per NOAA NOW weather accumulation data.
Remarks: No primary nor secondary hydrotogic indicators observed.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2. O
Daffodil Storage
601 Valley Ave NE, Ste A
Puyallup, WA 98372
(253} 564-2121 ext. 111
Attn: Mr. Jeff Old right
INTRODUCTION
March 17, 2017
RECEIVED
MAY 1 6 2017
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Proposed Storage Facility
27818 Pacific Highway South
Federal Way. Washington
PN: 7204800-165, -166, 164
Doc ID: Daffodil.PacificHighway.RG
This geotechnical report summarizes our site observations, subsurface explorations, and
engineering analyses and provides geotechnical recommendations and design criteria for the
proposed storage facilities to be located at 27818 Pacific Highway South in Federal Way, Washington
(PN: 7204800-165, -166, 164). The site location is shown on the Site Location Map, included as Figure
1.
Our understanding of the project is based on our conversations with you, our understanding
of the City of Federal Way development codes, and our experience in the area. We understand that
you propose to construct two multi-story storage buildings, a storage facility, and new paved
roadway and parking areas at the site. We anticipate that the new structures will be steel framed,
three story buildings founded on convention shallow foundations.
SCOPE
The purpose of our services is to evaluate the surface and subsurface conditions across the
site as a basis for providing geotechnical recommendations and design criteria for the proposed
development. Specifically, the scope of services for this project will include the following:
1. Reviewing the available geologic and geotechnical data for the site area;
2. Exploring subsurface conditions across the site by excavating 4 test pits at select locations
across the site;
3. Describing surface and subsurface conditions, including soil type, depth to groundwater, and
estimated high groundwater;
_____ Daff._odilJ:acjfLcHigblt,l.ay._,B.G.D.r:.aft ____ _
March 17, 2017
page I 2
4. Providing geotechnical recommendations for earthwork and grading activities including site
preparation, subgrade preparation,. fill placement criteria (including hillside grading),
suitability of on-site soils for use as structural fill, and temporary and permanent cut and fill
slopes;
5. Providing seismic design parameters, including 2015 IBC soil profile type;
6. Providing recommendations and design criteria for foundation and floor slab support,
including conventional spread foundations;
7. Providing recommendations for erosion and sediment control during wet weather grading
and construction; and
8. Preparing a written Geotechnical Engineering Report summarizing our site observations and
conclusions, and our geotechnical recommendations and design criteria, along with the
supporting data.
The above scope of work was summarized in our Proposal for Geotechnical Engineering
Services dated December 27, 2016. We received authorization on from you on December 27, 2016.
SITE CONDITIONS
Surface Conditions
The proposed storage facility is located within an area of existing commercial and residential
development. The project site consists of three tax parcels that, when combined, are generally
irregular in shape, measure approximately 335 to 2930 feet deep (east to west) by 120 to 175 feet wide
(north to south), and encompass about 3.02 acres. The site is bounded by commercial development to
the north, residential development to the south and east, and by Pacific Highway South to the west.
The site generally slopes down towards the north and east. The western portion of the site
generally slopes down towards the north at 8 to 12 percent, with a localized area of 20 to 35 percent.
The central portion of the site is generally flat and gently slopes down to the east at approximately 2 to
4 percent. The eastern portion of the site slopes down towards the eastern property boundary at 5 to
8 percent. Total topographic relief across the site is on the order of 25 feet. The existing site
topography is shown on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 2.
The western portion of the site has been cleared and partially developed and is mostly covered
in gravel surfacing. The eastern portion of the site is vegetated with second growth forest, a mixture of
fir and deciduous trees with a moderate to dense understorey of native and invasive shrubs. No
evidence of slope instability or soil movement was observed at the site at the time of our site visit. No
evidence of standing water, seeps, or springs was observed on the site.
Site Soils
The Natural Resource Conservation Survey (NRCS} Web Soil Survey maps the site as being
underlain by Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (Ag(} soils. The Alderwood soils are derived from glacial
till, for on slopes of 8 to 15 percent, have a "moderate" erosion hazard when exposed, and are included
in hydrologic soils group C. The NRCS soils map is included as Figure 3.
Site Geology
The Geologic Map of the Poverty Bay 7.5-minute Quadrangle, Washington (Booth, Troost,
Waldron, 2003) maps the site as being underlain by Vashon glacial till (Qvt). The glacial till soils were
G EORESOU RCES
---_ ___.___ __ • Qaffodil,P.a<=:ificH lgl:lway,RG ,Draft-------------------------------
March 17, 2017
page I 3
deposited during the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation, approximately 12,000 to 15,000 years
ago. The till generally consists of a heterogeneous mixture of gravel, sand, silt, and clay that was
deposited at the base of the advancing continental ice mass. These soils were subsequently
overridden by the glacier. As such, glacial till is considered to be over consolidated and generally
has high strength and low compressibility characteristics where undisturbed. The above referenced
geologic map is included as Figure 4.
No evidence of deep seated erosion or other active landslide activity was observed at the
time of our site visit. No areas of landslide deposits or mass wasting are noted on the referenced
map within the immediate vicinity of the site.
Subsurface Explorations
On January 3, 2017, a field geologist from GeoResources, LLC was on site and monitored the
excavation of 4 test pits to depths of 6 and 12 feet below the existing ground surface. The test pits
we excavated by a medium-sized excavator working for you.
The specific number, locations, and depths of our explorations were selected by
GeoResources personnel based on the configuration of the proposed development and were
adjusted in the field based on site access limitations and encountered stratigraphy. Our field
geologist continuously monitored the explorations, maintained logs of the subsurface conditions
encountered, obtained representative soil samples, and observed pertinent site features.
Representative soil samples obtained from the explorations were placed in sealed plastic bags and
taken to a laboratory for further examination and testing as deemed necessary. Each test pit was
then backfilled with the excavated soils and bucket tamped in place, but not otherwise compacted.
The subsurface explorations excavated as part of this evaluation indicate the subsurface
conditions at specific locations only, as actual subsurface conditions can vary across the site.
Furthermore, the nature and extent of such variation would not become evident until additional
explorations are performed or until construction activities have begun. Based on our experience in
the area and extent of prior explorations in the area, it is our opinion that the soils encountered in
the explorations are generally representative of the soils at the site.
The soils encountered were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil
Classification System {USCS} and ASTM D: 2488. The uses is included in Appendix A as Figure A-1.
The approximate locations of our test pits are indicated on the attached Site and Exploration Plan,
Figure 2, while the descriptive logs of our test pits are included as Figure A-2.
Subsurface Conditions
Our test pits encountered variable subsurface conditions. Test pits in the eastern, forested
portion of the site encountered about 1 J'2 feet of topsoil and forest duff overlying about 3 feet of tan to
light brown sandy gravel and silt with a reworked texture that appeared to be in a medium dense,
moist condition. We interpret these upper gravelly soils as undocumented fill material. Below the fill
material, our test pits encountered 7 to 9 feet of dark brown sand that appeared to contain highly
variable fractions of gravel, silt. debris and organic material. The dark brown soils appeared to be in a
loose to medium dense and moist to saturated condition at the time of our explorations. We interpret
these organic rich soils as undocumented fill material. Below these soils our test pits encountered tan
to gray sandy gravel with silt that appeared to be in a dense, moist condition to the full depth explored.
We interpret these lower soils as glacial till.
GEORESOURCES
_____ ___..,_,aff.odiJ.EacifLcl:::l.igb.wayJR.G~DJ'..a"'""..._ _______________________________ _
March 17, 2017
page 14
The test pits on the western, developed or previously developed portion of the site generally
encountered about 1 foot of imported gravelly fill material overlying about 31-2 to 4 feet of tan to orange
gravel with silt and sand that appeared to be in a medium dense to dense, moist condition. We
interpret these upper soils as weathered glacial till. Below the weathered till soils, our test pits
encountered gray gravel with silt and sand in a dense to very dense, moist condition to the full depth
explored. We interpret these lower soils as glacial till.
Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater seepage was observed from the lower portions of the organic-rich
undocumented fill soils. We interpret the observed seepage as indicative of perched groundwater.
Perched groundwater typically develops when the vertical infiltration of precipitation through a
more permeable soil is slowed at depth by a deeper, less permeable soil type. We anticipate
fluctuations in the local groundwater levels will occur in response to precipitation patterns, off-site
construction activities, and site utilization.
ENGINEERING CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results of our data review. site reconnaissance, subsurface explorations and
our experience in the area, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed development,
provided the conclusions and geotechnical recommendations regarding the design and construction
of the proposed development presented below are included into the project plans.
Erosion Hazard Areas per Federal Way Revised Code
The City of Federal Way code defines erosion hazard areas as "those areas having a "severe"
or "very severe" erosion hazard due to natural agents such as wind, rain, splash, frost action or
stream flow."
The site soils are mapped as AgDC which has a moderate erosion hazard when exposed.
Conventional construction BMP's should be installed prior to beginning construction. This should
provide adequate erosion control for the disturbed areas of the site. It is critical that the installed
erosion control measures be monitored, maintained, and, if necessary, modified based on changing
site conditions. In the event that the site is not worked for 7 days or more, the disturbed areas
should be adequately protected and maintained. This may include the use of plastic sheeting or
mulching over exposed soils. Erosion control should specifically include the installation of silt
fencing along the downslope and side slopes of the active construction area. Straw waddles and
berms may also be necessary. We have not been provided with a copy of the -proposed Temporary
Erosion and Sediment Control (TES(} plan at this time; however, provided standard BMP's are
installed prior to beginning construction, the potential for erosion or sediment leaving the site
should be minimal.
Landslide Hazard Areas per Federal Way Revised Code
The Federal Way City Code defines landslide hazard areas as "those areas potentially subject
to episodic downslope movement of a mass of soil or rock including but not limited to the following
areas:
a. Any area with a combination of:
-
GEORESOURCES
--~Daffodil.PacificHighway.RG.Draft,.--------------------------------
March 17, 2017
page I 5
1. Slopes greater than 15 percent;
2. Permeab le sedim ent overlying a r elatively impermeable sediment or bedrock;
3. Springs or groundwater seeps.
b. Any area which has shown movemen t d uring the Holocen e epoch, from 10,000 years ago
to the present, or which is underlain by mass wastage d ebris of that epoch.
c. Areas potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision, stream bank erosion, and
undercutting by wave action.
d. Area s located in a canyon or on an active alluvial fan, presently or pote ntially subject to
inund ation by debris flows or catastrop hic flooding.
e. Areas that have a "severe " li mita tion for building site development be cause of slope
conditions, accor ding to the USDA SCS.
f. Those areas mapped as Class U (Un stable), Uos (Unstable old slides), and Urs (unstable
recent slid es) by the Department of Ecology.
g. Slopes having a gradient steeper t han 80 perce nt subject t o rock fall during seismic
shaking"
The si te ha s slopes steep er than 15 percent, and portions of the un do cumented fill ma t erial
may constitute permeable sediment over impermeable sediment, but we did not observe any seeps
or springs from the sloping, eastern portions of the site. No soil movement during the Holocene
epoch was observed or mapped at or within the vicinity of the site. Based on the gradient of the
adjacent stream and our interpretation of the subsurface conditions, it is our opinion that there is
no potential for stream incision at the site t hat would result in over-steepened slopes. No alluvial
fans are mapped at or near the site, nor d id w e see any evidence of such during our site vi sit. The
site is mapped as having a "moderate" limitation for buil ding by the Soi l Conservation Survey. The
site is not mapp ed by the Department of Ecology. No slopes st eeper than 80 percent are present at
or near the site .
Based on our o b servations and literature review, it is our opinion the site contains none of
t he above landslide hazard indicators, and d oes not meet the definition of a landslide hazard area.
Therefore, the City of Fed eral Way should not impose a geologically hazardous area setback at the
si t e.
Buffers/Setbacks
The City of Federal Way building department may require a building setback in accordance
with 2015 IBC (International Building Code) standard requirements. The 2015 IBC, Section 1808.7
requires a building setback from slopes that are steeper than 3H:1V (Horizonta l: Vertical) unless
evaluated and reduced, and/or a structural setback is provided, by a licensed geotechnical engineer.
The setback distance is calculated based on the vertical height of the slope. The typical 2015 IBC
setback from the top of the slope equals one third the height of the slope. The slopes steeper than
33 percent at the site have a vertical height of approximate ly 5 feet. Per the 2015 IBC, a m in imum
setback of 2 feet from the top of the slope is requ ired.
Seismic Hazards per Federal Way Revi se d Code
The City of Federal Way Municipal Code defines sei smi c hazard areas as "those area s subject
t o severe risk of earthquake damage as a result of seism ically induced grou nd s haking, slo pe failure,
GEORESOURCES
.-----_,Qaf(odil.&iclflcl:ligbw.ayi RG.DL aft~-----------------------------
March 17, 2017
page I 6
se ttlement or soil liquefaction, or surface faulting. These conditions occur in areas underlain by
cohesionless soils of low density usually in association with a shallow groundwater table."
Based on our observation and the subsurface units mapped at the site, we interpret the
structural site conditions to correspond to a seismic Site Class "C" in accordance with the 2015 IBC
Section 1613.3.2 which references ASCE 7-10, Section 20.3-1 . This is based on the inferred SPT
(Standard Penetration Test) bl0w counts for the soil type encountered in our test pits.
Liquefaction is a phenomenon where there is a reduction or complete loss of soil strength
due to an increase in pore water pressure. The increa se in pore water pressure is induced by
seismic vibrations. Liquefaction mainly affects geologically recent deposits of loose, fine-grained
sands that are below the groundwater table. Saturated soils we not encountered at the site at the
time of our subsurface explorations, and the glacially consolidated soils will not likely densify due t o
seismic activity. Therefore, it is our opinion that the risk for liquefaction to occur at this site during
an earthquake is negligible. Provided the undocumented fill material is mitigated and the design
criteria list ed below are followed, the proposed structure should have no greater seismic risk
damage than other appropriately designed st ructures in the Puget Sound area.
Found at ion Suppo rt
We recomm end that spread footings be founded on the medium den se weathered till soils,
the very dense glacial till soils, or on structural fill that extend s to suitable native soils. The native
soil at the base of the excavations should be disturbed as little as possible. All loose, soft or
unsuitable material should be removed or recompacted, as appropriate.
All footing elements should be embedded at least 18 inches below grade for frost protection.
We recommend a minimu m width of 24 inches for isolated footings and at least 16 inches for
continuous wall footings. Footi ngs founded on the native glacial till soils may be designed t o exert a
maximum allowable bearing pressure of 3,500 psf (pounds per square foot) for combined dead and
long-term live loads, while footings founded on structural fill that extends to the native glacial till soils
or on the weathered till soils should be de signed to exert a maxi mum allowable bearing pressure of
2,500 psf for combined dead and long-term live loads. The weight of the footing and any overlying
backfill may be neglected . The allowable bearing value may be increased by one-third for transient
loads such as those induced by seismic events or wind loads.
Lateral loads may be resisted by friction on the base of footings and floor slabs and as passive
pressure on the sides of footings. We recommend that an allowable coefficient of friction of 0.35 be
used to calculate friction between the concrete and the underlying soil. Passive pressure may be
determined using an allowable equivalent flu id density of 350 pcf (pounds per cubic foot). Factors of
safety have been applied to these values.
We estimate that total static settlements of footings designed and constructed as
recommended will be less than 1 inch over a 50 foot length, for the anticipated load conditions, with
differential settlements between comparably loaded footings of }'2 inch or less. Typical building
settlements within granular soils occur essentially as loads are being app lied. However, disturbance
of the foundation subgrade during construction could result in larger settlements than predicted.
Altern ative Foun dat ion Support -Geo Pier®
As an alternative to overexcavation, processing and replacement for bearing pads, an array
of aggregate piers could also be used to improve the bearing capacity of soils beneath spread
footings and, depending on the required depths, may be more cost effective. "G eopier®" is a
GEORESOURCES
-
----'Daffodil.Pacifi<=Highway.RG.Draft -------------------------------
March 17, 201 7
page I 7
proprietary name for the most common type of aggregate pier, but others might be available.
Regardless of type, all aggregate piers are installed by boring down to a sui table soil horizon and
then backfilling the borehole with compacted granular soil. Typical borehole diameters range from
about 24 to 36 inches. In our opinion, aggregate piers would provide favorable support for spread
footings. thereby eliminating the need for a deep over-excavation and replacement as described
previously. For all locations, we recommend that the aggregate p ier designer ensure that the piers
have sufficient depths and widths to provide t he bearing capacities described above.
Floor Slab Support
We anticipate that the proposed storage buildings will have slab on grade floors. Slab on
grade floo r s should be supported on t he dense native soils or on structural fill prepared as
described above. Areas of old fill material sho uld be evaluated during grading activity for suitability
of structural support. Areas of significant organic debris should be removed.
We recommend that flo or slabs be directly underlain by a minimum 4-inch thick pea gravel
or washed 5/8-inch crushed rock. This layer should b e placed and compacted to an unyielding
con dition and should con tain less than 2 percent fines.
A synthetic vapor retarder is recommended to control moistu re migration through the slabs.
This is of particular importance where moisture migra tion through the slab is an issue, such as
where adhesives are used to anchor carpet or tile to t he stab.
A subgrade modulus of 350 kcf (kips per cubic foot) may be used for floor slab design. We
estimate that settlement of the floor slabs designed and constructed as recommended, wilt be 1/2
inch or less over a span of 50 feet.
Subgrade and Retaining Walls
The lateral pressures acting on subgrade and retaining walls (such as basement walls) will
depend upon the nature and density of the soil behind the wall. It is also dependent upon the
presence or absence of hydrostatic pressure. If the walls are backfilled with granular well-drained soil,
we recommend using an allowable equivalent fluid pressures of 35 pcf for the active condition and 55
pcf for the at rest condition. This design value assumes a level backslope and drained conditions as
described below.
Adequa t e drain age behind retaining structures is imperative. Positive drainage which controls
the development of hyd rostatic pressure can be accomplished by placing a zone of drainage behind
the walls. Granular drainage material should contain less than 2 percent fines and at least 30
percent greater than the US #4 sieve. A geocomposite drain mat may also be used instead of free
draining soils, provided it is installed in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. A soil
drainage zone should extend horizontally at least 18 inches from the back of the wall. The d raina ge
zone should also extend from the base of the wall to within 1 foot of the top of the wall. The soil
drainage zone should be compacted to approximately 90 percent of the MOD. Over-compaction
should be avoided as t his can lead t o excessive lateral pressures.
A minimum 4-inch diameter perforated or slotted PVC pipe should be place d in the drainage
zone along the base and behind the wall to provide an outlet for accumulated water and direct
accumulated water to an appropriate discharge location. We recommend that a nonwoven
geotextile filter fabric be placed between the soil drainage material and the remaining wall backfill to
reduce silt migration into the drainage zo ne. The infiltration of silt into the drainage zone can, with
time, reduce the permeability of the granular material. The filter fabric should be placed such that it
G E ORESOU RC ES
____ _,Daff..odil.e:acifi.cl:lighway.RG.D(aft _____________________________ _
March 17, 2017
page I 8
fully separates the drainage material and the backfill, and should be extended over the top of the
drainage zon e.
Lateral loads may be resisted by friction on the base of foot ings and as passive pressure on
t he sides of footings and the buried portion of the wall , as described in the "Foundation Support"
section. We r~commend that an allowable coefficient of friction of 0.35 be used to calculate friction
between the concrete and the underlying soil. Passive pressure may b e determined using an
allowable equivalent fluid density of 350 pcf (pounds per cubic foot). Factors of safety have been
applied to these values.
Temporary Excavations
Alf job site safety issues and precautions are the responsibility of the contractor. The
following cut/fill slope guidelines are provided for planning purposes only. Temporary cut slopes will
likely be necessary during grading operations or utility installation.
All excavations at the site associated with confined spaces, such as utility trenches and
retaining walls, must be completed in accordance with lo cal, state, or federal requirements. Based
on current Washington State Safety and Health Administration (WSHA) r egulatio ns, the fill
encountered at the site would be classified as Type C soils, while the weather glacial till on the site
would be classified as Type B soils, and the glacial till would be classified as Type A soils.
According to WSHA, for temporary excavations of less than 20 feet in depth, the side slopes
in Type A soils shoulcl be laid back at a slope of %H:1 V (Horizontal: Vertical) or flatter, while Type 8
soils should be laid back at a slope inclination of 1 H:1 V or flatte r from the toe to the crest of the
sl ope, and Type C soils should be slo ped at a maximum inclination of 1.SH:1V. All exposed slop e
faces should be covered with a durable reinforced plastic membrane during construction to prevent
slope raveling and rutting during periods of precipitation. These guid elin es assume that all surface
loads are kept at a minimum distance of at least one half the depth of the cut away from the top of
the slope and that significant seepage is not present on the slope face. Flatter cut slopes will be
necessary where significant raveling or seepage occurs, or if construction materials will be stockpiled
along the slope crest.
Where it is not feasible to slope the site soils back at these inclinations, a retaining structure
should be considered. Where retaining structures are greater than 4-feet in height (bottom of
footing to top of structure) or have slopes of greater than 15 percent above them, they should be
engineered per Washingt on Administrative Code ('NAC 51-16-080 item 5). This information is
provided solely for the benefit of the owner and other design consultants, and should not be
construed to imply that GeoResources assumes responsibility for job site safety. It is unders too d
that job si t e safety is the sole responsibility of the project contractor.
Site Drainage
All ground surfaces, pavements and sidewalks at the site should be sloped away from t he
structures. Surface water runoff should be controlled by a system of curbs, berms, drainage swales,
and or catch basins, and conveyed to an appropriate discharge poi nt.
We recommend that footing drains are installed for the residence in accordan ce with IBC
1807.4.2, and basement walls (if utilized) have a wall drain as describe above. The roof dra in should not
be connected to the footing drain. If the basement cut extends below the adjacent municipal
stormwater system, a sump and pump system may be required.
GEO RESOURCES
----·--...'.Daffodif.Pa<:ifi<:Highway.RG.Draft-------------------------------
March 17, 2017
page I 9
EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS
Site Preparation
All structural areas on th e site to be graded should be stripped of vegetation, organic surfa ce
soils, and other deleterious materials including existing structures, foundations or abandoned utility
lines. Organic topsoil is not suitable for use as structural fill, but may be used for limited depths in
non-structural areas. St ripping depths ranging from 4 to 18 inches should be expected t o r emov e
these unsuitable soils. Thicker topsoil or organic debris may be en co untered in areas of heavy
v eget ation or de pressions.
In additio n t o r emoval of the topsoil, the undocumented fill soils on the eastern portion of
the site should be removed. We understand the proposal is to process these soils on site and
replace them as structural fill. Recommendations regarding removal, processing and replacement
of the undocumented fill is discussed below in the "S uitability of On-Site M ateria ls as Fill " section.
Where placement of fill material is required, the stripped/exposed subgrade areas should be
compacted to a firm and unyielding surface prior to placement of any fill. Excavations for debris
re moval should be backfilled with structural fill compacted to the densities described in the
"St ructural Fill " section of this report.
We recommend that a member of our staff evaluate the exposed subgrade conditions after
r emoval of vegetation and stripping/processing is completed and prior to placement of structural fill.
The exposed subgrade soil should be proof-rolled with heavy rubber-tired equipment (where
(practical) during dry weather o r probed with a }2-inch-diameter steel T-probe during wet weather
conditions .
Soft, loose or otherwise unsuitable areas delineated during proofrolling or probing should
be recompacted, if practical, o r over-excavated and replaced with stru ctura l fill. The depth and
extent of overexcavation should be evaluated by our field representative at the time o f construction .
Structural Fill
All mate r ial pl aced as fill associated with mass grading, as utility trench backfill, under
building areas, or under roadways should be placed as structural fill. The structural fill should be
placed in horizontal lifts of appropriate thickness to allow adequate and uniform compaction of each
lift. Structural fill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of MOD (maximum dry density as
determined in accordance with ASTM D-1557).
The appropriate lift thickness will d epe nd o n the structural fill characteristics and
compaction equipment used . We recommend that the appropriate lift thickness be evaluated by
our field represe ntative during construction. We recommend that our representa tive be present
during site grading activities to observe the work and perform field density tests.
The suitability of ma terial for use as structural fill will depend on the gradation and moisture
content of the soil. As the amount of fines (material passing US No. 200 sieve) increases, soil
becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate compaction
becomes more difficult to achieve. During wet weather, we recommend use of well-graded sand
and gravel with less than 5 percent (by weight) passing the US No . 200 sieve based on that fraction
passing the 3A-inch sieve, such as Gravel Backfill for Waifs (WSDOT 9-03.12(2)). If prolonged dry
weather prevails during the earthwork and foundation installation phase of construction, higher
fines content (up to 10 to 12 percent) m ay be acceptable.
GEORESOURCES
_____ Daffodil ,e.acificl:ligbway_.8.!3LQ.r:.af~-----------------------------
Marc h 17, 201 7
page I 10
Material placed for structural fill shou ld b e free of deb r is, organ ic matte r, trash, and cobbles
g reate r than 6-inches in diam eter. The moisture conten t of t h e fill material should b e adj usted as
necessary for proper compaction.
Suitability of On-Site Materials as Fill
During dry weather constr uction, any nonorganic onsite soil may be considered for use as
structural fill; provided it meets the criteria described above in the "Structural Fill " section and can
be compacted as recommended. If the moisture content of the soil is over optimum when
excavated, it will be necessary to aerate or dry the soil prior to placement as structural fill.
The previously placed fill encountered across the site consist of a mixture of sand, silt, and
gravel with debris and abundant organic material. We do not anticipate that these soils will be
suitable for use as structural fill because of the presence of debris and organic material unless they
are processed . Removal and processing of the undocumented fill soils shou ld include excavating
down to native soils, and an appropriate level of processing to meet the specification for common
borrow WSDOT 9-03.14(3). GeoResources personnel should provide sufficient laboratory testing
and monitor ing to ensure the above specification is met and the material is replaced as structural
fill.
The deeper weathered glaci al till is generally comparable to "com mon borrow" m at e ri al and
will b e suitable for use as structural fill provided the moisture co nt ent is m a inta ined with in 2 percent
of t he optimum moisture level.
We recommend that completed graded areas be restricted from traffic or protected prio r to
wet weather conditions. The graded areas may be protected by paving, placing asphalt-treated
base, a layer of free-draining material such as pit run sand and gravel or clean crushed rock mater ial
containing less than 5 percent fines, or some combination of the above.
Erosion Control
We at h ering, erosion and the resulting surficial sloughing and sh allow land sliding are n atural
processes. As n ot ed, no evid ence of surficial raveling or sloughi ng wa s obs erved at the si t e. To
ma nag e and red u ce t h e p ot ential for these natural processes, w e re commend erosion protection
measures w ill need to be in pla ce prior to gr ading activity on the site. Erosion hazards can b e
m itigated by app lying Be st Management Practices (BMP's) outlined in th e 2016 King County Site
Developme nt Manual.
Wet Weather and Wet Condition Considerations
In the Puget Sound area, wet weather generally begins about mid-October and continues
through about May, although rainy periods could occur at any time of year. Therefore, it is strongly
encouraged that earthwork be scheduled during the dry weather months of June through
September. Most of the soil at the site contains sufficient fines to produce an unstable mixture
when wet. Such soil is highly susceptible to changes in water content and tends to become unstable
and impossible to proof-roll and compact If the moisture content exceeds the optimum.
In addition, during w et weather months, the groundwater leve ls coul d increase, resulting in
seepage i nto site excavations. Performing earthwork during dry weather would reduce t hese
problems and costs associated with rainwater, construction traffic, and h andling of wet soil.
However, should wet weather/wet condition earthwork be u navo idab l e, the following
r ecomme ndat ions are p rovided:
GEORESOURCES
-
-------'.f:>affo<:lil,PacificHighway.RG ~Qraft-------------------------------
March 17, 2017
page I 11
• The ground surface in and surrounding the construction area should be sloped as much as
possible to promote runoff of precipitation away from work areas and to prevent ponding of
water.
• Work are as or slopes should be covered with plastic. Toe use of sloping, ditching, sumps,
dewatering, and other measures sho uld be employed as necessary to permit proper
co m pletion of the work.
• Earthwork should be accomplished in small sections to minimize exposure to wet conditions.
That is, each section should be small enough so that the removal of unsuitable soils and
placement a nd co mpaction of clean structural fill could be accomplished on the same day.
The size of constructio n equipment may have to be li m it ed t o prevent soil disturbance. It
may be necessary to excavate soils with a backhoe, or equivalent, and locate t hem so t h at
equipment d oes not pass over t h e excavated area. Thus, subgrade disturbance caused by
equipment t raffic would be minimized.
• Fill material sh ould consist of clean, well-graded, sand and gravel, of which not more than S
percent fines by dry weight pass es the No. 200 mesh sieve, based on w et-sieving the fraction
passing the %-inch mesh sieve. Th e gr avel content should range from between 20 an d 50
percent retained on a No. 4 mesh sieve. Th e fines should be non-plastic.
• No exposed soil should be left uncompacted and exposed to moisture. A smooth-drum
vibratory roller, or equivale nt, should r oll t he surf ace to seal out as much water as possible.
• In-place soil or fill soil that becomes wet and unstable and/or too wet to suitably compact
sh ould be removed and r eplac ed with clean, granular soil (see gradation requirements
above).
• Excavation and placement of structural fill materi al should b e observed on a full-time basis
by a geotechnica l en gin eer {or representative) experienced in wet we ather/wet condition
earthwork to determine that all work is be ing accomplished in accordance with the p roject
specifications and our recommendations.
• Gradi ng and earthwork should not be accomplished during periods of h eavy, co ntinuous
rainfa ll.
We recommend that the above requirements for w et weather/wet condition earthwork be
incorporated into the contract specifications.
Additional Services
Should deep foundations be considered as an alternative to removal, processing and
recom pacting the undocumented fill, we may n eed t o explore the d eeper subsu r fac e conditions at
the subject si te depending on t he foundation o ption select ed . This would i ncl ude returning to the
site and completing additional borings at the p roposed deep foundation locat ions.
We recommend w e ar e retained to review those portions of the 90 percent pla ns and
sp ecifi cations pertaining to the foundations and earthwork to determine that they are in accordance
with recommendations prese nted in this report.
Con struction Obse rvation
We recommend that Ge oRe sources, LLC be retained to observe the geotechnical aspects of
construction including stripping, pr o cessin g of the undocumented fill, foundations, fill pl acement
G E O R ESOURCES
_____ _D_affo dil.PacificHighway.RG.Qraft -------------------------------
March 17, 2017
page I 12
and compaction, and drainage activities. This observation would allow us to verify the subsurface
conditions as they are exposed during construction and t o determine that work is accomplished in
accordance with our recommendations. If conditions encountered during construction differ from
those anticipated, we can provide recommendations for the conditions actually encountered.
LIMITATIONS
We have prepared this report for use by Daffodil Storage and other members of the design
team, for use in the design of a portion of this project. The data used in preparing this report and this
report should be provided to prospective contractors for their bidding or estimating purposes only.
Our report, conclusions and interpretations are based on our subsurface explorations, data from
others and limited site reconnaissance, and should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface
conditions.
Variations in subsurface conditions are possible between the explorations and may also occur
with time. A contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the budget and sch edu le.
Sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation should be provided by our firm during construction to
confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to
provide recommendations for d esign changes should the conditions revealed during the w ork differ
from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation installation activities
comply with contract plans and specifications.
The scope of our services does not include services related to environmental remediation and
construction safety precautions. Our recommendations are not intended t o direct the contractor's
methods, t echniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for
consideration in design.
If there are any changes in the loads, grades, locations, configurations or type off acilities to be
constructed, the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report may not be fully
applicable. If such changes are made, we should be given the opportunity to review our
recommendations and provi d e written modifications or verifications, as appropriate.
• • •
GEO RESOURC ES
Daffodil.PacificHighway.RG.Draft
March 17, 2017
page I 13
We have appreciated the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any
questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call at your earliest convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
GeoResources, LLC
Brad Biggerstaff, LEG
Principal
VRM:BPB:DCB/Vrm
DoclD: Daffodil.PacificHighway.RG
Attachments: Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2: Site & Exploration Plan
Figure 3: NRCS Soils Map
Figure 4: Geologic Map
Appendix A. Subsurface Explorations
Dana C. Biggerstaff, PE
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
-:."."""' t ---Sotlftd---__ ..... _
~ .
~ . . . -. .. <
; , .. ' .•. • ..
li'{ I\V*t:
5
De,s Moines
.
"
\\'" >•111)101 Is, ~rl,
,.
c .. ~
I
V .. i -., . ~.
' ~ Swcl
LDkc
'51;..J -. •\
Approximate Site Location
•; ~-
=., ., ~ --.
(map created from King County iMap http://gismaps.kingcounty.gov/iMap/)
Site Location Map
Proposed Storage Facility
27818 Pacific Highway South
Federal Way, Washington
PN: 7204700-165, -166, 164
Docl D: Daffodil.PacificHighway.F March 2017
Not to Scale
Figure 1
Approximate Site Location
Map created from Web Soil Survey (http://websoilsurvey.s c.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx)
Soil Soil Name Parent Material Type
AgC Alderwood gravelly sandy loam Glacial till
Slopes Erosion Hazard
8to 15 Moderat e
NRCS Soils Map
Proposed Storage Facility
27818 Pacific Highway South
Federal Way, Washington
PN: 7204700-165, -166, 164
Hydrologic
Soils Group
C
Not to Scale
earth science & geot e ct,ni c a l e n gi n e e ring
S007 Pacii, Hwy E .. Suite l o I Flft, WA144l4 I 2SU!6. !0ll ! w,....geores oums.,o,ks DoclD: Daffodil.Pa cificH lghway.F March 2017 Fi gu re 3
... , ..
~. 0 (,
),.
~ .~"
\
"i".
F Ii 1 · Z:: /;' 't r I! , 1 ·,
Approximate Site Location
(An excerpt from the Geologic Map of the Poverty Bay 7.5-minute Quadrangle, Washington,
by Booth, D.B., Waldron, H.H., and Troost, K.G., 2003)
Qgt
=--~-~
GEORESOURCES
earth science & geat{~chnicaJ engineering
1007 Pacifi< Hwy E., Suile lo I rife, WA 93!24 I 2S3.896 !C, l ( www .~eotesou,ceuo,ks
Glacial till
USGS Geologic Map
Proposed Storage Facility
27818 Pacific Highway South
Federal Way, Washington
PN: 7204700-165, -166, 164
Doc ID: Daffodil.PacificHighway.F March 2017
Not to Scale
Figure 4
Appendix A
Subsurface Explorations
.. ...---... I ) ' .
.... so·1 CTOXSSIFI.CATtO"l'\JSYSTErv1
MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP
SYMBOL
GROUP NAME
GRAVEL CLEAN GW WELL-GRADED GRAVEL, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL
GRAVEL
GP POORLY-GRADED GRAVEL
COARSE
GRAINED More than 50% GRAVEL GM SILTY GRAVEL
SOILS Of Coarse Fraction WITH FINES
Retained on GC CLAYEY GRAVEL
No. 4Sieve
SAND CLEAN SAND SW WELL-GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND
More than 50% SP POORLY-GRADED SAND
Retained on
No. 200 Sieve More than 50% SAND SM SILTY SAND
Of Coarse Fraction WITH FINES
Passes SC CLAYEY SAND
No. 4Sieve
SILT AND CLAY INORGANIC ML SILT
FINE CL CLAY
GRAINED
SOILS Liquid Limit ORGANIC OL ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY
Less than SO
SILT AND CLAY INORGANIC MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT
More than 50% CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY
Passes
No. 200 Sieve Liquid Limit ORGANIC OH ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT
SO or more
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT
NOTES: SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS:
1. Field classification is based on visual examination of soil Dry-Absence of moisture. dry to the touch
in general accordance with ASTM D2488-90.
Moist-Damp, but no visible water
2 . Soil classification using laboratory tests is based on
ASTM 02487-90. Wet-Visible free water or saturated, usually soil is
obtained from below water table
3. Description of soil density or consistency are based on
interpretation of blow count data, visual appearance of
soils, and or test data.
Unified Soils Classification System
~ Proposed Storage Facility
27818 Pacific Highway South
GEO RESOURCES Federal Way, Washington
PN: 7204700-165, -166, 164 (~a,th sclc?N:e & gi'?otech nical engineering
5007 Pacilit Hwy[., Suite 16 I Fitt. WA 98424 1253.896.1011 I www.g~ore1ource1.roc~s Doc ID: Daffodil.PacificHighway.F I March 2017 I Figure A-1
Depth (ft)
0 -1 Yz
1 Y2 -3
3 -9
9 -12
Depth (ft)
0 -1 Yz
1 Yi -4
3Yz -7
7 -12
Depth (ft)
0 -%
3A -3Yi
3}2 - 6
Logged by: STM
Soil Type
-
GP-SM
SP-SM
GP-GM
Soil Type
-
GP-SM
SP-SM
Soil Type
GP
GP-GM
GP-GM
Test Pit TP-1
Location: E portion of site
Soil Description
Topsoil/Forest Duff
Tan sandy gravel with some silt, debris (medium dense, moist)(fill)
Dark brown sand with silt, some gravel, organic debris & refuse (loose to medium dense,
moist)(fil I}
Tan grading to gray sandy gravel and silt (dense, moist to wet)(till)
Terminated at 12 feet below ground surface.
Minor caving observed from 4 to 8 feet bgs.
Groundwater seepage observed at 8 to 9 feet bgs .
Test Pit TP-2
Location: E center portion of site
Soil Description
Topsoil/duff
Tan sandy gravel with some silt, debris (medium dense, moist)(fill)
Dark brown sand with silt, some gravel, organic debris & refuse (loose to medium dense,
moist)(fill}
Tan grading to gray sandy gravel and silt (dense, moist to wet)(till)
Terminated at 12 feet below ground surface.
No caving observed at the time of excavation.
Minor groundwater seepage observed.6 to 7 feet bgs .
Test Pit TP-3 .
Location: South center of project site
Soil Description
Tan gravel with silt and sand, reworked (very dense, moist)(fill)
Tan to orange gravel with silt and sand (medium dense, moist)(weathered till)
Gray to tan gravel with silt and sand (very dense ,moist)(till)
Terminated at 6 feet below ground surface.
No caving observed at the time of excavation.
No groundwater seepage observed.
~~~-~,.;:~ :c:=--
Excavated on: Jan 3, 2017
Subsurface Exploration Logs
Proposed Storage Facility
G EO RESOURCES
27818 Pacific Highway South
Federal Way, Washington
PN: 7204700-165, -166, 164 e.:~nh sclenc~ & geotPchnica i ~:;gin~eri ng
S007 Pacific Hwy, .. S•ili 1E I Me, \'IA 98d!l I 2SH3U31 i I .,,...w.g•o,~sources.rocks Doc ID: Daffodil.PacificHighway.F I March 2017 I Figure A-2
t. ,\., • ... '~ j
-----·----------------rest-P-it -T-~4·-------------------11--
Location: W portion of site
Depth {ft}
0 -1
1
4
4
8
Logged by: STM
Soil Type
GP
GP-GM
GP-GM
Soil Description
Imported gravel (dense, moist)(fill)
Tan to orange gravel with silt and sand (medium dense, moist)(weathered till)
Gray to tan gravel with silt and sand (very dense ,moist}(ti/1)
Terminated at 8 feet below ground surface.
No caving observed at the time of excavation.
No groundwater seepage observed.
Excavated on:Jan 3, 2017
Subsurface Exploration Logs
Proposed Storage Facility ~~-~~~
GEORESOURCES
27818 Pacific Highway South
Federal Way, Washington
PN: 7204700-165, -166, 164 earth science & gl':-orechnic:a: engineering
50~7 Pacific Hwy,., Suite 1e I File. WA 28~14 I 253.896.1011 I ""'w.geo•esources.roc~s : Daffodil.PacificHighway.F I March 2017 1 Fig
"
+!+ HEATH & ASSOC(ATES, INC Transportation and Civil Engineering
DAFFODIL HEATED SELF-STORAGE
TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT
City of Federal Way, WA
Prepared for: Jeff Oldright
South Puyallup Storage LLC
601 Valley Avenue NE, Suite A
Puyallup, WA 98372
RECEIVED
MAY 1 6 2017
March 2017 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup WA 98371 (253) 770 1401 Fax {253) 770 1473 heathtraffic.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DAFFODIL HEATED SELF-STORAGE
TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT
I. lntroduction .................................................................................................................. 3
II. Project Description ...................................................................................................... 3
Ill. Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................... 3
IV. Future Traffic Conditions ............................................................................................. 7
V. Summary ................................................................................................................... 10
Appendix
LIST OF TABLES
1. Project Trip Generation ............................................................................................... 8
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Vicinity Map & Roadway System ................................................................................. 4
2. Site Plan ...................................................................................................................... 5
3. Trip Distribution & Assignment .................................................................................. 11
2
DAFFODIL HEATED SELF-STORAGE
TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
The main goals of this study focus on the assessment of existing roadway conditions and
forecasts of newly generated project traffic. The first task includes the collection of
general roadway information, public transportation information, and entering sight distance
data. Forecasts of future traffic and dispersion patterns on the street system are then
determined using established trip generation and distribution techniques augmented by a
local trip generation study. As a final step, appropriate conclusions and mitigation
measures are defined if needed.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This report summarizes anticipated traffic impacts related to the proposed Daffodil Heated
Self-Storage development in the City of Federal Way. The proposed project is a 128,700
square foot self-storage facility. The site is located on the east side of Pacific Highway
South at 27824 Pacific Highway South and south of 11th Street East on three parcels.
The parcel numbers are as follows:
South Parcel: 7204800164 1.30 acres
Middle Parcel: 7204800166 1.29 acres
North Parcel: 7204800165 0.46 acres
The site contains is approximately 3.05 acres and is zoned BC (community business) with
the north parcel zoned RS7.2 (single family, high density). Primary access to the site will
be via one existing entrance in the middle of the site directly across from the 16th Avenue
S/Pacific Highway intersection. This access will operate as a right turn in/right turn out
due to a raised medial and turning movement control in front of the site. Buildout of the
project is forecasted in 2018. The surrounding land uses are a mixture of multi-family and
commercial along Pacific Highway South.
The site has had recent occupancy and use as a car sales site. Based on an aerial view
of the site, the current auto sales use occupies approximately 1.44 acres of the property.
An estimated 70 to 80 vehicles are also stored on the site based on this aerial review.
Figure 1 on the following page shows the vicinity map and roadway system servicing the
site. A site plan illustrating the overall configuration of the project is shown on Figure 2.
3
t
N
HEATH & ASSOCIATES
TRAFFIC AND CIVIL ENGINEERING
4
DAFFODIL STORAGE-FEDERAL WAY
VICINITY MAP & ROADWAY SYSTEM
FIGURE 1
'---------~',--------~
t
N
HEATH & ASSOCIATES
TRAFFIC AND CIVIL ENGINEERING
5
DAFFODIL STORAGE-FEDERAL WAY
SITE PLAN
FIGURE 2
Ill. EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Existing Roadway Characteristics
Pacific Highway South: is a multi-lane, north-south state highway that lies west of the site.
The speed limit is 45 mph near the project site. The roadway is constructed as a
boulevard with intermittent raised medians with left turn pockets and U-turn lanes provided
along its length. Grades are generally mild in the area at an estimated 1 to 3 percent.
Side treatments are curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Lanes are asphalt and around 12 feet in
width.
B. Transit Service
A review of the Metro Transit regional route maps indicates transit service is provided in
the vicinity of the site. The adjacent route, the RapidRide A-Line, has stops along Pacific
Highway South approximately 1,000 feet north and south of the site. A-Line service is
effectively available 24 hours a day.
Given the nature of this storage project, few, if any, trips are expected to be in the form of
public transit.
C. Sight Distance at Existing Access Driveway
Access to the local roadway system is provided via the existing entrance onto Pacific
Highway South. A field review of the existing access was made to measure whether or
not adequate entering sight distance (ESD) and stopping sight distance (SSD) can be
provided for outbound project traffic. Pacific Highway South at this location has a large
radius horizontal curve with 16 feet approximately from the edge of the traveled way to the
back of walk. In addition, the roadway has street trees that can be limned above the sight
lines with spacing of approximately 175 feet between the first two trees south of the
project driveway. No other impediments to sight distance were noted.
A minimum of 530 feet of ESD and 495 feet of SSD will be required for 55 mph speed limit
on Pacific Highway South with the right turn only case analyzed. Based on field review of
the access to the roadway, sight distance exceeding 600 feet exists looking south for both
ESD and SSD criteria.
6
D. Non-Motorist Traffic
Moderate non-vehicle activity was noted along Pacific Highway South . The roadway has
well~deve!oped pedestrian facilities in the form of sidewalks in areas and crosswalks.
Given the nature of this business as a mini-warehouse facility does not expect to create
non-motorist traffic.
IV. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
A. Trip Generation
Trip generation is used to determine the magnitude of project impacts on the surrounding
street system. Data presented in this report was taken from and independent trip
generation study conducted on self-storage facilities as well as the Institute of
Transportation Engineer's publication Trip Generation, Ninth Edition.
I. Trip Generation Study:
A trip generation study was conducted in February of 2017 for similar self-storage facilities
to determine, and compare, trip rates associated with this specific land use with ITE data.
The trip generation study looked at three locations with comparable operations. The
calculations, methodologies, and findings are attached in the appendix for reference. A
summary of the calculated trip rate is provided below:
• A trip rate of 0.119 vehicles per thousand square feet was deduced in the trip
generation study for the PM peak hour which is attached.
The findings of the study indicates when using ITE data and square footage as the
independent variable, trip generation estimates are higher than what was actually
observed when field counts were taken.
Using the calculated trip rate above for the Daffodil Heated Self-Storage facility, trip
generations for the PM peak hour would calculate at:
(0.119 veh) x (128.7 ksf) = 15 vehicles trips per PM peak hour
7
B. Trip Distribution a nd Assignment
Trip distribution describes the process by which proj ect generated trips are dispersed on
the street network surrounding the site. The specific destinations and origins of the
generated traffic primarily influences the key inte rsections, which will effective ly receive
the bulk of project impacts. The trips generated by the project are expected to follow the
general trip pattern as shown in Figure 3 on the following page. Figure 3 gives a best
guess estimate of how traffic is likely to travel to and from the site during the critical peak
hour. As self-storage units primarily serve the surrounding community, an equal
distribution was ass umed with approximately half of the trips coming to and from the north
and the remaining half coming to and from the south.
C. Parking Demand
Parking demands associated wtth a self-storage facility in this analysis are based on ITE
data and similar site samples.
ITE Methodology
ITE data used in this analysis was obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engine ers,
Parking Generation 4th edition publ ication. Using the applicable land use code of Mini -
Warehouse (LUC 151 ), the data s uggests the following equation for weekday peak period
parking demand: P = 0.07x + 4
Where "P" is parked vehicles and "x" is 1,000 sq. ft . GFA.
The estimated peak parking demand would therefore calculate at:
P = 0.07(128.7 s.f.) + 4
P = 13.0 parking sta lls.
S ite Samples
Bas ed on the previ ously mentioned self-storage facility study conducted in Feb ruary of
2017, three similar sites were studied to determine operations, peak hour trips, and
parking demands. The three locations sampled were :
A. Money Saver Mini Storage -Tumwater, WA
Gross Square Feet: 97,430
Parking Stalls Outside Gate: 3
8
B. Highland Hill Self Storage -Tacoma, WA
Gross Square Feet: 98,700
Parking Stalls Outside Gate: 6
C. Money Saver Mini Storage -Kirkland, WA
Gross Square Feet: 91,000
Parking Stalls Outside Gate: 6
Observations during routine peak hour movement counts from the 4-6 PM timeframe
observed a peak demand of no more than 2 stalls being used at any given time for the
provided on-site parking.
The project proposes 7 marked parking stalls with additional parking locations along the
north side of both buildings. Observations indicated open stalls during the two-hour field
counts at all sample sites. The project's 7 provided stalls would assume to adequately
meet the parking demand of the project, however, if using ITE data, 8 more stalls may be
required. If deemed necessary, additional parking stalls may be striped inside the gate
access on the northern edge of the site.
V. SUMMARY
The Daffodil Heated Self-Storage project proposes to construct a new 128,700 square foot
self-storage facility. The site is located on the east side of Pacific Highway South at the
16th Avenue South intersection. The trip generation summary is provided in Table 1 and
estimates 15 PM peak hour trips (7 inbound/8 outbound). Access to the site will be
provided via an existing driveway to Pacific Avenue South.
Project traffic is not expected to have any significant impact on local traffic conditions.
Based on parking stall counts and observations at 3 similar sites, the proposed 7 stalls are
expected to adequately meet parking demands for the project, moreover, additional stalls
can be located adjacent to the north side of the buildings.
9
t
N
0 0
+ ~8
8 t ~o
0 7
HEATH & ASSOCIATES
TRAFFIC AND CIVIL ENGINEERING
Cl)
II.I ::, z
LU
~
:c
~
T"
10
NOTE: THE SITE ACCESS IS RT IN/RT OUT.
PACIFIC HWY HAS RAISED MEDIAN
DAFFODIL STORAGE-FEDERAL WAY
TRIP DISTRIBUTION & ASSIGNMENT
FIGURE3
DAFFODIL HEATED SELF-STORAGE
TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX
11
I. TRIP GENERATION FOR DAFFODIL HEATED SELF-STORAGE
The pro posed sto rage project plans to construct a 128, 700 square foot self-st orage facility .
A trip generation study was co nducted to determine estimated PM peak hour trips
associated with the propose d use. Trip generation rates in this study were derived from
three sites that are comparable in ope rations . The details and results of the study are
given below.
II. STUDY SITES
1. Money Saver Mini Storage -Tumwater, WA
Gross Square Feet 97,430
2. Highland Hill Self Storage -Tacoma, WA
Gross Square Feet: 98,700
3. Money Saver Mini Storage -Kirkland, WA
Gross Square Feet: 91,000
Ill. METHODOLOGY
Data was collected at each facility via the Gate Access Control Software which tracks each
gate's movement (i.e. open and/or close) on pre mise. Gathered data was collected from 6
days in March, 2016 and 6 days in Septembe r, 2016, for a total of 12 sample days for each
locatio n . All gate access information was taken from the 4-6 PM timeframe.
Att ached is a Trip Rate summary sheet that was provided and contains detailed
information for each location. From this sheet, one sample was chos e n for the March
counts and one sample for the September counts for each location to determin e a pe ak
hour trip generation . Th e chosen days are highlighted for reference and consisted of the
highest total t rip movements during the 4-6 PM timeframe for the respective month. These
dates were chosen to take a conservat ive approach .
For further corroboration and to account for potential trip movements utilizing the provided
parking stalls outs ide the gate con t rol, two field counts were conducted capturing all
ingress/egress for the re spective site . Attached are applicable count she ets for reference.
12
)
IV. TRIP GENERATION
A. Trip Generation
The table below gives the calculated inbound and outbound trip generation rates for the
PM peak hour. These rates are based on the peak hour and reflect the highest trip
movement days from each sample set.
Table 1 Date Peak Hour Inbound Outbound Trip Rates Avg. Trip
(Tot. Trips/Th . Rate
Sq. Ft.)
Facility 1 03-Mar-16 4:45-5:45 6 6 12/97.43 =
0.123
0.159
27-Sep-16 4:30-5:30 10 9 19/97.43 =
0.195
Facility 2 16-Mar-16 5:00-6:00 5 4 9 /98.70 = 0.091
0.081
28-Sep-16 4:00-5:00 3 4 7/98.70 = 0 .071
Fac;i!ity 3 03-Mar-16 4:15-5:15 3 4 7/91.00 = 0.077
0.116
15-Sep-16 4:00-5:00 9 5 14/91.00 = 0.154
Average: 0.119
Avera ge trip rates were derived for each location to determine an estimated trip rate based
on square footage for the proposed project. Total inbound and outbound trips were
divided by the squa re feet of the respective facility ; trip rates for each day were then
averaged. The table above indicates an overall average trip rate of 0.119 vehicles per
thousand square foot. Given the simila rities in uses , this estimated trip rate should better
reflect traffic operations associated with the incoming self-storage facility than what /TE
suggests based on square footage.
Table 2 below d epicts as e stimated trip generation for the proposed incoming project using
the Average Trip Rate (0.119 veh/Th . Sq. ft.). Inbound and Outbound movements were
e xpected to be roughly equal.
Proposed square feet: 128,700. Therefore:
0.119 x 128. 7 = 15.3 vehicle trips.
13
TABLE 2
Project Trip Generation with Average Rate Calc ulation -Square Footage
Time Period
PM Peak Inbound
PM Peak Outbound
PM Peak Total
B. !TE Rates & Field Counts
Total Trips
7vph
8 vph
15 vph
Fu rtherm ore, two field counts were conducted to corroborate the calculated trip
movements associat ed with the sample sites and to capture potential trips utilizing the on-
site parking which would not be accounte d for in the Gate Access Control Software. !TE
sugges ts that at feast two sites be counted to supplement ITE's Trip Generation data.
S ample site 1, Tumwater and Sample site 1, Tacoma, were chosen to conduct the field
counts. Counts were performed during the critical time frame of 4PM -6PM. Table 3
below shows the captured peak hour for the respective location while the full two hour
counts are included in the appendix.
TABLE 4
Field Counts at Sample Sites
Time Period
PM Peak Inbound
PM Peak Outbound
PM Peak Total
Sample 1 (Tumwater)
Volume
5 vpd
4vph
9 vph
Sample 2 (Tacoma)
Volume
4vpd
5 vph
9 vph
The field counts resulted in 9 PM peak hour trips for each sample site. Grossing thes e
field volumes up to reflect the larger size of the Daffodil Heated Self-Storage would
indicate that the site would g e ne rate 128.7/98 x 9 = 12.0 PM peak trips
V. CONCLUSIONS
The Daffodil Heated Self-Storage project will total 128,700 square feet. Again, the field
analysis used the busiest days provided at three similar existing lo cations as a
conservative approach when estimating a projected trip generation and then was
corroborated in the field. ITE data, when using square footage as the input variable,
estimat es 22 PM peak hour trips. Moreover, field counts at the Tumwater and the Tacoma
location resulted in 9 PM peak hour trips. Given all the above analyses, the e stimated
project trip generation is recommended to be 15 PM p eak hour trips.
14
STORAGE FACILITIES
Facility 112 Facllity1'3
~mwater Property Highland Hill Self Storage Prop erty Money Save Mini Storage -Totem lake
Oty facoma,WA City Kirkland, WA
97,430 Gross SF 9&.700 Gross SF 91,000
90,030 Renta ble SF 74,496 Re ntable SF 67,805
545 Storage Units 705 Storage Un its 724
10 Parking/Other 3 P arking/Othef s
94%-96% Occupancy Range 96%·98% Ocrupancv Ra nge 9S%-97%
ge Property Descrip. 4-story, modem storage bldg in Property Descrlp. 3-scorv, modern storage bldg in
e W. Tacom a Kirkland along Willows Rd.
-Thu. Trip Oata ail between 4 pm -6pm. Tues. -Tho. Trtp Data ail between 4pm • 6pm, Tues.· Thu.
'romGate fntry/exit raw data collected from Gate Entrv/eiclt raw data collected from Gate
in lts require Access Control Software. All units require Access Control Software. All units require
!rty/unit. ac= code to enter the property/unit access code to enter the property/unit
,osier times Oates o f collection represent busiff times Dates of collection represent busier times
with of the month (beginning/end) with o f the month {beginning/e nd) with
Je)as w ell typica lly less busy times (m iddle} as well typically less busy tlrnes (middle) as weU
rch) with as typically s lower month (March) w ith as typica lly slower month (March) with
{Septemberl a typic3/ly more active montti (Se ptember) a typically more a ctive month {Se p~mber}
~ 1.'Q!i.! tot.ii
14 3/1/2016 ln -3 /Out-4 7 3/1/2016 In · 5/ Out· 4 g
9 3/112016 ln -4/0ut-4 8 3/2/2016 ln-3/0ut-3 6
17 3/3/2016 ln-4/ Out -4 8 3/3/2016 In -6/0ut· 7 13
11 3/15/2016 ln-s /Out-6 11 3/15/2016 ln -5/0ut -4 9
12 3/16/2016 ln-6/0ut-6 12 3/16/2016 Jn -4 /0ut-4 8
10 3/17/2016 ln-S/Out -5 10 3/17/2016 In -4/0ut-3 7
9 9/13 /2016 In ·5 / Out -6 11 9/13/2016 ln -4 /0ut -3 7
8 9/l.4/2016 ln-6/ Out ·8 14 9/14/2016 ln-4/0ut -3 7
9 9/15/2016 ln -5 / Out· 5 10 9/~/7016 ln -11/0ut -10 21
2 2 9/27/2016 ln -6/ Out -5 12 9/27/2016 In· 4/0ut-3 7
6 9/2.8/20"16 In· 7 / Out -8 15 9/28/2016 In· 3 / Out-2 s
18 9/29/2016 ln • 3 / Out-2 s 9/2.9/2016 In· 8/0ut-7 15
12 Avg Vehicle Trips 4pm • 6pm: 10 Avg Vehicle Trips 4pm -5 pm: 10
15
Heath & Associates, Inc.
2214 Tacoma Road
Puyallup, WA 98371
Project Name: Daffodil Storage -Federal Way
Intersection: Highland Hill Self Storage
Location: 6312 N. 9th Street, Tacoma 98406
Time
Southbound Westbound Northbound
Period OUTBOUND Road INBOUND
HV R T L HV R T L HV R T
4:00 PM 0 1
4:15 PM 3 2
4:3 0 PM 0 1
4:45 PM 2 0
5:00 PM 0 0
5:15 PM 0 1
5:30 PM 2 1
5:45 PM 0 2
Date of Count: 2/16/2017
Project Number: 3934
Eastbound
Road
l HV R T L
Total 0 I O I 1 I O I o I o I o I O I O I o I s I o I o I o I o I o I
Peak Hour 4:00 PM to
Peak Total I o I o I s
He avy Veh. _ 0.0%
PHF
D-
0 __J ~-t
5:00 PM
I O I O I O I O I o I
OUTBOUND
I 5 I
D D
.J t L. t
al sl 0
4:00 PM -5:00 PM
0 -0 -0
ol 4 1
t ' t
D D
I 4 I
INBO UND
16
o 4 1
0.0% , I
o L --lo 0 -
0 r 0
-D
0
t
Total
1
s
1
2
0
1
3
2
. .
Heath & Associates, Inc.
2214 Tacoma Road
Puyallup, WA 98371
Project Name: Daffodil Storage -Federal Way
Intersection: Money Saver Mini Storage Entrance
Location: 7900 Arab Dr SE, Tumwater 98501
Time
Southbound Westbound Northbo und
Period OUTBOUND Road INBOUND
HV R T L HV R T L HV R T
4 :00 PM 1 1
4:15 PM 0 1
4;30 PM 1 0
4:45 PM 2 3
5:00 PM 0 0
5:15 PM 2 0
5 :30 PM 1 1
5:4 5 PM 0 0
Date of Count: 2/15/2017
Project Nu mber: 3934
Eastbound
Ro ad
L HV R T L
Total o I o I 7 I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I 6 I o I o I o I o I o I
Peak Hour 4:00 PM to
Peak Total I o I o 4
Heavy Veh . . 0.0%
PHF
..J
D-
0 __J 0 -~--0 -t 0
o I o I s I
0.0%
OUTBOUND
I 4 I
D D • l+ t
ol 41 0
o I o I o I
o L --lo 0 -4:00 PM -5:00 PM 0 r 0
-o
ol sl 0
• ' t i
D D
I s I
INBOUND
17
Tota!
2
1
1
5
0
2
2
0
... ' . f"".-1·
CRITICAL AREAS REPORT
27818 PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH w ood Vft Btlt skv-tt-~ -tac; I,'
REV1SED JUNE 2017 u.P I<:; e() T!t-1)
~~o~ ~
'~
)~~, Soundview
-~, Consultants ,,
Environmental Assessment
Planning+ Land Use Solutions
..
CRITICAL AREAS REPORT
27818 PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH
r ·' ,. .. ., ... .... . ) \ .
-J
.
J ,I tt ' MAY8,2017 ,
REVISED JUNE 2';;20.17
•. 4 .. II, •
PROJECT LOCATION
27818 PACIFrC H\VY S
FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003
PREPARED FOR
WOODMONT STORAGE LLC
601 VALLEY A VE NE, SUITE A
PUYALLUP, \V.ASlflNGTON 98372
PREPAREDBY
SOUNDVlEW CONSULTANTS LLC
2907 HARBORVIEW DRIVE, SUITED
GIG HARBOR, WASHINGTON 98335
(253) 514-8952
. , . """ . f ..
)~' Soundview
~( Consultants ... ,
Environmental Assessment
Planning+ Land Use Solutions
Executive Summary
Soundview Consultants LLC (SVC) is supporting Woodmont Storage LLC (Applicant) with wetland
and fish and wildlife habitat assessments and critical areas compliance efforts for the proposed
development of a storage facility on an approximately 2.59-acre property located at 27818 Pacific
Highway South in Federal Way, Washington. The subject property consists of t\vo parcels situated in
the Southwest 1/4 of Section 33, Township 22 North, Range. 4 East, W.M. (King County Tax Parcel
Numbers 7204800164 and 7204800166).
SVC investigated the subject property for potentially-regulated wetlancfs, ~aterbodies, fish and wildlife
habitat, and/ or priority species on January 24 and 26, 2017, and March 10, 2017. Following preliminary
review by the City of Federal Way, SVC reconfirmed the initial findings during a follow-up site visit
with City of Federal Way and Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) staff on
June 1, 2017. Using current methodology, the site assessment efforts identified and delineated the
ordinary high water (OHW) mark of one unnamed stream (Stream Z) in the eastern portion of the
subject property.
Stream Z was classified by SVC as an intermittent, non-fish stream (Type Ns), as only minor surface
water flows were observed in January 2017 during periods of abnormally high precipitation.
Downstream of the subject property, Stream Z flows subsurface and lacks a defined channel for
several hundred linear feet. In addition, no flow was observed within Stream Z during the June 2017
visit, and WDFW staff stated that Stream Z would not be considered fish-bearing and does not
support fish habitat. However, the City considers Stream Z to be a "major" fish-bearing stream (Type
F) which is subject to a 100-foot buffer under Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19.145.270. Though
SVC maintains that Stream Z is a Type Ns water, Stream Z will be treated as a Type F stream with a
standard 100-foot buffer in order to proceed with the permitting process. No other critical areas were
identified within 225 feet of the subject property.
The project proposes to construct an approximately 20,864 square foot self-storage building, 22,589
square foot self-storage building, :and 1,080 square foot office with associated infrastructure and
improvements including utilities, landscaping, and parking are:as on Parcels 7204800164 and
7204800166. The proposed design includes careful site planning in order to avoid direct impacts to
Stream Z; however, installation of a 12-inch underground stormwater pipe and outfall within the
Stream Z buffer is proposed to provide needed stormwater conveyance. A buffer restoration and
enhancement is provided in Chapter 7 of this Report to restore the buffer impacts.
The summary table below identifies regulation by different agencies.
Stream ~ ~e Re~~det~C Re_gula"ied Vndel'
(9ruiit~). R€\V90.J8
StreamZ 195 ft. p1 Yes Likely
. . 1 Stream Z will be treated as Type F stream to e.,,::pedite the pernutnng process .
1519.0001 Woodmont Property
Critical Arca.~ Report
Regulatedt:Jn ~
Clea!i Water Aci
Potentially
Soundvicw Consultanrs LLC
Revised June 2, 2017
EXISTING CONDITIONS SITE Pl.AN
OCALI! l'•IIJ-lr
.. ·i .f ,;, I
... '
(
l ,• ,.
t· .;: ... ' . I .T( ·.
Site Map
lL E
~ :,
NOre -----------.~
ADOrTIOl<AI. OFF-S ITE" POIHTS OEUNC:,.llNG
OHWNOT DE.PtC'TB) DUE TO CHANGES IN
SVBJE<::T PRDPERTV 80llHOARIES.
H-' - -T•JE T .-.a , ·.·,• _ .....
....... -.:· ..... ,!.
EL
:' ·,;_"'.. _.,. . .... . ( .," •op 1 l'..U~!'.P I r. '/
OP3•
-~. . ,~·. -..... -_:.----_-·----.-·---,-~,------;_~ .. ---·---· ., ·r·----!---. -· ----·--..:·-· •' _.-_. --~ PROeERY)'!IQUNDARY ·.~
~~ . ..
..: .. .., :" J.·.c\l< fl ... '._·-t~l',,,·· . .,,( t' . I ,:~ .PP 2.
~ I
· l ' -· ,-I
.,.
r .. • 1: -;~: .. .~.: . . ... 1\1.1t~:_,.·1 t _ • • _. _ I
t r--i---;;:------------~--• . . l STREAMZ
,t
=>
0
In
1,:• ·~vPi!RTYIIOO liOARY • •, •• ,, -~ ------------::-•. • • ii . Z1 °;/ • •" • ; • '• ,-• .. : :------;:;:---, --!":-:.---r !-
).• VI (\_ T f" E -U:; I E - T E : t :
~ • t·• El 100'STR£M;1 8UFFER •
~ ~,-: ~· ( ..
~~::.! ::-::-,-
: i...-
~ !,,
l)lEQTYOf' F£DEAAI. WAYOOIISICERS ,m,,;AMZ ----'
TO SE A "MAJOR'-NG STllEMI (M'E F):
THOU<lfi SI/C CLASS1"1EO STREAM ZASA TVl'E 14
STREAM, GTRE.AM Z WIU. 8E ffl.EAlED AS A TYPe F PRELIMINARY
ST'Rl!AMWIT'H .. UIWOoY BUITI!R " ~ER TO INFORMATION ONL y
PAOCEEO WTTH T)U;: PERIM1TING PROCESS
NO'T 1'0:llCONS'I:RUC'I10N
I SI 9.0001 Woodmont Prop<:rty
Critic,I /ur;:,s Report ii
So,indvi<W Consu!WllS UC
Roviscd June 2, 2017
Table of Contents
Chapter 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
Chapter 2. Proposed Project ....................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Location ........................................................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Project Description ........................................................................................................................ 3
Chapter 3. Methods .................................................................................................................... 4
Chapter 4. Background Information ........................................................................................... 5
4.1 Existing Site Conditions ............................................................................................................... 5
4.2 Soils .................................................................................................................................................. 5
4.3 Vegetation ....................................................................................................................................... 6
4.4 Local and National Wetland Inventories .................................................................................... 6
4.5 Priority Habitats and Species ....................................................................................................... 6
4.6 Precipitation .................................................................................................................................... 6
Chapter 5. Results ....................................................................................................................... 8
5.1 Drainages ......................................................................................................................................... 8
5.2 Wetlands .......................................................................................................................................... 9
Chapter 6. Regulatory Considerations ....................................................................................... 10
6.1 Local Regulations ......................................................................................................................... 1 O
6.2 State and Federal Considerations .............................................................................................. 11
Chapter 7. Buffer Restoration and Enhancement Plan .............................................................. 13
7.1 Purpose and Need ....................................................................................................................... 13
7.2 Description of Impacts and Restoration Strategy ................................................................... 13
7.3 Approach and Best Management Practices .............................................................................. 14
7.4 Enhancement Actions ................................................................................................................. 14
7.5 Plant Materials and Installation .................................................................................................. 15
7.6 Monitoring Requirements ........................................................................................................... 17
Chapter 8. References ................................................................................................................ 18
Figures
Figure 1. Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................. 2
Figure 2. King County Parcel Map .............................................................................................. 5
Tables
Table 1. Precipitation Summary1 .................................................................................................. 6
Table 2. Stream Z Sunun.ary ........................................................................................................ 8
Appendices
Appendix A -Methods and Tools
Appendix B -Background Information
Appendix C -Site Plans
Appendix D -Site Photographs
Appendix E -Data Forms
Appendix F -Qualifications
1519.000 I Woodmont Propecty
Critical Areas Report iii
Soundvicw Consultants LLC
Revised June 2, 2017
Chapter 1. Introduction
Soundview Consultants ILC (SVC) is supporting Woodmont Storage LLC (Applicant) with wetland
and fish and \vildlife habitat assessments and critical areas compliance efforts for the proposed
development of a storage facility on an approximately 2.59-acre property located at 27818 Pacific
Highway South in Federal Way, Washington. The subject property consists of two parcels situated in
the Southwest 1/4 of Section 33, Township 22 North, Range 4 East, W.M. (King County Tax Parcel
Numbers 7204800164 and 7204800166).
The purpose of this Critical Areas Report is to identify the presence of potentially-regulated wetlands,
waterbodies, fish and wildlife habitat, and/ or priority species that may be found on or near the subject
property; assess potential impacts to any such critical areas and/ or species from the proposed project;
and provide impact avoidance and management recommendations.
This report will be used to obtain the following approvals:
• City of Federal Way Use Process III Application Review
This report provides conclusions and recommendations regarding:
• Site description, project description, and area of assessment;
• Identification, delineation, and assessment of potentially-regulated wetlands and other
hydtologic features within the vicinity of the proposed project;
• Identification and assessment of potentially regulated fish and wildlife habitat and/ or priority
species located on or near the subject property;
• Standard buffer recommendations, building setbacks, and development limitations;
• Existing site map detailing identified critical areas and standard buffers;
• Proposed site plan with proposed project details;
• Documentation of impact avoidance and minimization measures;
• Description of temporary impacts and proposed restoration actions; and
• Supplemental information necessary for local regulatory review.
1519.0001 Woodmont Property
Critical Areas Report
Soundview Consultants LLC
Revised June 2, 20 t 7
Chapter 2. Proposed Project
2.1 Location
The proposed project is located at 27818 Paci.fie Highway South in Federal Way, Washington. The
subject property consists of two parcels situated in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 33, Township 22
North, Range 4 East, W.M. (King County Tax Parcel Numbers 7204800164 and 7204800166).
To access the site from Inte.rstate-5 North, take exit 147 for S 272nd St. Keep right at the fork and
continue onto S z72nd St. fo.r 0.2 miles. Tum right onto Military Rd. S. Continue for 1.1 miles and
turn right onto S 2881
" St. Continue on S 288m St. for 0.5 miles and tum right onto Pacific Highway
S. The subject property will be on the right-hand side after 0.6 miles.
,, I,
//;P
March 16. 21117
~ng Paroels_Queiy Resutt
1519.0001 Woodmont Property
Critical Areas Report
. ...
2
I i· __ _.. __ a---
"°, ~
'
<-.,.
\. \ {
1 \
I
1
\
t
1:18,056 a a.,s a.:,
a a.175 us a.7 .,,,
Soundview Consultants J .LC
Revised June 2, 2017
2.2 Project Description
The project proposes to construct an approximately 20,864 square foot self-storage building, 22,589
square foot self-storage building, and 1,080 square foot office with associated infrastructure and
improvements including utilities, landscaping, and parking areas on Parcels 7204800164 and
7204800166. The proposed design includes careful site planning in order to avoid direct impacts to
Stream Z; however, installation of a 12-inch underground stormwater pipe and outfall mthin the
Stream Z buffer is proposed to provide needed stormwater conveyance. A buffer restoration and
enhancement is provided in Chapter 7 of this Report to restore the buffer impacts.
151 !J.0001 Woodmont Property
Critical Areas Report 3
Soundview Consultants LLC
Re,~scd June 2, 2017
Chapter 3. Methods
SVC investigated, assessed, and delineated wetlands, warerboclies, and other potentially-regulated fish
and wildlife habitat within the subject ptoperty and identified potentially-regulated features within 225
feet of the subject property on January 24 and 26, 2017, and March 10, 2017. Following preliminary
review by the City of Federal Way, SVC .reconfirmed tbe initial findings during a follow-up site visit
with City of Fede.cal Way and Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) staff on
June 1, 2017. All wetland and ordinary high water (OHW) mark determinations were made using
observable vegetation, hydrology, and soils in conjunction with data from the U.S. Geographic Survey
(USGS) topographic map, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey, National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Washington Department of
Natural Resources (DNR), WDFW, City of F ederal Way Geographic Information System (GIS) data,
King County GIS data, local precipitation data (NOAA), and various orthophotographic resources.
Appendix A contains further details for the methods and tools used to prepare this report.
Wetland presence/absence was determined using the routine approach described in the U.S. Army
Corps of E ngineers (USACE) W etlands Deli11ealio11 Ma1111al (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) and
modified according to the guidelines established in the Regional S1pple111enl I() the Co,ps of E11gi11eers
lVetla11d Delineation Ma11lfal: IP"estem Mou11lai11s, Valleys, and Coast Regio11 (Version 2.0) (USACE, 2010).
Pink surveyor's flagging was labeled alpha-numerically and tied to 3-foot lath or vegetation at formal
sampling locations to mark the points where detailed data was collected (DP1-DP3). Additional tests
pits were excavated throughout tbe subject property to further confirm wetland absence.
OHW mark determinations were made using Washington State Department of Ecology's (WSDOE's)
method as detailed in Dctcr7Jli11ing the Ordi11ary High liV a/er Mark far S horeli11e Ma11agc1JJc11t Act Compliance in
lVoshi11gto11 State (A nderson et. al., 2016) and the definitions established in the Shoreline Management
Act (Revised Code of Washington [R.C\W] 90.58.030(2)(b) and WAC 173-22-030(11). To mark the
centerline or banks of potentially-regulated streams, blue surveyor's flagging was alpha-numerically
labeled and tied to vegetation.
The fish and wildlife habitat assessment was conducted during the same site visits by qualified fish
and wildlife biologists. Experienced biologists made visual observations using stationary and walking
survey methods for both aquatic and upland habitats noting any special habitat features or signs of
fish and wildlife activity.
1519.0001 Woodmont Pcoperty
Critical Areas Report 4
Soundvi~w Consultants LLC
Revised June 2, 2017
Chapter 4. Background Information
4.1 E xis ting Site Conditions
The subject property is located in an urban-residential setting in Federal Way, Washington. The
western half of Parcels 7204800164 and 7204800166 consists of undeveloped, cleared land that is used
for overflow parking by adjacent automotive sales businesses. The eastern half of Parcels 7204800164
and 7204800166 are undeveloped and forested with a mixed deciduous-conifer canopy. Topography
on the site generally slopes downward from west to east (Appendix B1). The subject property abuts
Pacific Highway South to the west, an automotive sales business and forested areas to the north,
single-family residences to the easr, and multi-family apartment complexes and a commercial business
(Kim's Auto Service and Sales) to the south.
Fig u re 2. Kin g Co unty Parcel Map .
Mardl 16, 2017 1'.2,257
0 08175 OUJS 007c,i
King Parcels_ Oueiy Ri!sult
O 002 ~°' 0(16 1w111
4.2 Soils
The NRCS Soil Survey of King County identified one soil series on the subject property: Alderwood
gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes.
Alde rwo od Gravelly Sandy Lo am, 6 to 15 pe rcen t s lo pes (AgC)
According to the survey, Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes, is rolling with
moderately r'llpid permeability in the surface layer and subsoil. In a typical profile, the surface layer to
151 9.0001 Woodmont Propeny
Critical Area. Rcpon 5
Sowtd,-iew ( :onsultRn ls LI .C
Revised June 2, 2017
approximately 2 inches is very dark brown gravelly sandy loam, dark grayish brown with dry, fine
granular structure. The subsoil to a depth of 12 inches is dark brown gravelly sandy loam and slightly
hard. The substratum to a depth of27 inches is grayish brown gravelly sandy loam and light gray with
many distinct mottles of light olive brown. AJderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes, is
listed as non-hydric on the King County Hydric Soils List (NRCS, 2001).
4.3 Vegetation
'lhe cleared western half of Parcels 7204800164 and 7204800166 is largely devoid of vegetation.
Vegetation on the remainder of the subject property is dominated by a canopy of red alder (Aln11s
mbra), black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera), big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), and Douglas fir
(Pseu dos/l(ga menziesit) ""i.th an understory of sword fem (J?o!Jstich um munitum), salmonberry (Rubus
spectabilis), and non-native invasive Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus). Other invasive species
observed onsite include English ivy (Hedera helix), English holly (!lex aquifalium), and English laurel
(Pnmus laurocerasus).
4.4 Local and National Wetland Inventories
The City of Federal Way Critical Areas map identifies a potential Category II wetland to the south of
the subject property that extends onto the far eastern portion of the subject property (Appendix I34).
The King County Sensitive Areas map (Appendix B3) and USFWS NWI map (Appendix BS) do not
identify any other wetlands on or within 225 feet of the subject property.
4.5 Priority Habitats and Species
WDFW PHS and Sal.monScape maps and data do not identify any priority fish or wildlife species or
habitat in the vicinity of the project area. No other priority habitats and/ or species presence arc
identified near the subject property.
4.6 Precipitation
Precipitation data was obtained from NOAA for SeaTac International Airport in order to obtain
percent of normal precipitation during and preceding the investigation. A summary of data collected
is provided in Table 1.
Table 1. Precipitation Summary1
Day Day 1Week 2Weeks Month to Date Year to Date Percent of
Date Normal of Before Prior Prior (Obscrvcd/Nonnal)2 (Obscrved/N ormal)2 (Month/Year)'
1/24/17 0.0 0.0 3.17 3.24 4.17 /4.45 24.57/19.85 94/124
1/26/17 0.0 0.0 0.22 3.17 4.17/4.94 24.57/20.18 84/122 ..
1. l'rec1puanon rnlwnc pro vided an me.hes. Da1,1 obta1ncd from :--:OAA (h ttp://www.,V<.'3.cbcr.gov/chmatc./,ndc~.php?wfo=scw) and Weather
llnclcrgn,und (hn~r /(www wun<l gcgn,u nd.cn m/hj~wcyi) for SeaTac Airport.
2 . Month-to·dace and year-to-date precipitation shown is from rhc fi,:,;t of chc month to the date of the site vi,ir, and from October 1" co the
date of che site ,·isit.
Precipitation was at greater than 120 percent of normal for the water year during site inspection and
wetland delineation efforts on .January 24 and 26, 2017. This precipitation data suggests that
significantly high precipitation for the water year may have caused some areas not normally wet to
1519.0001 Woodmont !'(opcrty
Cricical Areas Report
Sountlvicw Consultants LLC
Rcvisctl June 2, 2017
become saturated and/ or inundated at the time of the she investigations. Such conditions were
considered in making professional wetland and stream typing determinations.
1519.0001 Woodmont Property
Critical J\reas Report 7
Soundview Consultants LLC
Revised June 2, 2017
Chapter 5. Results
5.1 Drainages
5.1.1 Stream Z
Using current methodology, the site assessment efforts identified and delineated the OHW mark of
one unnamed stream (Stream Z) on the far eastern portion of the subject property. Stream Z flows
from south to north for approximately 195 feet on the subject property and then flows offsite to the
northeast. H ydrology for Stream Z is partially provided by stoonwater conveyance from the south-
adjacent development. Stream Z is located within the Green-Duwamish Watershed (WRIA 9). A
summary of Stream Z is provided in Table 2 below.
Stream Z is most likely an intennittent, non-fish stream (fype Ns), as only minor surface water flows
were observed during the height of the rainy season, where precipitation for the water year was greater
than 120 perent of normal. Io addition, downstream portions of Stream Z exhibit subsurface flows
for several hundred consecutive feet, with no defined channel. Also, no fiow was observed within
Stream Z during the June 201 7 visit, and WDFW stated that Stream Z would not be considered fish-
bearing and does not support fish habitat . .However, the City of Federal Way (the City) considers
Stream Z to be a ''major" fish-bearing s tream (Type F) which is subject to a 100-foot buffer under
Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19.145.270. It is noted that Stream Z is not identifed by the DNR
Water Typing Map (Appendix B8), and no fish presence is documented by the WDFW PHS or
SalmonScape mapping tools (Appendix B6 and B7). 111ougb SVC maintains that Stream Z is a Type
Ns water, Stream Z will be treated as a Type F stream with a standard 100-foot buffer in order to
proceed with the permitting process.
Table 2. Stream Z Summacy.
Location of Feature
Connectivity (where
water fl ows from/to)
D ocumented Fish
Species
1519.0001 \Voodmon1 Property
Cntical Ar~< Report
STREAM Z INFORMATION SUMMARY
F eature Name
WR.IA
Local Jurisdictio n
DNR Stream Type
Local Stream Rating
Buffer Width
Docume nted Fish
Use
StreamZ
9 -Duwamisb-Greeo
City of Federal Way
NI A
100 feet
No
Stream Z parallels the eastern subject property boundary.
Scream Z originates upstream (south) of the subject property and then flows
north along the eastern border of the subject property before flowing northeast
offsite. D ownstream portions of Stream Z exhibit subsurface flows for several
hundred consecutive feet, with no defined channel
None.
8
Souockicw Consuh2n1S LLC
Revis-ed June 2, 2017
Rip arian /Buffer
Condi tio n
5.1.2 Stceam Buffer
Vegetation within the onsite buffer of Stream Z includes red alder (Alma rubro),
black cottonwood (Pop11h1I balsm11if61¥1), big leaf maple (Aar 111ampf?yl/11m), and
Douglas fir (Pie11doit11ga me~uit) with au undersrory of sword fem (Po!J1Ilkh11))J
m11nitlfm), salmonberry (Rnb11I pectabi/iJ), and Himalapn blackberry (RJ1b111
an11eniacra)
To e.xpedite the permitting process, Stream Z will be treated per City mapping as a Type F stream
which would require a standard 100-foo t buffer. In addition, buildings and other structures require a
5-foot buffer setback from the stream buffer edge (FWRC 19.145.160). The 5-foot setback is currently
undeveloped and is vegetated similar to the buffer (see Table 2 above).
5.2 Wetlands
No potentially-regulated wetlands were identified on the subject property or within 225 of the site.
The three typical data plots (DP-1, DP-2, and DP-3) confirm the lack of onsice wetland presence. The
data plot locations are illustrated on site plan in Appendix C, site photographs are presented in
Appendix D, and completed data forms are provided in Appendix E.
The City of Federal Way Critical Areas map erroneously identifies a potential wetland to the south of
the subject property that e.,"tends onto the far eastern portion of the subject property along Stream Z
(A ppendix B4). This mapped wetland area is also discussed in the pre-application meeting summary
(Federal Way, 2017); however, the field investigations determined that no such wetlands are present
on or within 225 feet of the subject property due to a lack of hydrophytic vegetation, hydcic soils,
and/ or wetland hydrology. Upland vegetation and dry soil conditions are clearly present south of the
site and landward of the OHW mark of Stream z.
1519.0001 Woodmont P,opcrty
Ccitial Aceas Report 9
Sound,·icw Consultants J ,LC
Revised June 2, 2017
Chapter 6. Regulatory Considerations
The proposed project attempts to strike a balance between achieving the project needs and protection
of stream functio n s within the confines of the site. All proposed development is located entirely
outside of all critical areas, and buffer impacts are limited to installation of a 12-inch underground
stormwater pipe and outfall within the Stream Z b uffer to provide needed stormwater conveyance.
The following discussion addresses regulatory considerations and specific actions taken to fulfill
regulatory requirements regarding sensitive area impacrs and associated non-compensatory mitigation
actions to restore the minor, temporary impacts.
6.1 Local Regulations
The proposed project is designed to meet the City's critical areas protections as outlined in FWRC
19.145.
Stream Buffer Require ments
To expedite the permitting process, Stream Z will be treated p er City mapping as a Type F stream
which would require a standard 100 -foot buffer. In addition, buildings and other structures require a
5-foot buffer setback from the stream buffer edg e (FWRC 19.14 5.16 0).
Utilitv Installation Within Stream Buffer
The proposed p rojec t includes inst all ation o f a 12-inch underground st ormwater pipe through the
Stream Z buffer. The polyethylene stonnwater pipe will co nnect t o a dispersion trench located at an
elevation of approximatdy 328 feet, landward of the OHW mark of Stream z. Stonmvater detention
and treatment will o ccur ou tside of the buffer area. The stonnwater pipe installation will necessitate
limited clearing and grading activities per the requirements of F\.VR.C 19.145.340. Utility installation
within the Stream Z buffer is allowed under FWRC 19.145.330 (Intrusions Into Stream Buffers)
provided that a buffer enhancement plan is prepared to restore the temporary impacts (see Cbapter 7
of this Report) and that the follo·wing criteria are met
(a) It will not adverse!J affect water (Jllali.ry;
The Buffer Restoration and Enhancement Plan provided in Chapter 7 of this Report outlines the
temporary erosion and sediment control (IESC) measures and appropriate construction best
managemen t practices (BMPs) t h at are proposed to minimize potential water quality impacts to Stream
Z. In addition, to maintain stream hydrology, treated storm.water runoff will provide hydrology for
the onsite Stream Zand its associated buffer. No in-water work is proposed, and no adverse impacts
to water quality are anticipated.
(b) It will not adverse!J affect the existi11g qua/iry of wildlife habitat withi11 the stream or buffer arta;
The existing Stream Z buffer provides low habitat functions due to its proximity to surrounding
residential and commercial development and roads, and the prevalence of invasive vegetation (e.g.,
Himalayan blackberry). The buffer restoration and enhancement plan includes the removal of invasive
vegetation and the replanting with a diverse assemblage of native plants along the p roposed
stoonwater pipe corridor. These remediation actions will provide an increase in plant diversity and
establish an overall net gain in buffer functionality, allowing for improvement over existing s tream
1519.0001 Woodmont Property
Cririca1 Areas Report lO
Sou.nd\'iew Consuluuus U.C
~,-isedJunc 2, 2017
buffer habitat conditions. No adverse impacts to the quality of wildlife habitat within Stream Z ot its
buffet are anticipated.
(c) It wiU not advme!J afftct drainage or stormwater retention capabilities;
The existing, moderately slopes Stream Z buffer provides low stormwater retention capabilities.
Installation of the 12-inch stormwater pipe and dispersion trench within the Stream Z buffer will not
affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities within the buffer.
(d) It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosio11 hazards;
The Stream Z buffer currently contains sufficient upland vegetation to not pose erosion concerns.
Through adherence to the TESC measures and BMPs outlined in Chapter 7 of thi s report, including
the use of silt fencing between the graded areas and undisturbed buffer, inscalling plastic sheeting on
stockpiled materials, and seeding of disturbed soils, the buffer utility work is not expected to cause
unstable earth conditions of create erosion hazards.
(e) It will not be matmal!J detrimental to t11fY other property in the area of the s111:?Ject prope~ nor to the city
as a whole; and
The stormwater pipe and dispersion trench will convey treated stormwater to the Stream Z buffer.
1bis work and new outfall will not be materially detrimental to the City o r any othe.t property. ..
(I) It is necessary far reasonable development of the subject prope,ty.
The utility work within the Stream Z buffer is needed to provide conveyance of stormwate.r generated
from the proposed storage facilities. No other feasible alternative for stormwater conveyance has been
identified.
6.2 State and Federal Considerations
In a December 2, 2008, memorandum from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
USACE, joint guidance is provided that describes waters that are to be regulated under section 404 of
the CWA (USACE, 2010). 'This memorandum was amended on February 2, 2012 where the EPA and
USA CE issued a fir,al guidance letter o n waters protected by the CW A.
The 2012 guidance describes the following waters where jurisdiction would be asserted: 1) traditional
navigable waters, 2) interstate waters, 3) wetlands adjacent to traditional navigable waters, 4) non-
navigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent meaning they contain
water at least seasonally (e .g. typically three months and do~ not include ephemeral waters), and 5)
wetlands that directly abut permanent waters. The regulated waters are those asscciated with naturally
occurring waters and water courses and not artificial waters (i.e. stormwater pond outfalls). The 2012
memorandum further goes oo to describe waters where jurisdiction would likely require further
analysis: 1) Tributaries to traditional navigable waters or interstate waters, 2) Wetlands adjacent to
jurisdictional tributaries to traditional navigable waters or interstate waters, and 3) Waters that fall
under the "other waters" category of the regulations.
1519.000 I Woodmont Property
Critical Atcas Report 11
Soundview Consultanl!I Ll .C
Revised Jun e 2, 20 17
In addition, the 2012 guidance identifies thirteen waters or areas where jurisdiction will not be asserted:
1) Wet areas that are not tributaries or open waters and do nor meet the agencies regulatory definition
of "wetlands," 2) Waters excluded from coverage under the CWA by existing regulations, 3) Waters
that lack a "significant nexus: where one is required for a water to be jurisdictional, 4) Artificially
irrigated areas that would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased, 5) Artificial lakes or ponds created
by excavating and/ or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for
such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing, 6) Artificial reflecting pools
or swimming pools excavated in uplands, 7) Small ornamental waters created by excavating and/ or
diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons, and puddles, 8) Water-filled depressions
created incidental to construction activity, 9) Groundwater, including groundwater drained through
subsurface drainage systems, 10) Erosional features (gullies and rills), 11) Non-wetland swales, 12)
Ditches that are excavated wholly in uplands, drain only uplands or non-jurisdictional waters, and have
no more than ephemeral flow, and 13) Ditches that do not contribute flow, either directly or through
other waterbodies, to a traditional navigable water, interstate water, or territorial sea.
The onsite Stream Z bas a potential subsurface connection to waters of the United States; therefore,
this feature is potentially regulated under Section 404 of the CW A. The WSDOE also regulates natural
surface waters under RCW 90.48. However, as no direct impacts to Stream Z are proposed, permitting
under USACE and WSDOE would not be required.
During the joint agency site visit on June 1, 2017, Larry Fisher, Habitat Biologist with WDFW, stated
that the proposed project does not require a Hydraulic Proj ect Approval (HPA).
1 519.0001 Woodmoot Property
Critical Ate2s Report 12
Soundview Consult.lots LLC
Revised June 2, 2017
Chapter 7. Buffer Restoration and Enhancement Plan
The following sections present the proposed buffer restoration and enhancement plan to address the
minor temporary impacts associated with installation of the stormwarer pipe and dispersion trench .
The proposed restoration and enhancement actions attempt to closely adhere to FWRC 19.145
(Environmentally Critical Areas). The proposed buffer restoration and enhancement plan is descn'bed
below.
7.1 Purpose and Need
The purpose of the project is to provide heated storage capacity within the City of Federal Way
consistent with zoning and to meet the growing needs for such storage facilities in the Federal Way
area. The proposed project includes construction one 22,589 square foot self-storage building, one
20,864 square foot s elf-storage building, and one 1,080 square foot office with associated
infrastructure and improvements.
7 .2 Description of Impacts and Restoration Strategy
The proposed design includes careful site planning in order to avoid direct impacts to Stream Z;
however, installation of a 12-inch underground scormwater pipe and outfall within the Stream Z buffer
is needed to provide needed stonnwater conveyance. All other buffer impacts are avoided, including
re-locating all proposed buildings outside of the 100-foor buffer that the City is requiring to protect
Stream Z, despite compelling evidence that Stream Z is an intermittent, non-fish stream. The project
therefore proposes buffer restoration and enhancement actions as required under F\'<IRC 19.145.330
to remediate the temporary buffer impacts. The buffer impacts will be offset by res toring and
enhancing approximately 1,767 square feet of buffer area along the proposed stormwacer pipe corridor
using the plant pallet provided in Tables 3 and 4 in order co protect stream functions and values. As
Stream Z buffer is compromised by exis ting anthropogenic impacts and contains a significant
Himalayan blackberry population, the proposed restoration and enhancement actions are anticipated
to improve buffer protections and internal stream functions by providing an increase in plant diversity
and establishing an overall net gain in buffer functionality, allowing for improvement over existing
stream buffer conditions. In addition, to maintain stream hydrology, treated stormwater runoff will
provide hydrology for the onsite Stream Z and its associated buffer.
The project will require minor grading and clearing along the proposed stormwater pipe corridor
followed by restoration with native plants, which will result in temporary impacts to the buffers. An
approximately 10-foot wide corridor is planned to allow movement of needed construction
equipment. To minimize buffer impacts, a mini-excavator will be used to install the underground pipe.
The proposed buffer restoration and enhancement plan includes restoration of the approximately 10-
foot wide corridor through the stream buffer and enhancement of an additional 5 feet on either side
of the proposed corridor as necessary. A selection of native plants will be installed along the corridor
to increase plant density and diversity. Proposed buffer restoration measures include removing trash
and non-native invasive plant species from the stream buffer as necessary. Any areas disturbed by
invasive plant or trash removal should be replanted with the native vegetation listed in Tables 3 and
4. Tb.is plan only proposes restoration aod enhancement actions within the buffer. No activities are
proposed that will directly impact the onsite Stream z.
1519.0001 Woodmont l'ropecty
Cntical !=as. Rcpoct 13
Souodnew Cons:ultanrs UC
Uc,·~d June 2. 2017
Careful planning and targeted implementation of the buffer restoration and enhancement actions will
help ensure no negative impacts to Stream z. Restoration of areas graded and temporarily impacted
b y utility installation, and implementation of effective enhancement measures will also help ensure
thllt water quality and habitat functions will be improved from its current state. As the proposed
actions will increase overall buffer quality and functions, a net gain in stream protection is proposed.
7 .3 Approach and Best Management Practices
The proposed restoration and enhwcement plan is intended to provide increased stream protections
by maintenance or improvement of stream buffer functions. Impacts to the stream buffer are being
minimized through careful planning efforts and project design. Restoration of disturbed areas within
the buffers should occur immediately after grading or utility installation is complete. The enhancement
actions should occur concurrently or immediately following the stormwater utility work. TESC
measures will be implemented that consist of high-visibility fencing (HVF) installed around native
vegetation along the stormwater pipe corridor, silt fencing between the graded areas and undisturbed
buffer, plastic sheeting on stockpiled materials, an d seeding of disturbed soils. These 1ESC measures
should be installed prior to the start of development, restoration, or enhancement actions and actively
managed for the duration of the project.
All equipment staging and materials stockpiles should be kept out of the buffer, and the area will need
to be kept free of spills and/ or hazardous materials. Any fill material should be sourced from upland
areas onsite or from approved suppliers, and will need to be free of pollutants and hazardous materials.
Construction materials along with all construction waste and debris should be effectively managed
and stockpiled on paved surfaces and kept free of the remaining buffer area . Following completion
of the storage facilities, the entire site should be cleaned and detail graded using hand tools wherever
necessary, and TESC measures will need to be removed. In addition, permanent stormwater treatment
features will need to be implemented as designed by the project engineer.
7.4 Enhancement Actions
Enhancement actions for the stream buffer includes, but may not be limited to, the following
recommendations:
• Prior to all planned restoration and enhancement actions, pre-treat invasive plants with a
Washington Department of Agriculture approved herbicide. After pre-treatment, grub to
remove the invasive plants and replant all cleared areas with native trees and shrubs listed
in Table 3. Pre-treatment of the invasive plants should occur a minimum of two weeks prior
to removal.
• Restore approximately 928 square feet of temporary impacts along the proposed stormwater
line.
• Enhance up to S feet on either side of the proposed storm water pipe corridor (839 square
feet), as needed .
• Remove any trash from the buffer.
• Spot treatment of any surviving other invasive vegetation should be performed again each
fall prior to leaf senescence for a minimum of 3 years. An approved native seed mix will be
used to seed disturbed areas after planting;
1519.0001 Woodmo nt P,:opert}'
Critical A rcas Repcct 14
Sound,'ic\v Consulun~ !,LC
Revised June 2, 2017
• Maintain and control invasive plants annually, at a nurumum, or more frequently if
necessary. Maintenance to reduce the growth and spread of invasive plants is not restricted
to chemical applications but may include hand removal, if wan:anted; and
• Provide dry-season .irrigation as necessary to ensure native plant survival .
7.5 Plant Materials and Installation
7.5 .1 Plant Materials
All plant materials to be used for restoration and enhancement actions will be nursery grown stock
from a reputable, local source. Only native species are to be used; no hybrids or cultivars will be
allowed. Plant material provided will be typical of their species or variety; if not cuttings they will
exhibit normal, densely-developed branches and vigorous, fibrous root s ystems. Plants will be sound,
healthy, vigorous plants free from defects, and all forms o f disease and infestation.
Container stock shall have been grown in its delivery container for not less than si.x months but nor
more than two years. Plants shall not exhibit rootbound conditions. Under n o circumstances shall
container stock be handled by their trunks, stems, or tops. Seed mixture used for hand or
h ydroseeding shall contain fresh , clean, and new crop seed mi.xed by an approved method. The
mi.xture is specified in Table 16.
All plant material shall be inspected by a qualified Biologist upon delivery. Plant material not
conforming to the specifications below will be rejected and replaced by the planting contractor.
Rejected plant materials shall be immediately removed from the site.
Fertilizer will be in the form of Agroform plant tabs or an approved like form. Mulch will consist of
sterile wheat straw o r clean recycled wood chips approximately 1/2 inch to 1 inch in size and 1/2 inch
thick. If free of invasive plant species, the mulch material may be sourced from woody materials
salvaged from the land clearing activities.
7.5.2 Plant Scheduling, Species, Size, and Spacing
Plant installation should occur as close to conclusion of clearing and grading activities as possible to
limit erosion and limit the temporal loss of function provided b y the stream and buffer. All planting
should occur between September 1 and May 1 to ensure plants do not dry out after installation, or
temporary irrigation measures may be necessary. All planting "vill be installed according to the
procedures detailed in the following subsections using the species and quantities/densities outlined in
Tables 3 and 4 below.
Table 3. Buffer Plant Species.
Species Namet Co mmon Name
Aar arr:inatum Vine maple
.AllJela"chier a!nifo!ia Western serviceberq
Mahonia aquifoliun, Tall Oregon grape
Ro1a nutkana Nootkarose
F.tw piiocarpa Baldhip rose
1. N2u,·e plant s ~c,ct may be subs11tu1cd or added ,mh n,o logm app ro,"21.
2. Quantities estimated. Fin.! qU211tit1cs subject to as-b uilt site requin:mcnts.
1519.0001 Woodmon t Property
Critical Areas Re port 15
Size
1 gallon
1 gallon
1 gallon
1 gallon
1 gallon
Quantity2
12
16
18
12
12
Sound,icw Consul!-nis T.LC
Rc~.ised June 2. 2017
Table 4. Buffer Seed Mix. -Species Name Common Name Percentage (bv volume}
EhwJHs ~ln11a1s Blue wildn·e 15 percent
Festuca idahoensis Idaho fescue 15 percent
Fut"ca mbra Red fescue 15 percent
BrotJJ11s cr.miJot11s California brome 15 percent
Libi1111s tx,lvPhvl/111 Large leaf lupine 20 percent
H orde,1111 brachranthemm Meadow barley 20 percent
7.5.3 Quality Control for Planting Plan
All plant material shall be inspected by a qualified Biologist upon delivery. Plant material not
confoaning to the specifications above will be rejected and replaced by the planting contractor.
Rejected plant materials shall be immediately removed from the site. Under no circumstances shall
container stock be handled by their trunks, stems, or tops.
The landscape contractor shall provide the responsible Biologist with documentation of plant material
that includes the supplying nursery contact information, plant species, plant quantities, and plant sizes.
7.5.4Product Handling, Delivery, and Storage
All seed and fertilizer should be delivered in original, unopened, and undamaged containers showing
weigh t, analysis, and name of manufacturer. This material should be stored in a manner to prevent
wetting and deterioration. All precautions customary in good trade practice shall be taken in preparing
plants for moving. Workmanship that fails to meet industry standards will be rejected. Plants will be
packed, transported, and handled with care to ensure protection against injury and from drying out.
If plants cannot be planted immediately upon delivery they should be protected with soil, wet peat
moss, or in a manner acceptable to the responsible Biologist Plants, fertilizer, and mulch not installed
immediately upon delivery shall be secured on the site to prevent theft or tampering. No plant shall
be bound ,.vitb rope or wire in a manner that could damage or break the branches. Plants transported
on open vehicles should be secured with a protective covering to prevent windburn.
7.5.5 Pre pa.ration and Installation of Plant Materials
The planting contractor shall verify the location of all elements of the restoration and enhancement
plan with the responsible Biologist prior to installation. The responsible Biologist reserves the right
to adjust the locations of landscape elements during the installation period as appropriate. If
obstructions are encountered that are not shown on the drawings, planting operations will cease until
alternate plant locations have been selected by and/or approved by the Biologist.
Circular plant pits with vertical sides will be excavated for all container stock. The pits should be at
least 12 inches in diameter, and the depth of the pit should accommodate the entire root system. The
bottom of each pit will be scarified to a depth of 4 inches.
Broken roots should be pruned with a sharp instrument and rootballs should be thoroughly soaked
prior to installation. Set plant material upright in the planting pit to proper grade and alignment.
Water plants thoroughly midway through backfilling and add Agroform tablets . Water pits again upon
completion of backfilling. No filling should occur around trunks or stems. Do not use frozen or
muddy mixtures for backfilling. Form a ring of soil around the edge of each planting pit to retain
water, and install a 4 to 6 inch layer of mulch around the base of each container plant.
1519.0001 Woodmont Property
Critical area.; Repo<t 16
Souodview Consultants LLC
Revised June 2. 2017
7.5.6 Temporat:y Irrigation Specifications
While the native species selected for restoration and enhancement actiom; are hardy and typically
thrive in northwest conditions and the proposed actions are planned in areas with sufficient
bydroper:iods for the species selected, some individual plants might perish due to dry conditions.
Therefore, irrigation or regular watering ma y be provided as necessary for the duration of the first 2
growing seasons while the native plantings become established. If used, irrigation will be discontinued
after 2 growing seasons.
7.5. 7 Invasive Plant Control and Removal
Invasive species to be removed include Himalayan blackberry, English ivy, and any listed noxious
weeds. These species can also b e found nearby; therefore, to ensure these species do not expand
following the restoration and enhancement actions, invasive shrubs within the enhancement area will
be pretreated with a root-killing herbicide approved for use in aquatic sites (e .g., Rodeo) a minimum
of two weeks prior to being removed from the stream buffer. The p re-treatment with herbicide should
occur prior to all planned restoration and enhancement actions, and spot treatment of any surviving
other invasive vegetation should be performed again each fall prior to leaf senescence for a minimum
of 3 years.
7 .6 Monitoring Requirements
The Applicant is committed to compliance per approved plans as well as achieving and maintaining
overall success of the project. As such, the Applicant will continue to maintain the project, keeping
the site free of non-native invasive vegetation, trash, and yard waste.
According to FWRC 19.145.140.8, formal monitoring is only required for compensat0ry mitigation
projects. Thus, formal monitoring is not proposed for this non -compensatory buffer restoration and
enhancement project. Similarly, financial guarantees (FWRC 19.145.140.10) would also not be
required.
1519.000 1 Woodmon t Prop erty
Critical Area., Rcf>Ort 17
Soundview C onsuliants Ll,C
Re vised June 2, 2017
. ' \
Chapter 8 . References
Anderson, P .S., S. Meyer, P. Olson, and E. Stockdale , 2016. Deler1J1i11ing the Ordinary High Water Mork
for Shoreline Mo noge111ent Act Compliance in Washi11gto11 S tote. Publication No. 16-06-029. Final Review
Draft. Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, Washingto n Stat e Department of
Ecology. O lympia , Washington.
Co oke, S.S., 1997. Wetland Plants oJWestem lY/ashzi,gton. Seattle'Audubon Society. Seattle, Washington.
Environmental Laboratory, 1987. Co,ps ojE11gi11eers Wetlands Delineation Mo1111a/. Technical &po,t Y-87-
1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
F ederal Way, 2017. File #17-100518-00-PC, Preopplical.ion Co11ftre11ce S111111JJOI)'-Dajfodil Storage North,
27824 Pocijic H1J91 S , Parcels 720480-0165, 720480-0164, 720480-0166. lvlarch 8, 2017.
F ederal Way R evised Code, 201 7 . Chap ter 19 .145 -Environmentally Critical Axeas.
Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist, 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University o f Washington Press.
Seattle, W ashington.
Munsell® Color, 2000. Munsell@ Soil Color Chmts. New Windsor, New Y ork.
Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2001. Hydric Soils Ust in King Counry Area, U?oshi11gton. U .S.
Department of Agriculture. Washington D.C.
Reed, P.B.,Jr., 1988. Nolio11al U st of Pla11t Species Th at Occ11r in Wetlands: Nafiotta! S11mmary. U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service. Biol. Rep. 88 (26.9).
Reed, P.B., Jr., D. Peters, J Goudzwaard, I. Lines, and F. Weinmann, 1993. S 11ppleme11t to Notio110/ List
of Plant Species That Occurin Wet/011ds: Northwe.rt Region 9. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Supplement
to Biol. Rep. 88 (2 6.9).
Snyder, D ale E., Philip S. Gale, Russell F. Pringle, 1973. Soil Survey of King Cou11fy Area, Woshi11gto11.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the
Washington Agricultura l Experiment Station.
U . S. Army Corps of Engineers (USA.CE), 2010. Rcgio11ot S11ppleme11 I to the Corps ofE11gineers IY/etla11d
Deli11eatio11 Mo1111aL· 1-Pestem Mou11toi11s, VoUrys, a11d Coast Regio11 (Ver2.0), ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W.
Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development
Center. Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Washington State Legislator, 2016. Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 222-16-030. DNR
Water typing system. http://apps.leg.1va.gov/ woe/ defa11/t.ospx?d.te=222-16-030.
1519.0001 Woodmont Property
Critical Arei!l Report 18
Sound view Comul tan ts LLC
~vi,ed June 2, 2017
Appendix A -Methods and Tools
Table A-1. Methods and Tools Used to Prepare the Report.
Parameter Method or Tool
Scream Dcp:mmcnt ofNarural
Classifiouion Rcsourci.'1. (DNR)
Water Typing System
Wetland Indicator Northwest (Region 9)
St,.tu• (Reed, 1988) nnd
Northwest (Ri.-gion 9)
Supplement (Real e r
al ., 1993)
Plants USDA Pl11J1t Database
Wetland Plants o f
Western Washington
FJura of the Pacific
Notthwest
Soils Data NRCS Soil Sun·ey
Soil Color Charts
1'h=tcned and Washington Narutll
Endangetcd Heritage Program
Species
Wa.~htngton Priority
I Jabitus and Specie$
Wa.s.hingtoo
Salrno nScapc
Species of Local WDFWClSDar.,.
Impanancc
Repnrt Federal Way R"'•ised
Preparation Code
1519.0001 Woodmont Property
Critical A1cas Reporr
Website
E1m:~1 fm!:l.is:1:5 ~!llm T)!lling;
b11P,Ll'le:':)I' •1agi: doc ":a,gurl(1m,~1
pms;1ii;,.,;l!,1:ars:ll)'piagl
~iaC 222:: 16-0l!l;
b1cp;ll~'51~ll.&",~"lon:ilbbalh•1R
8Jum!
l111p· llplBQl•,11$fa,ggrf
111112; l ls:iuodaam·s:plam•,,om 6-41-
,11ou::111l11pl!lad•lB~ka:~· aad B
~u1a;~pd(
b111rll1le:l'll' \>,]•biog1ao l.'Sl11l11~a:•
fl~.1;,u:s:blboo~•ll lrlE.C b1ml
b11p:llwcbs!lil•ucri:y,nri;.•,usla.gg,·L
a11plW1:bSilil~uo·~· a~i.
http://""~vl.dnr.wa.go,·/nhp /refdc
sk/datasc;1rch/wnhpwcil2nds.pdf
b111l'll"gfav.)12 i:ni-lba!~l12b~pag~ h
.rm
h111r lla1211• ,utui',:.l.:il,ll!!'" lalmaa•s;
nPQlmap,bunl
lmp;l l)\lmv ~.i•ov lmappiaglslm
~
and
hm2;/lan11s, w!:lf~.~.gQVl1?bson1M
~
bttn;//www,cQs!ea11blj~hiag.s,omQV
t,lF~eralWa :r:£
R.efucnce
Washington AdministJative Code (WAC) 222-16-030 .
DNR Water !}-ping sy~tern.
Recd. P.8. Jr. 198&. National !i,,t of plant species ,hnt
occur in wctl3ndJ : \Va.~hington. Biological lkport
NERC88/18.47 for Nation..J Wctl2nds lm·entor:y,
Wn.<hington, D.C.
Recd, l'.ll. Jr. 1993. Northwest supplement (Region 9)
species withs ch2ngc in Indica tor status or added 10 the
Northwest 1988 list, wetland plants of the stme of
Washington 1988. U.S. Department or Interior Fish and
Wildlife Service W81 .UI' • 88 (26.9), \Vashingron, D.C.
Website
Cooke, S.S. 1?97. Wetland Plwls of Wes tern Washington.
Seattle 1\udubon Society. Sc~ttlc, Washington.
Hitchcock, CJ~ and A. Cronqui,t. 197~. Flo ra of the
Pacific Northwest. University of WMhmgton Pees,.
Seattle, W1Shington.
Website
Munsell® Color. 2000. )\'lunsell® Soil Coloc Charts.
New Windsor, New York.
Washington Natur.a l Hcriu,.gc Program (l)nta
published 07 /24/15). Endnngcrcd, threatened, and
s-0nsitivc plants or Washingto n. \V,ishington S1,uc
Dcp:t-nmcnt of Narum! lk'SOurccs, Wash ington Naturnl
l lcriu1gc Program, Olympia.. Wt\
Priority HabitaL1 and Species (PHS) Program (Dai,i
requested 09/21/16). l\lap of priority habitats and 1'J)Cc:ic~
in pro,cct \'iciniry. Washington Dcparrm cnr of F,sh ~nd
Wildlife.
SalmonScapc (l):wi requested on 09/21 /16). Washington
$rate Dcp11ttmcnt of Fish and Wtldlifo.
Wcbiritc
!<eden! Way Rc~-i.~cd Code -Environmentally Critical
Areas Chapter 19.145
Soundvicw Consultants LJ.C
Revist:d June 2, 2017
Appendix B -Background Information
This appendix includes a King Cou nty t o p ographic map (B1), NRCS Soil Survey Map (B2), King
County Sensitive Areas Map (B3), Federal Way Wetlands Map (B4), USFWS NWI Map (BS), 'WDFW
PHS Map (B6), WDFW SalmonScape map (B7), and DNR Stream Typing Map (B8).
1519.0001 Woodmont l'rope.rty
Critical Areas Report
Sound view Consultants I.LC
Revised June 2, 2017
Appendix B1. King County Topographic Map
M•ch 16, 21117
king Parcels_ Oi.e,y Result
nctex contoi,s -100 foot
contour& -5 bot (below 1000 feel) and 10 loot
1.\19.0001 Woodmont P.opc,1y
<;riJ:ieal A,e,,~ Report
D
l~pproxi matc LOcatic'.in )
of Subject Property..._
1:2,257
0 Q.11175 0.01 5 Q.07 ri
o 0.01 OCM o.oa...,
~(&H&f£. Oll""-u:SG&.l,.__NCllt[MO(I' f\"IRC'91.
&t'iMPII\IETl.l#Clm•Jto,vJf.fr!~r.1-.s-..(•~
Soundview ConsultmH.s LLC
Rew<cd June 1. 2017
Appendix B2. NRCS Soil Survey Map
Ma-di 16, 2017
l<lng Paree Is _ a....,.., Result
NRCS Seil S....,ey
1519.0001 Woodmont P,o pcoty
Criticol lUGIS RA:port
1:9,028
0075 D.15
0 0.075 Q.15 0.3 NII
=~:~=-G ... * 1Deto1 J*'-1
S<i.,,,dv;.., Coriul'lIDt> I.LC
Re,nsedjun•2, 2017
Appendix B3. King County Sensitive Areas Map
Mardi 18, 2017
!Ong Parcels_ Query Result
Sl,e,am 11190 SAO)
-dass1
1519.0001 Wuodmo,,t Prop<"}'
C.ri(lC'll.l J\reat R.cpon
dass 2 peremal unc1aealted
d a as2salmooid 18) Wetland(1990SAO)
da• 3 • Sensi!MI area notice o,, ttle
1:4,514 o.035 om o.,."'
0 D.OdS 0.08~ G.17111n
~~r,::-=,-O~r41hb Ill o 211\7 ,..,.....
Soundv,cw ConsulMn U.C
Re-A «cl June 2. 3017
Appendix B4. Federal Way Wetlands Map
Ma-di 16, 2017
l<ing Parcels_ Que,y Result
-FederalWayWe\Jands
1519.000! Woodmont Property
Cm~AreacRepmt
1~4.S14
0.035 0.01 0.14 ml
Soundvi.., Con:o>!01nts LI C
Rt....d )ur.e 2. '.2017
Appendix BS. USFWS NWI Map
March 16, 2017
l<ing Pan:ets _Query Re91,11t
1519.0001 Woodmom J'1upcrty
Cti<Gl.\...._.R.port
0 Estuerini! 1n.d M•rine W,l)snO I
D Ft~i:hwater Eme,gtn;WrJ.ond
• Fret.hY".etcr Forf:;td/Shrvb Wetland
1:4,514
ClOIIS 1107
o 111Mzs o.oes 0.11,.,,
Snundview Consultv>tl LlC
Rev,>•d)uM2,20l7
........ \
I
Appendix B6. WDFWPHSMap
Ma-ch 16, 201 7
King Paroers_QuefY Result POLY
• PT El
lN
1519.0001 Wuodc,,onc Propct1y
Cntic:al ~s Report
AS MAPP ED
1:9,028
G~==QJ=01=5-=C1'*1'"S =t--'-....__,ll.3 ml
G C107S C1tS na Im
:::.::c:1a:.~'=;C.919t ... SldC:»17~1
S<iund"""' Consul"''" Lt.C
R.'""'1 June 2. 2017
Appendix B7. WDFW SalmonScape Map
Mwdl 16, :lfl17
King Parcels_ Query Result
-M SalmonS<:ape Species
1519.0001 \Voudmon1 P,opcn)'
Critical Accas Rq,ott
1:4,514
0.035 A07 0.1-t,4'
0 0.<1<25 0.0IS IH7""'
=-~:=·::er.....-slOD2m7 ~
Sound•'ICW COf\1"1lw>t) I..U;
l\e\/i.,cd June 2. 20 17
Appendix B8. DNR Stream Typing Map
Mardi 16. 2017
King Parceb _ Query Result -u. unknown
DNR-St,um 'Typing
--Type N, Np, Ns
1519.0001 Woodmont Pcoptrcy
Critiotl Arc11s Report
1:9,028
0.07S Q.t!
0 Q075 41G 0.3 b'n
=-~~=o~•GtaJ!~ r'JOOl0\7~1
Sounc.J~·ltw Cnnsulranu LLC
Revised Jufte 1., 2017
Appendix C -Site Plans
1519.0001 Woodmont Property
Critical Areas Report
Sound view Consultants llC
Revised June 2, 2017
EXISTING CONDITIONS SITE PLAN
WOODMONT STORAGE -E XISTI N G CONDITIONS
NOTE:-----------"'--
ADDITIONAL OFF-SITE POltlTS OElltlEATING
OHW NOT DEPICTED DUE TO CHANG.es JN
SUBJECT PROPERTY 80\JNOAAIES.
" \.~!:I s, ~ :.h1 .;f:A,,='"'?lt .... ,;
-4~,,, --,, .,
3;\RKL(Y ~ UC( ?Af?7\ICRS L•r,
F'A·h:t.L i'...:>..V~( 100'SmEAMBUFFER I ,,
THE CITY OF FE0£RAL WAY CONSIDERS STREAM Z ----'
TO BE A •MAJOR" FISH•BEARING STREAM (TYPE F):
THOUGH SVC CLASSIFIED ST REAM 2 AS A TYPE Ns
STREAM. smEAM z WILL ee TREATED M, A TYPE F PRE! .!MINA RY
smEAMWITH A 100.fOOT BVFFER IN ORDER TO INFORMA·noN ONLY
PROCEED WITH THE PERMITTING PROCEsS
:-:OT l'OH CONSrni.;cnoN
$Ql..,"'t)\'ll?\l'00:,:.SiUl:TA.,,"TS,IJJ:.,\$SIJMII
tJC> UA81L,TTYOR. U$'(»."$11UUTY FOR.
CO!...-snlX'l'JOS,,)(JtA.Q\'f.vf...'n OR
ISS11MA1n lli\Sl!D o:,,:'·l"MtS PUS !;6T
OA'n. 06/(l1/'l011
JOII 1$1!10001
SY. DS/01,S
&CAlE 1" • 20 .o•
I
PROPOSED PROJECT SITE PLAN
BUFFER
ENH/INCEr;ENT
ARE,AS (83;9 SF)
(S'WIOTH5'
PROPOSED
BUILDlrlG
•22.&89SF
WOODMONT ST ORAGE -PROPOSED CONDITIONS
. _... ..... _ .....
·~ 1,, ... .•. ...
. ;;
Tl"' -
,., ..
,.la .. ~;
.... _ -··
Jalo i,,. l::;;;· .. ..
~ .......... ~ --. .,,.___ ..... -·-~ '·--..........
PROPOSED
6UILDING
-20,864 SF
,...._ _ _...._ -~-'"1 -,;J~
NOT~-~~~~~~~~~~~
ADDITIONAL OFF-SITE POINTS DELINEATING
OHW tlOT DEPICTED DUE TO CHArlGf:S IN
SUBJECT PROPERTY BOUNDARIES
THE CITY OF FEIJ£RAL WAY CONSIDERS STREAM Z ----'
TO BE A "MAJOR" FISH-SEARING STREAM (TYPE F);
THOUGH SVC CLASSIFIED STREAM Z AS A TYPE Ns
STREAM. STREAM Z WILL BE TREATED AS A TYPE F
STRcAM WITH A 100.fOOT BUFFER IN ORDER TO
PROCEED WITH THE PERMITIING PROCESS
l'RELJ~11Ni\RY
INFORMAllON ONLY
~OT 1'01\ CONSTR~C 110:S:
~O'lt6WC()Sk.l\.TA'1l, IJJ;..us:J)s
:-Jo Ll,\fCIU\ VOR Rt=:SPO~'SIBIUTY !'Oil
co;,,mc.;cno:-:.1Ml'1:.ovi:.~c:,..TS, o~
ES':'JMATl:.S JI..\SED o::-lHl$PC.\S s,n·
O.\Ti 06/Ql/2017
Joe 1St9 0001
8\ 0!,/01.\
ICM.I'! Klt<ZMl'IIIC
SHEET 2o, 2
Appendix D -Site Photographs
Data Plot DPl
Data Plot DP3
1519.0001 Woodmont Property
Critical A~as Report
Data Plot DP2
Sound\~ew Consultants J,LC
Revised June 2, 2017
View of Stream Z and Buffer
1519.0001 Woodmont Property
Critical Areas Report
View of Stream Z Buffer Looking South
Soundvie,v Consulcants LLC
Re,nsed June 2, 2017
Appendix E -Data Forms
1519.00()1 Woodmont Propecty
Critical Areas Rep01t
Soundview Consultants LLC
Revised June 2, 2017
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: 1519.0001/VVoodmont
Applicant/Owner: Woodmont Storage/Jeff Oldright
City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date .. · ... 1.:.:12""6'-/1,_,7 __ _
State: :,..W"-'A;!_ ___ Sampling Point: =D"-P-'1 ___ _
lnvestigator(s):_Richard Peel. Emily Swaim Section, Township, Range: ,.3.._3...,2..e2"'N""-"4""E~---------
Landform (hillstope, terrace, etc.): .va,,,.,l.,le'"'"y_,.fl.,.o..,or~--------Local relief (concave, convex, none}:--------Slope(%): __ _
Subregion (LRR): ~A""2 ____________ _ Lat: 47352413 Long: -122.309023 Datum: WGS84
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood NWI classification: ,.,Ne<IA:,__ ______ _
Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes 181 No D (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation __ , Soil __ , or Hydrology __ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes D No D
Are Vegetation __ , Soil __ , or Hydrology __ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -AUach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes t8l NoO Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? YesD No~ within a Wetland? YesO No0
Wetland Hydrology Present? YesO No 181
Remarks: Not an three wetland Criteria observed
VEGETATION-Use scientific names of plants .
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) %Cover S12ecies? Status Number of Dominant Species
1. Alnus rubra 1~ !'.§___ ~ That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (Al
2 . ------Total Number of Dominant
3 . ------Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
4 . ------Percent of Dominant Species
15 = Total Cover Thal Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (NB}
Sa12llng/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft)
1. ------Prevalence Index worksheet:
2 . ---Total% Cover of: Multir;!IY blC ---
3 . ------0Blspecies x1=
4 . ------FACW species x2 =
5 . ------FACspecies x3=
0 = Total Cover FACU species x4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) UPL species x5=
1 . Ranunculus reQens 50 ~ ~ Column Totals: (A) (B)
2 . Juncus effusus 30 ~ FACW
3 . Agrostis caQillaris 20 ~ FAC Prevalence Index =BIA=
4 . ------Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
5. ---D Rapid Test for Hydrophylic Vegetation ---
6 . D Dominance Test is >50% ------
7 . D Prevalence Index is 53.01 ------
8 . ------D Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
9 .
data in Remarils or on a separate sheet)
------D Welland Non-Vascular Plants1
10. ------D Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11. ------11ndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
100 = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Woody_ Vine Stratum (Plot size : 30 ft)
1. ------Hydrophytlc
2 . ------Vegetation
0 = Total Cover Present'? Yes 121 NoO
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Q
Remarks: Hydrophilic vegetation citieria observed
US Anny Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point: QEj_
Profile Description: {Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confinn the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches} Color (moist} ~ Color (moist} _!L_ ..ImL -12L Texture Remarks
0-7 10YR4/2 filL__ 10YR4/6 _1 ___ c __ _ M __ SaGrLo ~rallel
------
------------
------------
------------
------------
------
------------
'Tvoe: C=Concen!ration, D=Deoletion RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Linino, M=Matrix.
Hydrlc Soil Indicators: {Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
D Histosol (A 1) 0 Sandy Redox (S5) D 2cmMuck(A10)
D Histic Epipedon (A2) 0 Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2)
0 Black Histlc (A3) 0 Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1} 0 Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 0 Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks}
0 Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) 0 Depleted Matrix (F3)
0 Thick Dari< Surface (A12) D Redox Dark Surface (F6) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
0 Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
D Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? YesO No 181
Remarks: Restrcitive layer of compacted gravel contacted at 7 inches
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology lndlcafors:
Prima!'.Y Indicators (minimum of one reg uired; check all that a11Qll1} Secondl!!Y lndicaf.ors (2 or more reguired}
D Surface Water (A 1) D Waler-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
D High Waler Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and4B)
D Saturation (A3) 0 Salt Crust (B11} D Drainage Patterns (910)
D Water Marks (B1) D Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) D Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
D Sediment Deposits (82) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1} D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
D Drift Deposits (B3) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3} D Geomorphic Position (D2)
D Algal Mat or Crust (B4) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D Shallow Aquitard (D3)
D Iron Deposits (BS) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 121 FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
D Surt'ace Soil Cracks (B6) D Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) D Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BS}
Field Observations:
Surface Waler Present? YesD No 181 Depth (inches}:
Water Table Present? YesD No 181 Depth (inches}:
Saturation Present? YesD No121
(includes caoillarv frinae l
Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? YesO No 121
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections}, if available:
Remarks: D5 secondary indciator observed. No primary hydrologic indicators observed
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: Woodmont Storage -1519.0001 City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:=3/~1=0/~1~7 __ _
Applicant/Owner: "'J"'effc:....,eO;.:,ld"'ri,,,g'-'ht,.._ _____________________ State: WA Sampling Point: ~D~P~-2~---
lnvestigator(s): '-R"'ic""h""a""rde.cPc.:e,.,e.,..I _________________ Section, Township, Range: ,,,3-"-3.,.,2 .. 2,.,_N,.._ . ..;,4::.E'----------
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.}: .,.D""ra..,i:..::na,,.g.,,e'--'B"'a""n"'k'-------Local relief (concave, convex, none): .,,C""o"'n,.,cawv,..,.e'------Slope(%): 5 __ _
Subregion (LRR}: ""A""2 _____________ Lat: 47.35220 Long: -122.30803 Datum: WGS84
Soil Map Unit Name: '-'Ae,ld,.,,e""rw~o"°o"'d'-------------------------NWI classification: ,.,N""/A.,__ ______ _
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes O No [El (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Yes, Soil No, or Hydrology No significantly disturbed?
Are Vegetation No, Soil No, or Hydrology No naturally problematic?
Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes O No 121
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YesO Nof8] Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? YesO No 18] within a Wetland? YesD No 181
Wetland Hydrology Present? YesO No [8]
Remarks: Precipitation measured al 135% of normal MTD as per NOAA NOWData
VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
T ree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft} %Cover S12ecies? Staius Number of Dominant Species
1. Acer macro12hl/lum 50 ~ FACU That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
2. Alnus rubra 10 NQ__ .E8Q__ Total Number of Dominant
3. ------Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
4. ------Percent of Dominant Species
60 = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50 (A/8)
Sa12llng/Shrub Stratum (Pio! size: ill}
1. Rubus s12ectabilis JQ ~ .E8Q___ Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Rubus armeniacus 20 Xg§___ FAC Total% Cover of: Multi12lvbl,'.:
3. OBL species 0 x1=Q ------
4. ------FACW species 0 x2 = 0
5. ------FACspecies 50 X 3 = 150
50 = Total Cover F ACU species 70 x4 = 280
Herb Stratum (Plot size: QJ!) UPL species 0 x5 = 0
1. EQl~!i!.h!,!m m!,!ni!um 20 '.lli__ FACU Column Totals: 120 (A) 430 (B}
2 . ------
3 . ------Prevalence Index = B/A = ;g\8
4 . ------Hydrophytlc Vegetation Indicators:
5 . ------D Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
6 . D Dominance Test is >50% ------
7. D Prevalence Index is S3.0' ------
8 . D Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting ------data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
9 . ------0 Welland Non-Vascular Plants'
10. ------D Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
11 . ------'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
20 = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Woodl,'. Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft}
1. ------Hydrophytic
2. ------Vegetation
0 = Total Cover Present? YesO No !8J
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 80
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point: DP-2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches} Color {moist}· ~ Color (moist} ~ ~ J,QL Texture Remarks
0-3 10YR 3/3 1QlL_ . . ------Salo Sandy Loam
3.9 10YR 3/4 .1QQ__ . . . ---Salo Sandy Loam ------
9-20 10YR 4/3 1QlL_ ------Salo Sandl£ Loam ------
------------
------------
------------
------------
------
1Tvoe: C=Concentration, D=Deplelion, RM=Reduced Matrix. CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL.,Pore Linino, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 :
D Histosol (A1) 0 Sandy Redox (S5} 0 2 cm Muck (A10)
D Hislic Epipedon (A2) 0 Stripped Matrix (S6} 0 Red Parent Material (TF2}
D Black Histic (A3) 0 Loamy Mucky Mineral (F 1) ( except M LRA 1) 0 Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks)
D Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) 0 Depleted Matrix (F3)
D Thick Dark Surface (A 12) D Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
D Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (FB) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer {if present):
·Type :
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? YesO No [8J
Remarks: No hydric soil indicators observed
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Prima~ Indicators (minimum of one reguired; check all Iha! 31ll!ll£l Seaonda~ Indicators f2 or mQre reguired}
D Surface Water (A 1) D Water-Stained Leaves (89) (exc:ept MLRA 0 Waler-Stained Leaves (B9} (MLRA 1, 2,
D High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A.and 48)
D Saturation (A3) D Sall Crust (811) D Drainage Pattems (B 10)
D Water Marks (B1) D Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) D Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
D Sediment Deposits (82) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
D Drift Deposits (83) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Geomorphic Position (D2)
D Algal Mat or Crust (B4) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D Shallow Aquitard (D3}
D Iron Deposits (85) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) D FAC-Neulral Test (D5)
D Surface Soil Cracks (B6) D Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) D Raised Ant Mounds {D6) (LRR A)
D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87} D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7}
D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes O No 181 Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes O No 181 Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes O No 181
(includes caoillarv frinQe)
Depth (inches): WeOand Hydrology Present? YesO No 181
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: No primary or secondary hydrologic indicators observed
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: Woodmont Storage -1519.0001 City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date: . .,,3'-'/1'""0,_11,._,_7 __ _
Applicant/Owner: ,,J-"-eff"--"O"'ldri.,_·"'g"-'ht,.._ _____________________ State: .,_W.,_,A:,__ ___ Sampling Point: :D"""P""'-3..__ __ _
lnvestigator(s): ,.;R.,.,ic"'h,.ard!..>L.!P_,e.,e.,_I _________________ Section, Township, Range: ,,3""3'""'2"'2"-'N,.,__,,4:=E _________ _
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Drail)age Bank Local relief (concave, convex, none): _,,C,,.o"'n"'ca"-'v,..,,e'------Slope(%): _5 __
Subregion (LRR): '-'A ... 2 _____________ Lat: 47.35245 Long: -122.30813 Datum: WGS84
Soil Map Unit Name: Alde!WOod NW1 classification: ,.,N"-'IA:,__ ______ _
Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes D No 0 (If no, explain in Remarl<s.)
Are Vegetation Yes. Soil No, or Hydrology No significantly disturbed?
Are Vegetation No. Soil No, or Hydrology No naturally problematic?
Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes D No [81
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 181 NoO Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? YesO No [83 within a Wetland? YesO No~
Wetland Hydrology Present? YesO No [gJ
Remarks: Precipitation measured at 135% of normal MTD as per NOAA NOWData. Vegetation highly disturbed.
VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) %Cover S11ecies? Status Number of Dominant Species
1. Po&;1ulus bsils~mife!:s! 60 ~ .EAQ__ Thal Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
2 . ------Total Number of Dominant
3 . ------Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
4 . ------Percent of Dominant Species
60 = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/8)
Sa1:11ing/Shrub Stratum (Plot siz.e: 15 ft}
1 . Acer circinat.um 50 ~ .EAQ__ Prevalence Index worksheet:
2 . Alnus rubra 20 ~ .EAQ__ Total% Cover of: Mulli11ly by-:
3 . OBL species X 1 = ------
4 . FACW species x2= ------
5 . ------FAC species x3=
70 = Total Cover FACU species x4=
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) UPLspecies x5=
1 . ------Column Totals: (A) (B)
2 . ------
3 . Prevalence Index = B/A = ------
4 . ------Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
5 . ------D Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
6 . l1sl Dominance Test is >50% ------
7. D Prevalence Index is S3.0 1 ------
8 . D Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting ------data in Remar1<s or on a separate sheet)
9 . ------0 Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10. ------D Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11. ------11ndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
: Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Woody Vfne Stratum ( Plot size: 30 ft}
1 . ------Hydrophytic
2. ------Vegetation
0 = Total Cover Present? Yes~ NoD
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 100
Remarks: Vegetation is highly disturbed
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains. Valleys, and Coast-Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point: DP-3
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confinn the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(Inches} Color (moist} ~ Color (moist) ~~ _bQL Texture Remarks
0-6 10YR2/2 1filL_ -- - ----GrSaLo Gravelly Sandy Loam
6-18 10YR 3/3 1Q!L_ -. - ----GrSaLo Gravelly Sandy Loam
---------
---------
------
---------
------------
------------
1Tvoe: C=Concentration. D=Deo letion RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Linina, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soll Indicators: {Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydrlc Soils3:
D Histosol (A1) D Sandy Redox (S5} D 2cm Muck (A10)
D Histic Epipedon (A2} D Stripped Matrix (S6} D Red Parent Material (TF2)
D Black Histic (A3) D loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) D Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D Other (Explain in Remarks)
D Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) D Depleted Matrix (F3)
D Thick Dark Surface (A12) D Redox Dark Surface (FS) ~Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
D Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (FS) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches}: Hydric Soil Present? YesD No 181
Remarks: No hydric soil indicators observed
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Prima!)£ Indicators (minimum of one reguired ; check all that a(lQl:ll SecondaQ! Indicators {2 or more ffil}uired)
D Surface Water (A 1} D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
D High Waler Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 48)
D Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust(B 11) 0 Drainage Patterns (B10)
D Water Marks (B1) D Aquatic Invertebrates (813) D Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
D Sediment Deposits (B2) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1} D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
D Drift Deposits (B3) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along living Roots (C3) D Geomorphic Position (D2)
D Algal Mat or Crust (84) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D Shallow Aquitard (03)
D Iron Deposits (BS) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6} D FAC-Neutral Test (D5}
D Surface Soil Cracks (B6) D Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1 )(LRR A) D Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A)
D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
Fleld Observations:
Surface Waler Present? YesO No~ Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes !El NoO Depth (inches): JL
Saturation Present? Yes 181 NoO
/includes capillarv frinae)
Depth (inches): ~ Wetland Hydrology Present? YesD No 181
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: No primary or secondary hydrologic indicators observed
US Alllly Corps of Engineers Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
Appendix F -Qualifications
All field inspections, wetland determinations, OHW and habitat assessments, and supporting
documentation, including this Critical Areas Report prepared for Woodmont Storage LLC, were
prepared by, or under the direction of, Jeremy Downs and Matt DeCaro of Soundv:iew
Consultants LLC. In addition, report preparation was performed by Kyla Caddcy and Matt DeCaro,
and site inspections were performed by Richard Peel, Emily Swain, and Matt DeCaro.
Jeremy Downs
Principal Scientist/Environmental Planner
Professional Experience: 25 years
Jeremy Downs is a Principal Scientist and Environmental Planner with professional training and
extensive experience in land use, site planning and design, project coordination, pennitti.ng and
management, marine and wetland ecology, habitat restoration, wetland, stream, and eelgrass
delineations and assessments, biological assessments, benthic surveys, stream assessments, underwater
and terrestrial monitoring programs, and mitigation planning.
Jeremy earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Biology with an emphasis in Marine Biology from the
University of California, Dav.is. He also holds graduate-level professional certifications in various
advanced wetland science and management programs from both Portland State University and San
Francisco State University, and he has received professional training in Salmonid Biology from the
University of California Extension. In addition, he studied under the Environmental Risk and
Recovery program at the Australian Institute of Marine Science, and he has extensive training and
field experience in aquatic related disciplines such as diving, boat operations, and nav:igation.
Jeremy is a certified wetlands dclineator under US Army Corps of Engineers guidelines. He has been
formally trained in the use of the Washington State Wetland Rating System, Determination of
Ordinary High Water Mark, Designing Compensatory l\.fitigation and Restoration Projects, and
Reviewing Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plans from the US Army Corps of Engineers and
Washington State Department of Ecology, and in conducting Biological Assessments from the
Washington Department of Transportation. He is also a Pierce County Qualified Wetland Specialist
and Fisheries Biologist, and he holds similar qualifications from other jurisdictions.
MattDeCaro
Environmental Scientist/Project Manager
Professional Experience: 8 years
Matt DeCaro is an Environmental Scientist and Project Manager with a diverse background in
environmental compliance, project management, wetland science, water quality, environmental due
diligence, and site remediation. Matt currently prov.ides penni.tting and regulatory compliance
assistance for land use projects from their planning stages through review, approval, and construction
for Soundv:iew Consultants LLC. Matt conducts code and regulation analysis; conducts wetland,
stream, and shoreline delineations and fish & wildlife habitat assessments; provides land use planning
assistance for residential, commercial, and industrial projects; prepares reports and penni.t applications
for local, State, and Federal rev:iew; and provides restoration and mitigation design.
151?.0001 Woodmont Propctty
c.citical A.teas Repor1
Soundvicw Consultants LLC
Revised June 2, 2017
Matt earned a Bachelor of Science degree with a focus in Environmental Science &om the Evergreen
State College in Olympia, Washington, with additional graduate-level coursework and research in
aquatic restoration and salmonid ecology. Matt has been formally trained in the use of the Washington
State Wetland Rating System and Determination of Ordinary High Water Mark by the Washington
State Department of Ecology, and he has attended USFWS survey workshops for multiple threatened
and endangered species. Matt holds 40-hour HAZWOPER training and has managed Phase I
Environmental Site Assessments, subsurface investigations, and contaminant remediation projects
throughout the Pacific Northwest. His diverse experience also includes NEPA compliance for federal
projects; noxious weed abatement; spotted owl surveys on federal and private lands; and salmonid
spawning and migration surveys.
Richard Peel
Wetland Scientist
Professional E xperience: 5 years
Richard Peel is a Wetland Scientist with diverse professional experience in wetland ecology,
monitoring, and delineation throughout Washington and Oregon. Richard is Washington State trained
in conducting wetland delineations, assessing wetland systems, mitigation planning and design,
implementation of monitoring programs, and mitigation monitoring and reporting. He also has
extensive experience in an analytical laboratory using state-of-the-art equipment in bacteriological and
chemical analysis of soil and water samples.
Richard is a graduate of The Evergreen State College, with dual degrees in Ecology and Economics.
He has focused his academic career on ecology, disturbance ecology, chemistry, and the economic
impacts of current environmental management. Richard has extensive training and field experience in
wetland related disciplines, and has experience in wetlands both east and west of The Cascades. He
has been trained by The Washington State Department of Transportation's (WSDOT) Wetland
Ecology and Monitoring team in the use of the wetland delineation, mitigation, monitoring, and
restoration techniques. In addition, he was directed by WSDOT's Wetland Protection and
Preservation Policy to ensure wetlands are preserved and protected whenever possible. This direction
ensures no net loss in the quantity or quality of wetlands in the future and minimization of impacts to
wetlands in the present. He is also a Pierce County Qualified Wetland Specialist.
Emily Swaim
Wetland Scientist/Field Geologist
Professional Experience: 4 years
Emily Swaim is a Wetland Scientist and Field Geologist with a background in conducting Phase l, II
and III Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs), underground natural gas pipeline and overhead
electrical transmission line project assessment and environmental inspections, construction oversight,
stormwater compliance inspections, soil sampling, delineating and assessing wetland and aquatic
systems, and stormwater, floodplain, and wetland permitting. Ms. Swaim's expertise focuses on
projects involving sensitive wetland and stream habitats where extensive team coordination and
various regulatory challenges must be carefully and intelligently managed from project inception to
completion.
1519.0001 Woodmonr Property
Critical Areas Report
Sound view Consultants LLC
Revised Jun~ 2, 2017
• '',. . •\. ,-• ...
f
Emily earned a Bachela-9f Science degree in Geology from Illinois State University and Wetland
Science and Managem~rofessiona1 Certification from the University of Washington, Seattle. She
is also educated in Environmental Science from Iowa State University. Her education aod, experience
has provided her with extensive knowledge on soils, wetland science, hydrogeology, sedimentology,
environmental law, envirorunental geology, landscape ecology, and structural geology. Ms. Swaim has
been fonnally trained in Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) and
is Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) 30-hour Construction and 10-hour
Construction certified. She is also a Pierce County Qualified Wetland Specialist.
KylaCaddey
Staff Scientist
Professional Experience: 2 years
Kyla Caddey is a Staff Scientist with 2 years of professional experience in riparian habitat restoration
projects and environmental outreach and education throughout western Washington while working
for both a state agency and a small non-profit. Kyla has a background in habitat restoration design,
implementation, and maintenance, wildlife studies, grant writing, project management, report writing,
water quality monitoring, benthic macroinvertebrate assessments, vegetation surveys and monitoring,
forest surveying, data entry and statistical analysis, research writing and presentations, fish/salmonid
monitoring, rain garden design and implementation, native plant nursery maintenance, and customer
service.
Kyla earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Environmental Science and Resource Management from
the University of Washington, Seattle \.vith a focus in Wildlife Conservation and a minor in
Quantitative Science. She has received formal training through the Coastal Training Program in Using
the Credit-Debit Method in Estimating l\.fitigation Needs, How to Administer Development Permits
in Washington Shorelines, and Forage Fish Survey Techniques, as well as training through UW Botanic
Gardens in Restoring Natural Areas in the Built Environment. Her education and experience has
provided her with the knowledge base and tools necessary to assist in scientific field work and report
preparation for the development, management, and implementation of Soundview Consultant's
environmental planning and land use services.
1519.0001 Woodmont Property
Critical Arca, Report
Sound,-iew Consultant<. LLC
Rn-i.~cd June 2,2017
•-l, ~·';,,
-------------THE K-E-IMIG -ASSQGIAT-E£--
ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS.
MaylS,2017
Woodmont Storage LLC
27824 Pacific Highway South
Federal Way, WA
RE: Design Narrative
216 A STREET NW, AUBURN, WA 98001
(253) 939-3232, FAX (253) 735-1309
The site consjsts of two separate parcels A and C, identified as tax parcels 7204800166 and 7204800164. The total
site is 2.59 acres. The site is currently undeveloped, but being utilized as a used car lot. No existing trees will be
retained on this site within th~ construction boundary. The total tree unit credits proposed will exceed the total tree
units required. l;t; j"'-~ -:
The project is to construct two, t hree-~tory se lf -service storage buildings. The building that fronts Pacific Highway
will house the facilities' ground floor leasing office and three stories of storage spaces while the second storage
building will be solely storage.
The building will be constructed with light gauge metal framing with a combination of charcoal grey and light grey
corrugated and Mini "V" metal siding panels over continuous insulated walls. The roofs will be metal backed
enamel finish corrugated panels. Both metal siding and roofing will be AEP SPAN. The strategically placed,
natural gray CMU split face block veneer on lower fas;ade areas will assure the building's protection from vehicles.
Building fenestrations will consist of canary yellow roll-up steel doors and window curtain walls to add an element
of openness and visual quality at selected elevations of the three story fa;:ade. Window frames wit( be anodized mill
finished aluminum with annulated insulated glass.
Perimeter security fencing will be black vinyl coated chain link and painted poles and rails in other locations,
complimented with decorative black iron in prominent areas. There will be acoustic swing gates for ingress and
egress provided with Knox-Boxes for emergency personnel. Landscaping will be designed by a registered
Washington State Landscape Architect to meet the intent and requirements of the Federal Way code. Site lighting
will be provided with building mounted fixtures along interior drive lanes. There are also two existing ROW street
lighting along the sidewalk at the northwest and southwest property corners. A screened garbage and recycling
enclosure is constructed as part of the bui lding with CMU veneer, reflective of building materials is provided.
Additionally, an accessible path is provided from the public right-of-way to the storage leasing offices.
Pursuant to Chapter 19.1 lS Community Design Guidelines, the project is designed and detailed to enhance the
general appearance of the development while being mindful of the cost for the Owner's to efficiently operate the
facility and benefit the clients served and the community. The structures are designed with modulation and
material changes strategically placed to achieve the most appeal. -colors are se lected to provide artistic contrast and
to provide a vibrant harmony throughout the project. The office/retail sales area is oriented toward the public right-
of-way with the display windows. The project is low in vehicular trip generation and adequate and limited
customer parking is located along the east face of the building.
RECEIVED
MAY t 6 2017
C17Y OF Fe: COMMI/NfIY <;l?..EP.At W ".,
(
l,
.-1ECEIVED
MAY l 6 2017
CITY OF FED ERAL WAY
COMMUNITY OEVEt..OPMENT
REQUEST FOh ,.illMINISTRATIVE DECISION
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
253-835-2607; Fax 253-835-2609
www .cityoffederalway.com
FILE NUMBER _j_ r -_j_ _Q_ .:2_ 3 ;/. 0 Date _r_l_U.;__,f ,_'1-_______ _
Applicant
NAME . PRIMARY PHONE
\Jttl mo~\ s.\or,,t l\.~ 2.~) ~ ft 11 ~1'it,8
BUSINESS/ORGANIZATION
1t« 0\d<\,\-t
ALTERNATE PHONE
MAILING ADDRESS E·MAIL
~~l ""\\e) A•c. Nt, 5-k, ,;I Se..ll e J.JfJ:1~,11$. tofl,\
CITY ,s~ I ;~11, FAX
f"1, Iii' 2.6}·110 .:;2., i
Property Address/Location 2 1 Sl t( 'P O\<A.f;e, Ht.J'l S
ve. •;n )
List/Desctibe Attachments 2 lop·, C, ~ ~ Y"t-fd'! .\ ·
For Staff Use
D Code Interpretation/Clarification
I])/ Critical Areas Letter/ Analysis/Peer Review
D Request for Extension (Land Use/Plat Approval)
D Revisions to Approved Pennit
D Tree Removal
D Zoning Compliance Letter
D
Bulletin #079 -January 4, 2016 Page I of I
No Fee
No Fee (Actual Cost if Applicable)
Check Current Fee Schedule
Check Current Fee Schedule
No Fee
Check Current Fee Schedule
k:\Handouts\Request for Administrative Decision
... ..
o--•
o--...
o--•
..
:;:-""· .... +•r,
.. ~,..,-..... a.,;.
_,..,.._~ .. -...... ...,.....,, •• -~ H• ~-~A':-:.:::, -·-J.o# --~ =-,r;ol
6 :,-,,._ .6•=:--..:-O.l, ====~:-; --___ .. __
--__ ... ,__.=--~ .... "1 --~..,...:=~ ~-=-.:;.,...,.,
=-··
=
=.-•lll-l1!JI' '..,~...:=
;""4 .. f =,,,._
('Cffl),O<-·---.. -.,.
·--... -.. ,,..,-.,,.er, .:a::u
l'ltfflWll.NI~ a ASSOCIA~S. LLC
lA~.w:..'lfC'P
.\'M..i""IIC"'1AJIVIII/IJll\,'1~
1\1.~IV----"'-J .. ~=
\ .. _ R D A ---,..,_ .. , .. _Ull'<o:"'I ~.-,.._ ..
~ J~
w ........ ..... ...... .... ..... ,,_
tt'OOuOt.,,s,11
... ...
' ' -1~,-·1 .. l
El I
c===J
B
R D A
O:::Q(llOM\'l~IC.
';¥1) ... tl-"'-T,o.tl .. ,..._ ... \50...,.,.__.,
~ ...........
AU