Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
19-101438
CITY OF �.. Federal Way Centered on Opportunity May 3, 2018 Mr, John Everett ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC 33400 81h Avenue South, Suite 250 Federal Way, WA 98003 loh n.cverec tOomcirtl. c orn CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www. cityoffederalway.. com Jim Ferrell, Mayor Re: File #19-101438-00-PC, PREAPPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY Danilchik Plat, *No Site Address*, Parcels 042104-9221 & 9012, Federal Way Dear Mr. Everett: Thank you for participating in the preapplication conference with the City of Federal Way's Development Review Committee (DRC) held April 25, 2019. We hope that the information discussed at that meeting was helpful in understanding the general requirements for your project as submitted. This letter summarizes comments given to you at the meeting by the members of the DRC. The members who reviewed your project and provided comments include staff from the city's Planning and Building Divisions, Public Works Department, and representatives from Lakehaven Water and Sewer District and South King Fire and Rescue. Some sections of the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) and relevant information handouts are enclosed with this letter. Please be advised, this letter does not represent all applicable codes. In preparing your formal application, please refer to the complete FWRC and other relevant codes for all additional requirements that may apply to your project. I, Becky Chapin, am the key contact fot your project (253-835-2641, buck; y.cl n yin C •o fed t-alway.coi ). For specific technical questions about your project, please contact the appropriate DRC representative as listed below. Otherwise, any general questions about the preapplication and permitting process can be referred to me. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proposal to subdivide two lots, approximately 18 acres, into 63 single-family lots, with a stormwater pond, public roads, and right-of-way improvements. The subject property contains Geologically Hazardous Areas (GHA), stream, wetland, and associated buffers. The southeast portion of the property has a shoreline associated wetlands, with a shoreline residential designation. MAJOR ISSUES Outlined below is a summary of the major issues of your project bascd on the plans and information submitted for preapplicadon review. These issues can change due to modifications and revisions in the plans. The major issues section is only provided ns a means to highlight critical requirements or issues. Please be sure to read the comments made by all departments in the following section of this letter. Mr. John Everett Page 2 of 18 114ay 3, 2019 ■ Planning Division 1. The project requires submittal of the following land use applications: Preliminary Plat, SEPA Checklist, anii Forest Practices. 2. Critical areas areresent on site and may trigger a use process review depending on the scope of the project. ■ Public Works Development Services Division 1. Flow control and water quality treatment is required as outlined in the 2016 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) and the City of Federal Way Addendum to that manual. Conservation Flow Control and Enhanced Basic Water Quality Treatment standards must be met. The applicant is advised to review facility requirements for facilities on steep slopes and within geologically hazardous areas. ■ Public Works Traffic Division 1. Transportation Concztrrency Management (FWRC 19.90) — A transportation concurrency permit with an application fee of $9,032 (51 — 500 trips) is required for the proposed project. 2. Traffic Impact Fees (FWRC 19,91) - Traffic impact fees are required and will be assessed at the building permit stage. 3. Frontage Improvements (FWRC 19.135.040) — Construct street frontage improvements and dedicate right-of-way along the property frontage on South 304th Street and SR99. Internal streets shall be public streets and constructed to a Type "U" and Type "W" street cross section. 4. Block Perimeter (FWRC 18.55.010 & FWRC 19.135.251) — The development shall meet block perimeter requirements of 1,320 feet for non -motorized access and 2,640 feet for streets. A second access is required. 5. Intersection Sight Distance — Submit intersection sight distance analysis consistent with AASHTO standards. DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Outlined below are the comments made by the representatives of each department present at the preapplication conference. Each section should be read thoroughly. If you have questions, please contact the representative listed for that section. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT — PLANNING DIVISION Becky Chapin, 253-835-2641, becky.chapin@cityoff'ederalway.com 1. Coning Designation and Density — The subject property has three different zoning designations. Parcel 042104-9012 has split zoning, a portion is zoned Single Family Residential (RS 5.0) and has a comprehensive plan designation of Single Family, High Density, and a portion is zoned Multifamily Residential (RM1800) and has a comprehensive plan designation of Multi -Family. Parcel 042104-9221 is zoned Single Family Residential (RS7.2) and has a comprehensive plan designation of Single Family, High Density. Lots in both the RS 5.0 and RM zone must be a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. Lots in the RS7.2 zone must be a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. 17-101438-00-K Doc 1D: 76994 I ON Mr. John Everett Page 3 of 18 May 3, 2019 2. Review Process —A subdivision of ten or more lots requires review and decision on the preliminary plat application by the city's Hearing Examiner following a public hearing. In summary, following application, the city Nvill review the application for completeness and technical comments. The first procedural decision point is the State Environmental Policy Ad (SEPA) review and determination. Following conclusion of the SEPA review, city staff will present the staff report and recommendation on the preliminary plat to the Hearing Examiner, who then makes the final decision on the preliminary plat application. The Hearing Examiner's written decision on the preliminary plat is based on the applicant satisfying criteria pursuant to FWRC 18.35.170(3). The decision of the Hearing Examiner may be appealed pursuant to FWRC 18.35.210. After the final decision on the preliminary plat, engineering plans must be submitted and reviewed by the city's Public Works Department. Following review and approval of the engineering plans, construction of plat infrastructure may begin. Substantial completion of plat improvements is required prior to final plat review and decision by the City Council. The final plat fee, in effect at the time of the final plat application, and items identified in FVVRC 18.40.020, are required to process the final plat. The city allows bonding of only minor improvements, such as sidewalks, street lighting, landscaping, or similar improvements. Within 30 days of a complete final plat application, the City Council will take action on the plat and upon approval, the applicant must record the plat with the King County Recorder's Office. For an itemized list of required information to be included in the preliminary plat submittal, please refer to the enclosed preliminary plat submittal checklist. Critical areas are present on site and may trigger additional land use process reviews depending on the scope of the project. See the applicable sections below. Per FWRC 19.15.060, "Optional Consolidated Permit Process," where the code requires more than one application for a given project, all applications required for the project may be submitted for review at one time. Where more than one application is submitted for a given development, and those applications are subject to different levels of process, then all of the applications shall be subject to the highest level of process that applies to any of the individual applications, and procedures for issuance of a letter of completeness, notice of application, notice of decision, open review record hearing, and/or appeal bearing, if applicable, shall be applied to the several applications as if they were part of a single application. 3. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) — The proposed subdivision is not categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-800 and is subject to a threshold determination. A completed environmental checklist must be submitted with the Master Land Use application. A thoroughly completed checklist that gives comprehensive answers to each item will expedite the review process. The public, government agencies, and tribes will be invited to comment on the checklist during a 14-day comment period. An environmental threshold determination made by the director must be rendered prior to the public hearing on the preliminary plat application. 4. Public Notice — The preliminary plat and SEPA review require notices of application and public hearing. The applicant will be responsible for supplying a map and list of all properties within 300 feet of the subject property. Three sets of stamped mailing envelopes for each property owner with the department's return address must accompany the map and list. The city's GIS Department provides this service for a nominal fee (less the postage and envelopes). Please see the enclosed bulletin for further information. The applicant will also be required to post city supplied notice boards at the appropriate times and pay the notice board fee. 19-10 W39-00-11C D- ID: 7899:1 1NIr. John Everett Page 4of18 Nlay 3, 2019 5. Application / Review Fees— As development fees change annually, please contact the Permit Center at 253- 835-2607, or nermitcenter4 cihtofEc crsw.com, for an updated fee list prior to submitdng your applications. Also, any third party reviews by city consultants for review and assistance with geotechnical reports and wetland/stream reports must be paid by the applicant. 6. CtiticalAreax &Shoreline Regulations —The city's critical area inventory shows the subject property impacted by several environmental constraints. The application must include the appropriate critical area studies standards of F\X/RC Chapter 15.10 (critical areas, within shoreline jurisdiction) and FWRC 19.145.080 (environmentally critical areas, outside shoreline jurisdiction) and necessary permitting applications related to each critical area feature as they are applicable to the preliminary plat. See the meeting follow-up note below for proposed changes to the FWRC. a. Wetlands— Wedands are present on the property and arc considered an "associated wetland" of Steel Lake due to its hydrologic connection via a seasonal stream that flows under South 3041h Street to the lake. The wetland rating is contained within FWRC Title 15. FWRC Chapter 15.05.040(4) contains the shoreline management regulations and Chapter 15.10 contains the application critical areas regulations for the wetlands. The applicable shoreline designation is Shoreline Residential. The city reached out to ecology for guidance on the wetland and associated buffer. The shoreline jurisdiction ends at the edge of the associated wetland. The buffer for this wetland is regulated by FWRC Chapter 19.145. A wetland delineation, classification, and associated buffer report prepared by a qualified wetland biologist in accord with FWRC Chapter 15.10 and Chapter 19,145, Article IV must be provided. Pursuant to FWRC 15.10.260, any intrusion into the wetland, including the proposed new right-of- way improvements, will require Hearing Examiner approval administered via a Process IV Master Land Use application, public hearing, and decision by the city's Hearing Examiner. The applicant will have the burden of designing the intrusion to meet the following decisional criteria: a. It will not adversely affect water quality. b. It will not adversely affect the existing quality of the wetland's or buffer's wildlife habitat. 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, including the loss of open space. f. It will result in no net loss of wetland area, function, or value. g. The project is in the best interest of the public health, safety, or welfare. h. The applicant has demonstrated sufficient scientific expertise and supervisory capability to carry out the project. i. The applicant is committed to monitoring the project and to making corrections if the project fails to meet projected goals. Any needed intrusion into the wetland will require Hearing Examiner approval of a mitigation plan encompassing the items listed in FWRC 15.10.260(5)(a). 19-101439-00TC Da IU: 78994 Mr. John Everett Page 5 of 18 May 3, 2019 Intrusions into the wetland bufferwill be reviewed and decided upon using Process III land use review. Pursuant to FWRC 19.145.440, buffers may be reduced by up to 25 percent on a case -by -case basis if the project includes a buffer enhancement plan that clearly substantiates that an enhanced buffer will improve and provide additional protection of wetland functions and values. Buffer reductions may not be used in combination with buffer averaging. A buffer enhancement plan, prepared by a qualified professional, shall be incorporated into the critical area report. The plan shall assess the habitat, water quality, stormwater retention, groundwater recharge, and erosion protection functions of the existing buffer; assess the effects of the proposed modification on those functions; and address the six approval criteria of this section. b. Streams — Any streams on site must be classified per the city's stream rating system in FWRC 19.145.260. The stream flowing though the wetland is not a shoreline waterbody. A stream delineation, classification, and associated stream report prepared by a qualified stream biologist in accord with FWRC Chapter 19.145, Article III must be provided. New stream crossings may be allowed and may encroach on the required stream buffer only if the critical areas report demonstrates they meet the criteria of FWRC 19.145.320(2). c. Geologically Ha�ardousArea (GHA) — The city's inventory identifies the subject property contains erosion hazard soils, which are defined as geologically hazardous areas. The city regulates these areas and a corresponding 50-foot buffer pursuant to FWRC 19.145.22(1). A geotechnical engineering report must be submitted in accord with FWRC Chapter 19.145 Article II, and must address any proposed intrusion 'into such areas. Any intrusion within 50 feet of a geologically hazardous area may be granted by the director if: the development will not be at risk of damage due to the geologic hazard and will not lead to or create any increased slide, seismic, or erosion hazard. d. Shoreline Residential —Per Ecology's guidance, as long as all work which could meet the definition of development, temporary or otherwise, occurs outside the shoreline wedand boundaries, no substantial development permit will be required. As such, a substantial development permit is required for the portion of right-of-way improvements within the shoreline jurisdiction, per FWRC 15.05.150. Shoreline substantial development permits are reviewed under the provisions of Process III, Project Approval. e. GxtiW Area Tracts — Critical area tracts shall be used to delineate and protect critical areas and buffers for subdivision proposals. The tracts shall also be recorded on all documents of title of record for the affected lots. Critical area tracts shall be designated on the plat (FWRC 19.145,150). Permanent survey stakes, signage, and fencing are required around critical area tracts (FWRC 19.145.180). Meetin,g Follow -Up — As discussed in the meeting, the city is undergoing the periodic update to the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). FWRC Tide 15 and FWRC Chapter 19.145, "Environmentally Critical Areas," will be amended as part of the SMP update. The estimated timeline for approval of the SMP is July 2019. The city's website contains a link to the Shoreline Master Program Periodic Update, including draft amended code language, which can be found at hti a: w%v�k-.rh n f der wu •. om nod 1h: The draft code language is still subject to change. The updates are not Finalized until approved by City Council. Please refer to the website above for current status and updates to the proposed shoreline and critical area codes. Doc ID: 78994 19-101438-00-PC Mr. John Everett Page 6 of 18 May 3, 2019 7. Design Criteria and Improvements —Subdivisions are subject to the subdivision design and improvements criteria set forth in FWRC Chapters 18.55 and 18.60, respectively. It is the responsibility of the applicant to identify how the proposed subdivision meets applicable design and improvements criteria, and is therefore entitled to the land division. 8. Nliscellaneous Residential Regulations — Refer to the following use zone charts for `Detached Dwelling Unit" use regulations, FWRC 19.200.100 for RS zones, and FWRC 19.205.030 for the RM zone. a) Maximum height of structures — 30 feet above average building elevation. b) Setbacks for structures are a minimum 20-foot front yard and 5-foot side and rear yard. Then corner lot side yard for that portion of the lot not adjacent to the primary vehicular access is 10 feet. c) Maximum lot coverage — 60 percent. d) Required parking spaces — minimum of two per dwelling unit. e) Driveway and/or parking pad may not be closer than five feet to any side property line and may not exceed 20 feet in width when in a required front yard. See FWRC 19.130.240(1)(b) for exceptions. 9. Landscape Buffers — Pursuant to FWRC 18.60.030, prelinunaiy plats adjacent to a city designated arterial (Pacific Highway South) must provide a 10-Foot-wide Type III landscape strip along the arterial street. The landscape strip shall be provided in a separate tract, equally owned and maintained by the homeowners; and up to two percent can be credited to the open space buffer requirements. Perimeter fencing in subdivisions shall be located on the interior side of landscape strips planted along arterial streets. Type III landscape consists of a mixture of evergreen and deciduous trees interspersed with large shrubs and groundcover. 10. Open Space — All residential subdivisions are required to provide open space in the amount of 15 percent of the gross land area of the subdivision site per FWRC 18.55.060(2). A minimum 10 percent of the open space is required to be usable open space, i.e., appropriate for active recreation areas. Additionally, any on -site open space must be set aside in a tract and owned in common undivided interest by all property owners within the subdivision. All or some of the open space requirement may be satisfied by a fee -in -lieu payment at the discretion of the city Parks Director, after consideration of the city's overall park plan, quality, location, and service area of the open space that would otherwise be provided with the project. The fee -in -lieu of open space is calculated on 15 percent of the most recent assessed land value of the property. If the fee -in -lieu option is chosen, a written request to Parks Director John Hutton is required. A copy of this request is a required component of the preliminary plat application. Open space design size and location options, along with provisions for access, improvements, ownership, and maintenance, will be reviewed in conjunction with review of the preliminary plat. Per the note above, the landscape buffer can be credited for up to two percent of the open space buffer requirement. On -site open space may include any combination of the following types: 19-101438-00•1'C Doc ID: 78994 Mr. John Everett Page 7of18 May 3, 2019 Open Space Category '% of Gross Land Area Usable 10% minimum Conservation No maximum or minimum Buffer 2% maximum Constrained 2% maximum 11. Tree Detention/Replacement — The city's tree standards require each development to maintain a tree unit density. The minimum tree density requirements for RS zones are 25 tree units per acre. The required density for the subject property will be determined by multiplying the gross site acreage, minus streets and critical areas (excluding buffers), by 25 tree units per acre. A tree retention plan detailing how the subject property will meet tree unit density requirements shall be submitted with the preliminary plat application. Items required to be included in the plan are itemized in FWRC 19.120.040(2)(a) through (e). The table below identifies tree unit values for retained and replacement trees. FWRC 19.120.130-2 — Tree Unit Credits Retained Trees Tree Unit Credit Existing Tree 1" to 6" d.b.h. 1.0 Existing Tree > 6" to 12" d.b.h. 1.5 Existing Tree > 12" to 18" d.b.h. 2.0 Existing Tree > 18" to 24" d.b.h. 2•5 Existing Tree > 24" d.b.h. 3.0 Replacement Trees Replacement Tree - Small (Mature canopy area < 450 SF) .50 Replacement Tree - Medium (Mature canopy area 450 to 1,250 Sl) 1.0 Replacement Tree - Large (Mature canopy area > 1,250 SF) 1.5 For heavily forested sites, the director may allow a tree survey sample to be submitted that may be applied to the forested portions of a site in order to satisfy the tree survey requirement. Trees located within critical area buffers shall be credited towards satisfying the tree units per acre requirement. 12. Clearing & Grading —With the preliminary plat application, a clearing and grading plan addressing items listed in FWRC 19.120.040(1)(a) through 0) is required. Prior to beginning clearing and grading activities, all critical areas and buffers, and trees/vegetation that are to be preserved within and adjacent to the construction area shall be clearly marked and protected per guidelines prescribed witlun FWRC 19.120.160. Refer to FWRC 19.120.110, for clearing and grading provisions that may apply to development in areas with slopes of 15 percent or greater and with a vertical relief of six or more feet and a vertical rise of six feet or more for every 40 feet of horizontal distance. 19-101439-00TC Dui 1D: 79994 N-ir. John Everett Page 8 of 18 May 3, 2019 Any retaining walls and rockeries can be a maximum of six feet in height and must comply with standards in FWRC 19.120.120, Preliminary designs for retaining walls shall be submitted with the preliminary plat application, and include cross sections and visual depictions of retaining walls. 13. Forest Practices Permit.— The city has assumed jurisdiction over the review and approval of Class IV - General Forest Practices permits. A forest practices application form must be completed if more than 5,000 board feet of merchantable timber is harvested from the subject property. This is approximately equal to one log truck of timber; your site development includes the potential removal of trees on more than two acres. As such, please calculate the board feet of timber to be removed shown on your preliminary clearing and grading plan. Pursuant to FWRC 19,120.200, the city will review the proposed Class IV -General Forest Practices in conjunction with the land use application. Please include details of such activity in the environmental checklist as the Class IV permit is not exempt from SEPA review. General forest practice approval shall be valid for two consecutive years following the date of issuance, unless a longer time period has been established through an associated approval (e.g., preliminary plat approval, land use approval, building permit, etc.); in which case the time limits applicable to the associated approval shall apply. 14. Tacoma Smelter Plume — The subject property is located in the Tacoma Smelter Plume detect area containing 20.1 ppm to 40.0 pprm arsenic and lead concentration. The city will require soil testing and soil cleanup (if applicable) as a component of the preliminary plat and SEPA applications, review, and site development. The applicant shall provide preliminary soil testing data in compliance with Washington State Department of Ecology guidelines with the preliminary plat application. Additional information on the smelter plume testing and cleanup requirements can be found on Ecology's website. 15. .School AccessAnalysis — A school access analysis is required to be submitted to the city with the plat application, to assure that safe walking routes to schools or bus stops are provided as required by RCW 58.17. If there are not safe and adequate walking routes available, walking route improvements may be required as part of the plat review process. Contact Jennifer Wojciechowski at 253-945-2071, or jwniciec 11,f�y11 .gM, for information about the school access analysis requirements. 16. Schoollmpact Fees — School impact mitigation fees are to be paid at the time of individual single-family building permit issuance. 17. Approval Duration — Per FWRC 18.35.220, preliminary plat approval shall expire five years from the date of hearing examiner approval, unless the applicant requests an extension as provided in FWRC 18.05.090. 18. Final Plat — The final plat fee, in effect at the time of the final plat application, and items identified in FWRC 18.40.020, are required to process the final plat. Substantial completion of the plat infrastructure must occur prior to submittal and processing of the final plat application. Required improvements must be substantially completed as determined by the departments of Community Development and Public Works. The City Council will take final action on the plat. 19. Kecording — Following substantial completion of subdivision improvements and City Council review of the final plat, the applicant will record the plat with the King County Recorder's Office. The applicant is also responsible for the plat recording fees. Prior to recording the plat, all surveying and monumentation must be complete. 19-101438-ou-rc mac In:78994 Mr. John Everett Page 9of18 May 3, 2019 PUBLIC WORKS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION Ann Dower, 253-835-2732, ann.dower�3acityo!'fedcralway.com Land Use Issues — Stormwater 1. Surface water runoff control and water quality treatment will be required per the 2016 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDN 4). This project meets the requirements for a Full Drainage Review. At the time of land use site plan preliminary plat submittal, a preliminary Technical Information Report (TIR), addressing the relevance of the project to the nine core and five special requirements of the KCSWDM will be required. A Level 1 downstream analysis shall also be provided in the preliminary TIR. The city has 1" = 100', five-foot contour planitmetric maps in GIS format that may be used for basin analysis. 2. The project lies within a conservation flow control area-, thus, the applicant must design the flow control facility to meet these performance criteria. In addition to flow control facilities, Best Management Practices (BMP's) are required as outlined in the KCSWDM. The project also lies within an Enhanced Basic Water Quality Area. Water quality treatment shall be designed to meet the treatment criteria of the Enhanced Basic Water Quality Menu. 3. Soil logs prepared by a licensed geotechnical engineer or septic designer must be provided to verify infiltration suitability. 4. Detention and water quality treatment facilities for subdivisions arc required to be above ground (i.e. an open pond), within a separate storm drainage tract, and dedicated to the city for future maintenance. Detention and water quality facilities may be within the same txact. Underground facilities are allowed only with approval from the City of Federal Way Stormwater Management Division. Since the facilities will become the city's responsibility to maintain, underground vaults and tanks are not typically approved. 5. The applicant is advised to review the KCSWDM, Section 5, for design and access requirements for stormwater facilities. Steep slope and geologically hazardous areas requirements may apply. The applicant is also advised to review Reference 5, Wedand Hydrology Protection Guidelines. Coordination with the wetland hydrologist will be required to provide appropriate wetland buffer protection and recharge. 6. Third -party review, at the developer's expense, may be required for underground vaults, tanks, box culverts, pond walls, or bridges. 7. Show the proposed location and dimensions of the detention and water quality -facilities on the preliminary plans. 8. If more than one acre will be disturbed during construction, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction stormwater permit may be required. Information regarding this permit can be obtained from the Washington State Department of Ecology at 360-407-6048, or V ro r;tnix w Rtnr�=:water rrstsrrurtinn iE: I rx.ltttn . 9. If work is to be done below the ordinary high water mark, a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) permit may be required. Information regarding this permit can be obtained from the Washington Department of Irish and Wildlife. Doc ID: 18994 19-10 I-I38-0U-PC Mr. John Everett Page 10of18 May 3, 2019 Right -of -Way Improvements 1. See the Traffic Division comments from Sarady Long for traffic related items. 2. If dedication of additional right-of-way is requited to install street frontage improvements, the dedication shall be conveyed to the city through a statutory warranty deed. The dedicated area must have clear title prior to recording. 3. All stormwater treatment and detention requirements outlined above may apply to any improvements within the public right-of-way. 4. FWRC 19.135.280 requires that driveways serving residential uses may not be located closer than 25 feet to any street intersection. Lots and intersections within new subdivisions or short plats must be designed to meet this standard. Building (or EN) Permit Issues 1. Engineered plans are required for clearing, grading, road construction, and utility work. Plans must be reviewed and approved by the city. Engineering review fees are $3,004.00 for the, first 18 hours of review, and $167.00 per hour for additional review time. A final TIR shall be prepared for the project and submitted with the engineering plans. Both the TIR and the plans will require the signature/seal of a professional engineer registered/licensed in the State of Washington. When preparing the downstream analysis, please contact Paul Heller, 253-835-2754, for city information regarding downstream complaints and as -built information. 2. In addition to engineering approval, projects that will be filling or grading in the area of the future building pads are required to obtain a separate grading permit from the Building Division. 3. The Federal Wlay Public Works Development Standardr Manual (including standard detail drawings, standard notes, and engineering checklists) to assist the applicant's engineer in preparing the plans and TIR is available on the city's website at l trn:IhV�v.citV�v.cin=nfFecle�:t[qua}'.rYrinlinslcx.aspx?nici=171. 4. Bonding is required for all street improvements, public stormwater facilities, and temporary erosion and sediment control measures associated with the project. The bond amount shall be 120 percent of the estimated costs of the improvements. An administrative fee deposit will need to accompany the bond to cover any possible legal fees in the event the bond must be called. Upon completion of the installation of the improvements, and final approval of the Public Works Inspector, the bond will be reduced to 30 percent of the original amount and held for a two-year maintenance period. 5. The developer will be responsible for the maintenance of all storm drainage facilities (including the detention and water quality facilities) and street systems during the two-year maintenance period. During that time, the Public Works Inspector will make periodic visits to the site to ensure the developer's compliance with the maintenance requirements. Upon satisfactory completion of the two-year maintenance period, the remainder of the bond will be released. Maintenance for public roads and subdivision drainage facilities then become the responsibility of the city. Maintenance for private roads and drainage facilities, including short plats, remain the responsibility of the individual property owners. 19-101438-00-I'C Doc ID: 78994 Mr. John Everett Page 11 of 18 May 3, 2019 6. When topographic survey information is shown on the plans, the vertical datum block shall include the phrase "DATUM: N.G.V.D.-29" or "DATUM: K.C.A.S.," on all sheets where vertical elevations are called out. 7. Drawings submitted for plan review shall be printed on 24" x 36" or 22" x 34" paper. Site plans shall be drawn at a scale of 1" = 20', or larger. Architectural scales are not permitted on engineering plans. 8. Provide cut and fill quantities on the clearing and grading plan. 9. Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) measures, per Appendix D of the 2016 KCSWDM, must be shown on the engineering plans. 10. The site plan shall show the location of any existing and proposed utilities in the areas affected by construction. PUBLIC WORKS TRAFFIC DIVISION Sarady Long, 253-835-2743, sarady.long@cityoffederalway.com Transportation Concurrency Analysis (FWRC 19.90) 1. Based on the submitted materials for 63 lots, and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation - 1011, Edition, land use code 210 (Detached Single Family Residential), the proposed project is estimated to generate approximately 65 new weekday PM peak hour trips and 630 daily trips. 2. A concurrency permit is required for this development project. The PW Traffic Division will perform a concurrency analysis to determine if adequate roadway capacity exists during the weekday PM peak period to accommodate the proposed development. Please note that supplemental transportation analysis and concurrency mitigation may be required if the proposed project creates an impact not anticipated in the six -year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). 3. The estimated fee for the concurrency permit application is $9,032 (51 — 500 trips). This fee is an estimate and based on the materials submitted for the preapplication meeting. The concurrency application fee must be paid in full at the time the concurrency permit application is submitted with the land use application. The fee may change based on the new weekday PM peak hour trips as identified in the concurrency trip generation. The applicant has the option of having an independent traffic engineer prepare the concurrency analysis consistent with city procedures; however, the fee remains the same. Transportation Impact Fees (TIF) (FWRC 19.91) Based on the submitted materials for 63 single-family lots, the estimate total traffic impact fee is $259,495 ($4,119 per lot). The actual fee will be assessed and collected from the applicant when the building permit is issued, using the fee schedule then in effect (FWRC 19.100.070[3][c]). At any time prior to building permit issuance, the applicant may request to defer to final building inspection the payment of a transportation impact fee for a single-family residential dwelling unit (FWRC 19.100.075). If this option is selected, a covenants prepared by the city to enforce payment of the deferred fees will be recorded at the applicant's expense. Refer to defer payment of impact fee code for process. 1 9-1 U I J 38-"U-PC Doe ID: 7B994 Mr. John Everett Page 12 of 18 May 3, 2019 Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) (FWRC 19.135) The TIA must also address the project's traffic impacts on the surrounding neighborhood and recommend necessary measures such as traffic calming devices to minimize the project's impact. Prior to SEPA approval, the city may require the applicant to conduct a neighborhood traffic safety meeting to reach consensus with the affected neighborhood and staff on any proposed traffic calming measures. The applicant should coordinate with the Traffic Division staff to mediate the meeting; a 15-day minimum advance notice is required. Street Frontage Improvements (FWRC 19.135) The applicant/owner will be expected to construct street improvements consistent with the planned roadway cross -sections as shown in Map 17I-4 in Chapter III of the Federal Way Compnhen,rive Plan (FWCP) and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) shown as Table III-10 (F vVRC 19.135.040). Based on the materials submitted, staff conducted a limited analysis to determine the required street improvements. The applicant will be expected to construct improvements on the following streets to the city's planned roadway cross -sections: R SR-99 is a Principal Arterial planned as a Type "A" street, consisting of a 90-foot street with curb and gutter, 6-foot planter strips with street trees, 8-foot sidewalks, and street lights in a 124-foot right-of-way. The frontage on SR 99 was improved as part the SR 99 capital project. Since this is the case, staff would support waiving the required frontage improvements. ■ South 30411, Street is a Principal Collector planned as a Type "K" street, consisting of a 44- foot street with curb and gutter, 6-foot planter strips with street trees, 8-foot sidewalks, and street lights in a 78-foot right -of --way. Assuming a symmetrical cross section, a 9-foot right- of-way dedication and half street improvements are required. 9 201h Avenue South and internal roads (serving more than 25 lots) shall be a Type "U" Local Street, consisting of a 32-foot street with curb and gutter, 4-foot planter strips with street trees, 5-foot sidewalks and street lights in a 56-foot right-of-way. It Internal roads serving less than 25 lots (less than 250 daily traffic volume) shall be a Type "W", consisting of a 28-foot street with curb and gutter, 4-foot planter with street trees, 5- foot sidewalks, and street lights in a 52-foot right-of-way. 3. The applicant may be required to dedicate additional right-of-way to accommodate additional turn lane improvements if identified in the transportation impact analysis and/or property corner radius. 4. The applicant may make a written request to the Public Works Director to modify, defer, or waive the required street improvements (FWRC 19.135.070). Information about a right-of-way modification requests are available through the Public Works Development Services Division. These modification requests have a nominal review fee currently at $334.00. 5. Tapers and transitions beyond the project frontage may be required as deemed necessary for safety purposes; taper rate shall be WS^2/60, or as directed by the Public Works Director. 19-101138-00-PC Doc ID: 78994 IMr. John Everett Page 13 of 18 May 3, 2019 Access Management (FWRC 19.135) 1. Submit an intersection sight distance analysis at the proposed plat access/internal road with South 304,h Street and SR 99. The analysis shall be conducted in accordance to the latest AASHTO guidelines (3.5 feet object height, 3.5 feet driver's eye height, and 14.5 feet back from the edge of the traveled way for passenger vehicles). The analysis must bear the seal of a licensed engineer in the state of Washington. The sight distance triangle shall be depicted on the plan set. 2. Provide photo documentation within the appendix of the sight distance analysis. A minimum of one photo looking to the left and one looking to the right will show the location of the viewer in accordance to AASHTO guidelines. The site plan with plan and profile sheets should also be incorporated into the report to provide the site distance documentation. Indicate if there are any street trees, landscaping requirements, or any other objects existing or proposed to be within the sight distance triangle. State if the sight distance requirements are met or not, and provide any traffic safety mitigation measures. Design Criteria (FWRC 18.55) 1. Block perimeters shall be no longer than 1,320 feet for non -motorized trips, and 2,640 feet for streets (FWRC 18.55.010 and FWCP Policy TP4.2). Therefore, a new street connection to SR 99 will meet the block perimeter and a secondary access requirement. However, due to the presence of wetland and topographic constraints, this option may not be viable. As such, the applicant should explore extending the internal road to connect with 201h Avenue South. Additionally, a non -motorize path to SR 99 is required to meet the block perimeters standard. 2. No street, or combination of streets, shall function as a cul-de-sac longer than 600 feet (FWRC 18.55.010). The cul-de-sac road could be extended north connecting with 201h Avenue South. Alternatively, the easterly north -south internal road could be extended to the 2011, Avenue South and South 300th Street intersection. 3. The proposed development exceeds 25 lots, or 250 daily traffic volume equivalents, and as such, a secondary second access should be provided. 4. Traffic calming devices such as speed humps, traffic circles, chicanes, etc. should be incorporated in the residential street design to control speed and any potential cut -through traffic. Misc. Safety Related Comments 1. Driveways serving a single-family dwelling unit abutting two streets should beat least 25 feet from the beginning of the street radius. 2. The application should be forwarded to King County METRO and Pierce Transit for any transit requirements. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT — BUILDING DIVISION Greg Kirk, 253-835-2621, greg.kirk@cityoffederalway.com 1. Brril�lirrg Codes. Building permit applications and must meet all current codes including: 19-101438-00TC D° rn: 78994 Mr. John Everett Page 14 of 18 May 3, 2019 • International Buildbig Code (IBC), 2015 Washington State Amendments WAC 51-50 . • International Fire Code (IFC), 2015 Washington State Amendments WAC 51 -54 • International Residential Code, 2015 Washington State Amendments WAC 51-51 • Washington State Energy Code, 2015 WAC 51-11 2. Building Criteria. The following applies to the proposed structures and must be included on the drawings: • Wind/Seismic: Basic wind speed 85 Mph, Exposure, 25# Snow load, Seismic Zone D-1 3. Building Permit Appiicalion Process. A completed building permit application and residential checklist are required. Copies of application and checklist may be obtained on our web site at rrtuw.c:i v �ffet! . lw .c �sn. Appointments are required for intake of two or more single family residential building permit submittals. Please call or email to schedule an intake appointment with the Permit Center staff at (253)835-2607 or perrnitcenter@cityoffederalway.com. 4. Review "Timing. Federal Way reviews plans on a first in, first out basis. The first comment letter can be expected within five to seven weeks of the submittal date. Re -check of plans will occur in one to three weeks after resubmittal. Revised or resubmitted plans shall be provided in the same format, size, and amount as the originally submitted plans. Revised/resubmitted drawings shall indicate by means of clouding or written response, what changes have been made from the original drawings. Plans for all involved departments will be forwarded from the Community Development Department. 5. Other Permits &Inspections. When required, special inspections shall be performed by WABO approved agencies, or by agencies approved by the building official prior to permit issuance. Construction must be approved by all reviewing departments prior to final building division inspection. All concerned departments (planning, public works, electrical, & fire) must sign off before the Building Division can final the structure for occupancy. Building final must be approved prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 6. Site -Specific Requirements. Separate permit(s) will be required for retaining walls over four feet in height. One permit may be applied for if the retaining walls will be constructed prior to final plat approval. If the retaining walls are constructed at the time each residence is applied for, a separate retaining wall permit for each lot will be required. • Geotechnical soils reports will be required for each residential building permit submittal. 19-101-139-00-1'C Doc ID: 78994 ON Mr. John Everett Page 15 of 18 May 3, 2019 The information provided is based on limited plans and information. The comments provided are not intended to be a complete plan review and further comments are possible at time of building permit plan review. LAREHAVEN WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT Brian Asbury, 253-946-5407, BAsburyCulakehaven.org Water ■ A Water Certificate of Availability issued separately by Lakehaven may be required to be submitted with any land use and/or building permit applications (check with land use agency for requirement). The certificate is valid for one year from the date of issuance. If a certificate is needed, allow one to two working days to issue for typical processing. The 2019 cost for a Water Certificate of Availability is ,$70.00. Fire flow at no less than 20 psi available within the existing water distribution system is a minimum of 1,000 GPM (approximate) for two hours or more. This flow figure represents Lakehaven's adopted minimum level of service goals for residential areas regarding performance of the existing water distribution system under high demand conditions. If more precise available (and/or estimated onsite) fire flow figures are required or desired, the applicant can request Lakehaven perform a system hydraulic model analysis (separate from, or concurrent with, an application for availability). The 2019 cost for a system hydraulic model analysis is ,$230.00. A Lakehaven Developer Extension (DE) Agreement will be required to construct new, abandoned, and/or modify existing water distribution system facilities for the proposed development, including extend-to-far- edge(s) in accordance with long-standing Lakehaven policy. Additional detail and/or design requirements can be obtained from Lakehaven by completing and submitting a separate application to Lakehaven for either a Developer Pre -Design Meeting or a DE Agreement. Lakehaven encourages owners/developers/applicants to apply for Lakehaven processes separately to Lakehaven, and sufficiently early in the pre-design/planning phase to avoid delays in overall project development (especially if any land/property transfer is proposed). • Service pressure less than 40 psi is indicated for some higher elevation (490'+) lots. A Lakehaven Service Agreement is required and•booster pump recormnended; contact Lakehaven for requitetnents and/or additional information. ■ The associated DE Agreement must achieve a point of either Substantial Completion or Acceptance, as determined by Lakehaven, prior to activating any new domestic or irrigation water service connections. • Based on the proposal submitted, preliminary estimated Lakehaven water service connection fees, charges, and/or deposits (2019 schedule) will be as follows. Actual connection charges will be determined upon submittal of service connection application(s) to Lakehaven. Connection charges are separate from any DE fees/charges/deposits and are due at the time of application for service. All Lakehaven fees, charges, and deposits are typically reviewed and adjusted (if necessary) annually, and are subject to change without notice. o Water Service/Meter Installation, I" preliminary size: ,$571.08 charge. Actual size to be determined by Lakehaven based on UPC plumbing fixture count. o Capital Facilities Charge(s)-Water: ,$4,242,12 per Equivalent Residential Units (ERU). l9 101438 00-1'C Do 11): 18994 Mr. John Everett Page 16of18 May 3, 2019 o Service Agreement Charge(s): $'150.00 per lot. o County Document Recording Fees: $108.00 (+/-) per lot. Sewer ■ A Sewer Certificate of Availability issued separately by Lakehaven may be required to be submitted with any land use and/or building permit applications (check with land use agency for requirement). The certificate is valid for one year from the date of issuance. If a certificate is needed, allow one to two working days to issue for typical processing. The 2019 cost for a Sewer Certificate of Availability is M.00. A Lakehaven Developer Extension (DE) Agreement will be required to construct new, abandoned, and/or modify existing sanitary sewer system facilities necessary for the proposed development, including extend-to- far-edge(s) in accordance with long-standing Lakehaven policy. Additional detail and/or design requirements can be obtained from Lakehaven by completing and submitting a separate application to Lakehaven for either a Developer Pre -Design Meeting or a Developer Extension Agreement. Lakehaven encourages owners/developers/applicants to apply for Lakehaven processes separately to Lakehaven, and sufficiently early in the pre-design/planning phase to avoid delays in overall project development. ■ The associated DE Agreement must achieve a point of either Substantial Completion or Acceptance, as determined by Lakehaven prior to activating any new sewer service connections. ■ Based on the proposal submitted, preliminary estimated Lakehaven sewer service connection fees, charges, and/or deposits (2019 schedule) will be as follows. Actual connection charges will be determined upon submittal of service connection application(s) to Lakehaven. Connection charges are separate from any DE fees/charges/deposits and are due at the time of application for service. All Lakehaven fees, charges, and deposits are typically reviewed and adjusted (if necessary) annually, and are subject to change without notice. o Sewer Service Connection Permit: $420.23 fee. o Capital Facilities Charge(s)-Sewer: $0.00. Sewer system capacity credits are available for this property from system capacity charges previously assessed, paid directly to Lakehaven, and/or credited to the property for 87.68 ERU. General (including responses to applicant's questions in March 23, 2019, letter) ■ Is the Dirtfict open to connecting to server at either South 300, Street or Pack Hz hway South, or both? TrIhat are the District thoughts on boring under a7iticed areas to make connection for sewer? It appears sewer system extension from either location indicated would provide gravity sewer service to all proposed lots. It appears extension north from South 304t, Street would have less impact on any proximate sensitive and/or critical areas, and would not necessarily require bore type construction (pipe casing could be required in this area). 9 What are the Distrias policies regankig drop manholes for connecting to exceptionally deep sewer (South 30411, Street)? Typically, drop manhole connections are not allowed for either system/mainline extension or service connections, to allow for maximum access to such manholes. Lakehaven records indicate the presumed point -of -connection in South 304th Street (ex. MH-196, Pg. S-24) is only about 15 feet deep, so it's unlikely a drop manhole connection would be approved at this location. 19.101A38 00 VC Doc 11): 7W' I Mr. John Everett Page 17of18 May 3, 2019 Water conneclions raagef nm 475'-510'. Please describe District's anlidpated requirements regaf&ng pressure -zone concerns and system loopht� As indicated above, service pressure less than 40 psi is indicated for some higher elevation (490'+, at the meter) lots. Lakehaven will, require a Lour Pressure Water Service Agreement for each lot with estimated pressure at the meter less than 40 psi, and recommend owner/applicant consider installation of a private booster pump for such lots. A new water main would be anticipated in all new public right-of-way, with connections to existing Lakehaven water systems at South 302^d Place/20t^ Avenue South, and at the north side of the proposed plat. • Does tbe District have information contrary regarding the 30' access easement? Lakehaven does not have a record of private access easement on or across Lakehaven's 20thAvenue Tank site properties. Tf the app&cant has a copy of a recorded private easement on Lakehaven property, we would be happy to review that for further continent and/or requirements. ■ Whw drsgn consideralmu would The District like to see imrorpvrated in the proposed EVA aarm?Based on comments provided to the applicant at the preapplication meeting; on April 25, 2019, this EVA proposal/issue would appear to be not applicable. ■ All Lakehaven Development Engineering related application forms, and associated standards information, can be accessed at Lakehaven's Development Engineering web pages at: http://www.lakehaven.org/204/Development-Engineering. All comments herein are valid for one year and are based on the proposal(s) submitted and Lakehaven's current regulations and policies. Any change to either the development proposal(s) or Lakehaven's regulations and policies may affect the above comments accordingly. SOUTH KING FIRE AND RESCUE Chris Cahan, 253-946-7243, Chris Cahan@southidngfiire.org Water Supply Fare Floiv This review is based on using the IRC to build the homes. The required fire flow for this project is 1000 gallons per minute. A C'ertifzae of WaterAwilabik4 including a hydraulic fim flow model shall be requested from the water district and provided at the time of building permit application. Fire Hydrants This project will require two fire hydrants in approved* locations. *Hydrant(s) spacing along access roads and location in relationship to buildings and sprinkler ] DC shall be approved by Fire Marshal's Office. Fire hydrants shall be in service prior to and during the time of construction. Emergency Access Fire apparatus access roads shall comply with all requirements of Fire Access Policy 10.006: hitli ell K-crile"/1_10111e/View/?4. Hoc IU: 78994 19-101438-00-1'C Mr. John Everett Page 18 of 18 May 3, 2019 Designated and marked fire lanes may be required for emergency access. This may be done during the plans check or prior to building final. Requirements and marking options can be found in FWRC Title 8: ltittp Il �vunv, rul tthlishinl;.cntttll�jr111 r�l xa y Fire apparatus access roads shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Fire Sprinkler System Requirements for an NFPA 13D fire sprinkler system if any to be determined at time of building permit submittal. CLOSING This letter reflects the information provided at the preapplication meeting and is intended to assist you in preparing plans and materials for formal application. We hope you found the comments useful to your project. We have made every effort to identify major issues to eliminate surprises during the City's review of the formal application. The completion of the preapplication process in the content of this letter does not vest any future project application. Comments in this letter are only valid for one year as per FWRC 19.40.070(4). As you know, this is a preliminary review only and does not take the place of the fullreview that will follow submission of a formal application. Comments provided in this letter are based on preapplication materials submitted. Modifications and revisions to the project as presented for this preapplication may influence and modify information regarding development requirements outlined above. In addition to this preapplication letter, please examine the complete FWRC and other relevant codes carefully. Requirements that are found in the codes that are not addressed in this letter are still required for your project. If you have questions about an individual comment, please contact the appropriate department representative noted above. Any general questions can be directed towards me, the key project contact at 253-835-2641, or heck►.cha in tit ci affedcrai�� ay.cntn. We look forward to working with you. Sincerely, BWC-han Senior Planner enc: Handout #003, Master Land Use Application Handout #001 Process, III & IV Submittal Requirements Handout #037, Preliminary Plat Submittal Requirements Handout #050, Environmental Checklist Handout #002, Mailing Labels Handout Handout #071/072, Forest Practice Application Handout #142, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Handout #073, Tree Unit Calculation 2019 Concurrency Application Lakehaven IIandouts c: Ann Dower, Senior Engineering Plans Reviewer Sarady Long, Senior 'Transportation Planning Engineer Greg Kirk, Plans Examiner Brian Asbury, Lakehaven Water & Sewer District Chris Cahan, South King Fire & Rescue 19-101438-00-PC D-1v: 78994 it a � .� - r f�57•Z. -r- a � a a �� � m5 zc ESt1t s a 5 aoo 0 -rae J C O Z C 1 RETEA iO1l� = t"' a O m� O OpvON� l g 'o�C�7 '$w c `� o 3 •2o•2ot9 _ a W Cocr . CD E 143 Y 0Q LL ~� Z / o mZEoZ mom ►f 38 0 0$rn t j a LZl+�l E 1 • �• N > 2 7 Q m W II l 3 ¢4 L 3 •� , f k1 �r x 38 FLAT Sao $ 57 25 PAYU41i7 BSM*t• WP. La Sax 9.EraNIN4 Atvr Ora p 11, rAn A C m, V^1T C din o as ME IF a ° 63 lo [' �l7S • CC � a u - u r i G❑ 17 _ l •Sib Details J V m ` Parcel: 042104-9012, -9221 % Address: 19XX S 3O4th St I Z �� c Pacific Hwy City: Federal Way o - Zip Code: 98003 p d S7�M i+ Jurisdiction: City of Federal Way V p c, r _ Cti Size: 21 88AC I953,133 SF N Current Use: Vacant RSS.OZoning o to tg�. Min Lot Size: 5,000 SF + II �-•S ° _ Max Lot Coverage: 60% Max Height: 30' Min Building ingSetbacks: , N Interior Sides:5' o N l LEGEND Comer Sides:10' Rear: 5' z os e 3 r o Stormwater Structure_ r �] ty _ .� f •-�'' J (Tog (Tvmhomes) R C Stormwater Pipe Min Lot Size: 1,500 SF i,+ _ T�,�• �- ty ^� Max Height: 35' m R _ . I �� -Wr, 1�' _ fw• - y. _ , Sewer Min Building Setbacks Front: 1 O' 120' 2 7 ® a Sides: O' - 10' �� 1 Water RearS'!20' CIP� FFt Q%am - . ----- - --- - — rn - ---- — _ -- •--- ----- - • •-- • -- — - Storm Drainage Line ' Local Road StandardsM�.r Right-of-way: 60' EV U 0 m 15% + Slope in AgD Soils Cull -De -Sac: 106' ROW j U P; `Wo a _ _ _y_„ .�. -__ ., .. ... � ' _ .__ �_i _ - -, , �- _ Critical Area Buffers Pacificl'� : 120'R 5 304th S�74' ROW W ' w CI C o g _ _ _ _ 7' Dedicationki 3�1-`fib CITY OF Pre -application Conference Sign in Sheet v iy IL'A �� _' J� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE April 25, 2019 City Hall 9:00 a.m. Hylebos Room NAME 1. �ec*q +'Pin 2. -5-0,�- cot 3. 41f)lp -De-wer 4. 1<"e'�w A L�.Vjoc,(2 Project Name: Danilchik Plat Address: No Site Address File Number: 19-101420-00-PC DEPARTMENT / DIVISION C,D/ ,P inn 1�j Pt*' PO)/ p ri w 5. 6. fezouj Lvw & 9. J� 10. 11 12 C/O VW_� �_Ued TELEPHONE NUMBER/ENIML X5-3 35- 2S3 rS3f�27Zf A 53 . T3 757 VWVM • A.).u*rct6CkC,6 C( ui2 Z---635-z1443 X3 14 -7A J Z.53--/y- 7 >—aVe,v+6a-"e-� C" "'oiti W 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW—) W4? a:'.eS2SSi:C.C:i:"; ~7.- ESA memorandum date January 26, 2017 to David Jung from Christina Hersum and Ilon Logan Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98107 206.789.9658 i P o e 206.789.9684 fax subject Jung Property Wetland and Stream Assessment for Parcel 0421049057, Federal Way, WA attached References, Figures, Wetland Rating Forms, Data Plot Sheets This memorandum summarizes the results of a wetland and stream assessment conducted for the property located at 30300 Pacific Highway South, in Federal Way Washington (Tax Parcel 0421049057). The parcel is approximately 4.2 acres and is undeveloped. The findings of our wetland delineation and stream assessment are based on an analysis of existing background information, a field investigation conducted by Environmental Science Associates (ESA) biologists Christina Hersum and Michael Muscari on January 6, 2016, and a review of the current Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Chapters 15.10 Critical Areas and 19.145 Environmentally Critical Areas. ESA identified and delineated one wetland and one seasonal stream on the property. The western boundary of the wetland was flagged in the field and the northeast boundary was estimated (based on mapped contour lines) due to restricted access. The flagged wetland boundary location was recorded using a Global Positioning System (GPS device). Due to tree canopy cover and variable satellite reception, the GPS location accuracy was poor; as such, the wetland boundary provided on the attached map is approximate. For an accurate map of the wetland boundary, we recommend the wetland flags be located by a professional surveyor. Methods Methods defined in Regional Supplements to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual (Corps, 2010) were used to determine the presence and extent of wetlands in the study area. The methodology is based upon three essential characteristics of wetlands: (1) hydrophytic vegetation; (2) hydric soils; and (3) wetland hydrology. Field indicators of these three characteristics must all be present in order to determine that an area is a wetland (unless problem areas or atypical situations are encountered). The "routine on -site determination method" was used to determine the wetland boundaries. The routine method is used for areas equal to or less than 5 acres in size, or for larger areas with relatively homogeneous vegetative, soil, and hydrologic properties. Jung Property Wetland and Stream Assessment Memo January 2017 Formal data plots were established where information regarding each of the three wetland parameters (vegetation, soils, and hydrology) was recorded. This information was used to distinguish wetlands from non -wetlands. Wetland boundaries were identified with sequentially -numbered colored flagging and data plot locations were also marked with colored flagging. Background Review Prior to our field investigation, ESA reviewed the following background materials for information pertaining to the subject parcel: City of Federal Way Critical Areas Map (City of Federal Way, 2016) • King County iMap (King County, 2016) • National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Mapper (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS], 2016) • National Resource Conservation Service (MRCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Web Soil Survey (WSS) (MRCS and USDA, 2016) The City of Federal Way Critical Areas Map identifies a wetland and stream on the subject parcel, as well as an erosion hazard area (Figure 1). The King County iMap does not identify any wetlands or streams on the subject parcel. However, the US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Mapper identified two wetlands on the subject parcel. A narrow riverine wetland and a palustrine emergent wetland are mapped within the eastern portion of the parcel, extending southeast to northwest from a larger mapped wetland system associated with Steel Lake (USFWS, 2016). Field Investigation ESA biologists identified one Category II wetland (Wetland 1) and a seasonal stream located in the eastern portion of the property. Wetland 1 continues off the property to the east and to the north narrowing into a channel approximately eight feet wide (Figure 2). According to GPS data and field notes, the onsite portion of Wetland 1 is approximately 1.0 acres (45,000 SF). The seasonal stream flows north to south and enters a culvert underneath South 304'' Street, eventually discharging to Steel Lake. Wetland 1 is depressional palustrine forested and scrub -shrub wetland (PFO/PSS) dominated by red alder (Alnus rubra — FAC), salmonberry (Rubus spectablis — FAC), and Himalyan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus — FAC). Other species identified during the site visit included western red cedar (Thuja plicata — FAC), swordfern (Polystichum munitum — FACU), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea — FACW), and English ivy (Hedera Helix — FACU); reed canarygrass, English ivy, and Himalayan blackberry are non-native invasive species. Within Wetland 1, soils were saturated to the surface and a water table was 6 inches below the soil surface at the time of investigation. Soils examined within Wetland 1 met the hydric soil indicator F3 (Depleted Matrix). See attached data plot 2 for more information. At the time of the site visit, the on -site portion of Wetland 1 was inundated and a stream channel was not visible due to the extent of inundation. In addition, all surface water within the wetland was frozen. Based on field observations, the seasonal stream generally meanders through the center of Wetland 1 and flows off the property to the east. Page 2 of 6 Jung Property Wetland and Stream Assessment Memo January 2017 Data plot 1 and 3 characterize the adjacent upland areas, and primarily consist of a mature forest dominated by western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), red alder, salal (Gaultheria shallon), Himalayan blackberry, and English ivy. A culvert is located to the east of the property boundary under South 304`h Street. Water in the stream channel was frozen on either side of this culvert at the time of the site visit. The culvert appears to connect surface water discharge from Wetland 1 to a larger wetland system associated with Steel Lake (Figure 3). Regulatory Considerations Wetlands are regulated at the federal, state, and local levels. Agencies with jurisdiction include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), and the City of Federal Way. Development projects that impact wetlands or their buffers require permits and approvals from multiple agencies. Agencies typically require permit applicants to avoid and minimize wetland impacts before development approval is granted. Compensatory mitigation is usually required for any impacts that cannot be totally avoided. This section provides a brief overview of the main regulatory considerations that could affect the development potential of the subject parcels. Federal Regulations: The Corps regulates discharges of dredged -or fill materials into waters of the United States, including wetlands, under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The purpose of the Clean Water Act is to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." Proponents of development projects that involve filling or grading in wetland must obtain a federal permit prior to the development. The Corps requires permit applicants to avoid and minimize wetland impacts and to replace or compensate for unavoidable impacts so that there is no net loss of wetlands overall. State Regulations: Projects that impact wetlands also require a water quality certification from the Department of Ecology. The state certification process is usually triggered through the Section 404 permit application. The state must certify that proposed activities will not adversely affect water quality or violate state aquatic protection laws. Ecology may issue approval, approval with conditions, denial, or a request for delay due to lack of information. Any conditions attached to the 401 certification become part of the Section 404 permit. Cily of Federal Way Re ulations: The wetland on the Jung property is considered an "associated wetland" of Steel Lake due to its hydrologic connection via the seasonal stream that flows under S 304`h Street to the lake. Steel Lake and its associated wetlands are regulated as shorelines areas under the Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan (SMP) (Figure 4), which was updated and adopted in 2011. Wetlands are classified into Category I, II, Moprl ;W using the criteria provided in FWRC Chapter 15.10.250 (shoreline regulations). The code generally prohibits filling of wetlands except under limited circumstances such as stormwater conveyance. The City code also requires a protective buffer around each wetland and setback for each stream to insulate them from adverse effects of adjacent development. The size of the wetland buffer is based on the category of the wetland and the size of the setback is determined on whether the stream is a `minor' or `major' stream per FWRC 15.10.170. According to the criteria, Wetland 1 is a Category II wetland and has a standard wetland buffer of 100 feet. The seasonal stream meets the definition of a "minor stream" and has a standard stream buffer of 50 feet. Standard buffers for Wetland 1 and the seasonal stream are presented in Table 1. Page 3 of 6 Jung Property Wetland and Stream Assessment Memo January 2017 TnhlP 1 _ Riimmary of Wetland Ratings and Buffers City of Federal Way Wetland Standard Wetland/Stream ID Category/Stream Type Buffer/Setback Width (FWMC 15.10.250) (feet) Wetland 1 II 100 Seasonal stream Minor 50 ESA wetland biologists also rated Wetland 1 using the Washington State Department of Ecology Rating System for Western Washington — 2014 Update (Hruby, 2014). The Ecology rating system provides a functional assessment of the wetland and the rating form may be useful for future permitting or consultation with the City (see Wetland Rating Form 1, attached). Buffer reduction and allowances for buffer use: Wetland 1 and its associated buffer encompass a majority of the subject parcel. The City regulations allow up to a 50 percent reduction in buffer width for Category II wetlands. To qualify for a wetland buffer reduction, the proposal must include a buffer enhancement plan, with additional specific criteria that must be met (see FWRC 15.10.270.5). City of Federal Way standards also provide limited allowances for wetland and wetland buffer uses (FWMC 15.10.270.6). These allowances are generally applicable to specific site improvements associated with a development proposal (allowances for certain stormwater facilities within wetland buffers, or for site access). Given development constraints caused by Wetland 1 and its buffer, ESA recommends early consultation with City staff for any proposed vegetation removal or site development to ensure that any proposed wetland and/or buffer alterations are consistent with the intent of FWMC 15.10 and to determine what compensatory mitigation would be required. Limitations Within the limitations of schedule, budget, and scope -of -work, we warrant that this study was conducted in accordance with generally accepted environmental science practices, including the technical guidelines and criteria in effect at the time this study was performed. The results and conclusions of this report represent the author's best professional judgment, based upon information provided by the project proponent in addition to that obtained during the course of this study. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Thank you for the opportunity to prepare this memorandum. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call ESA at (206) 789-9658. Page 4 of 6 Jung Property Wetland and Stream Assessment Memo January 2017 References Brinson, M. August 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wetlands Research Program. City of Federal Way. 2016. Critical Areas Map. http://www.eiVoffederalwgy.comisitpsldefault/filies/maps/sensitive 2016.1df. May 2016. Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region. Version 2. Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program. May 2010. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. hqp://www.usace.anny.mil/CECW/Documents/cecwo/reg/west nit finalsupj2j2df. Federal Way Municipal Code. 2011. Chapter 15.10, Critical Areas, Shoreline Master Plan. Current through Ordinance 11-705, passed November 1, 2011. Available at: httn://www.codeptiblishing.com/WA/Federa]Wgy . Accessed: January 2017. Federal Way Municipal Code. 2015. Chapter 19.145, Environmentally Critical Areas. Current through Ordinance 15-797, passed June 16, 2015. Available at: htip://www,codepublishing.com/WA/FederalWaY1. Accessed January 2017. Hitchcock, C.L., and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest: An Illustrated Manual. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington. Washington Department of Ecology (Publication #14-06-029). Olympia, WA. Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update. Washington Department of Ecology (Publication #14-06-029). Olympia, WA. King County, 2017. King County iMap: Interactive Mapping Tool. Available at: http://gismns.kinp-county.gov/iMap1 . Accessed: January 2017. Munsell Color. 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts. GretagMacbeth, New Windsor, New York. NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 1995. Hydric Soils List for Washington. Revised December 15, 1995. NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2010. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States - A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils. Version 7.0, 2010.fE //ftn" fc.sc.e ov usda. ov/NSSCIH dric Soils/FieldIndicators v7.12df. USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture), NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2017, Web Soil Survey. Available at: http://websoilsurva.nres.usda.2ov/app[WebSoilSurvU.aspx. Accessed: January 2017. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). Biol. Rpt. 88(26.9). United States Department of Interior, Washington, DC. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 1993. 1993 Supplement to List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). Page 5 of 6 Jung Property Wetland and Stream Assessment Memo January 2017 USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2017. National Wetlands Inventory, Wetlands Mapper. Available at: h :llunvw.fws. ovlwetlandslflata/Ma er.litm . Accessed: January 2017. Vepraskas, M.J. 1999. Redoximorphic Features for Identifying Aquic Conditions. Technical Bulletin 301. North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina. Page 6 of 6 Figure 1 City of Federal Way Critical Areas Map (City of Federal Way, 2016) "• we .' '� �� mow}. ~ L - -.W".t r A Ti 301ST.ST- 4 ; 0 _S 301ST PL r 4;-.. S 302AIC,A~ .. -.k t. 04 S 304TH ST. 1' T DOW- - T'y LU L of99 P S13' OOTH 5 r Seasonal stream —�-- - ,�t.►� LU -A. Offsite wetland (Approximate boundary) Parcels �►�'' .f ❑ lwth.k Des M0111v. it n di fie! � ^ Way. R 7i,r, Kent Federal Way , Shoreline a Management Plan Federal Way and } Its Potential Annexation Area :Q 331�71 ^ 'NY ,Ms� si — SRY,770m sr e w I Mm a ^ Y Tamna h'.y ro ►I � 4 Wt. tit ` sw „air a! .....+.�� F �. c4F f et• L.•6 Milton F if is Edgrwnnd 4'%& It Legend City of Federal Way Polenttal RnnexaWn A£ea ,may Regulated Shoreline �y Puget Sound Basl Puget Sound • Dumas Bay Puget Sound West ID steel lake SW, Lake Lake Dolloff 0Lake Geneva 0 NoMh Lake Lek. KICIa[ney 0 rave We Lake O® hAiiQ$ N Map Date K1ay 2006 t sr v Federal Way Ztas rnep is nr.�mpsM1i<r1 by NQ rvNra� �Niup antl es simply a grt,p*�c rapinsantation Figure 4 City of Federal Way Regulated Shorelines Map (City of Federal Way, 2006) WETLAND DETERMINATIuN DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Juno Property City/County: Federal WavlKing Sampling Date: 1 17 Applicant/Owner: David Juno State: WA Sampling Point: DP-1 Investigator(s): CH. MM Section, Township, Range: Sec 4. T21N. R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): con Slope Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.331427 Long: 122.31f280 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Aiderwood maign I ° NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SI 1MMARV nP mmnINr-S - Aftwch sitp man chnwina samnlino noint locations. transects. important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ®TI.thSampled Area Yes ❑ No a Wetland? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: VEGE f A i ION —use scientific names OT lams Tree Stratum (Plot size: 3E) Absolute ° Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet: over Species? Status 1 Alnus rubre vL FAC Number of Dominant Species 2 (A) 2 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 Total Number of Dominant (B) 4 Species Across All Strata: 50% = 20% = 2� = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species 100 (A/B) Saplinal5hruh Stratum (Plot size: 16) That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Rubus saectahlis AC 2. &4us Armamiacus jL DQ FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply bv: 3. Pofysflfchum munifvm 14 r1q FACU OBL species x1 = 4, FACW species x2 = 5, FAC species x3 = 50% _ , 20% =18 90 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: J V) UPL species x5 = 1. Column Totals: (A) (B) 2 Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 3. 4. ❑ 1 — Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. ® 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6. — ❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.0' 7. - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 8 — El data data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) g. ❑ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 50%= 20% _ Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woodv_Vtna Stratum (Plot size: 115') 1. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation Yes ® No ❑ 50% = 20% _ = Total Cover Present? % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 Project Site: Juna Propery oI Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features -hes) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc' Texture 0=6 01 YR 2/2 100 to 6-17 10 YR 2/2 100 10 gravel 17-20 10 YR 2/1 100 o araval PolnL Remarks 'Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (At 0) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ H d Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) El other (Explain in Remarks) y rogen u i e ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (FB) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Yes ❑ No Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) ❑ High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 17 Saturation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 16 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATIuN DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Jung Property City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date: 1/6117_ Applicant/Owner: David Jung State: WA Sampling Point: DP-2 Investigator(s): CH, MM Section, Township, Range: Sec z. l'21 N. R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0=1 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.331300 Long:-122.311023 Datum: WGS 84 Sail Map Unit Name: Alftrwood material. 0-6I.o slopes NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) ci IUKAARV r%P GIBIniNr:R _ Attach city man shnwinn camnlina noint locations. transacts. important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ Is the Sampled Area Yes ® No ❑ within a Wetland? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: Tree Stratum (Plot size: �) Absolute ° Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet: Cover Species? Status 1. Alnus rubra 44 yes FAC Number of Dominant Species (A) 2. Thuia nlicala ¢ FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3. Total Number of Dominant 3 (B) 4 Species Across All Strata: 50% = 22�.5. 20% = 9 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species Saolinal5hrub Stratum (Plot size: 16) That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Rubus sneclablis Y FAC 2. Rutrus Armerniacus gees FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply IbY7. 3 OBL species x1 = 4 FACW species x2 = 5. T FAC species x3 = 50% = 17.5. 20% = 7 35 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herr Sir alum (Plot size: 19) UPL species x5 = 1. -- Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 3. 4. ❑ 1 — Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. ® 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6. ❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.0' 7. - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting El data data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8 g, ❑ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 50% = 20% _ Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Wagdy Vine Stratum (Plot size: IF) 1. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation Yes ® No ❑ 50% = 20% _ = Total Cover Present? % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 Project Site: Juna Propert 5QIL Sam un r-=E: r 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) % Type' Loc' Texture Remarks 0`9 10 YR 2/1 100 sa to 9-11 10 YR 411 95 10 YR /6 5 C M si o 11.1g 0 YR 3l 50 5 YR 418 50 C M si to som & 9.rnnic materials ivL 'Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ H dro en Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) y g ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ® Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: Yes ® No Cl Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water (At) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) ® High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 46) ® Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ❑ Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): i Water Table Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): ¢ Saturation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATtuN DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Jung Propert City/County: Federal WaylKing Sampling Date: 1 1 Applicant/Owner: David Jung State: WA Sampling Point: DP-3 Investigator(s): CH. MM Section, Township, Range: Sec 4. T21N._34E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): sloe Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 2=3 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.331328 Long:-122.311168 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood material. D-6°% slopes NWI classification: NIA Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) ¢i IMMARV r%P riiunIIUrSLQ — Attach city man shnwinn camnlino point locations. transects. important features. etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ® Is the Sampled Area Yes ❑ No ED within a Wetland? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: VEGETATION —Use scientitic names of pianis Lse Slratum (Plot size: 3�) Absolute ° Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet: Cover Species? Status 1. Alnus rubra y9a FAC Number of Dominant Species 4 (A) 2. Thuia alicata � FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3. Total Number of Dominant 4 (B) 4 Species Across All Strata: 50% = 27.5, 20% = 11 35 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species 100 (a6) i 1 h r (Plot size: IV) That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1. Rubus saeclablis ves FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Arm m lyri M FAG Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. — OBL species x1 = 4, FACW species x2 = 5, FAC species x3 = 50% = 17�.r, 20% = 7 35 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herr Siralum (Plot size: 1Q) UPL species x5 = 1. Column Totals: (A) (B) 2, Prevalence Index = B/A = 3, Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4, ❑ 1 — Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. ® 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6. — ❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.0' 7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 8 ❑ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) g. ❑ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. � — 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 50% = 20% _ Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. ILVpody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 11 F) 1. — Hydrophytic 2 Vegetation Yes ® No El = 20% _ =Total Cover Present? % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 Project Site: Jung Property SOIL lRmnnna rerun:Ur 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) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-18 10 YR 312 100 sa logo 'Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (At0) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (69) ❑ High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns (B10) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Drift Deposits (B3) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (64) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Iron Deposits (65) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No Qncludes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Dry soil US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 Wetland name or number Weiland RATING SUMMARY — Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): Wetland 1 Rated by Christina Hersum HGM Class used for rating Depressional & Flats Date of site visit: 1/6/2017 Trained by Ecology? 21 Yes ❑ No Date of training 9/29/2016 Wetland has multiple HGM classes? ❑ Yes ENo NOTE: Form is not complete with out the figures requested (figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY II (based on functions Dor special characteristics ❑ ) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I - Total score = 23 - 27 X Category II - Total score = 20 - 22 Category III - Total score = 16 - 19 Category IV - Total score = 9 - 15 Improving Hydrologic Habitat FUNCTION Water Quality List appropriate rating (H, M, Q Site Potential M M M Landscape Potential H H L Value H L H Total Score Based on 8 6 6 20 Ratings 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC Category Estuarine Wetland of High Conservation Value Bog Mature Forest Old Growth Forest Coastal Lagoon Interdunal None of the above x Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9=H,H,H 8 = H, H, M 7 = H, H, L 7=H,M,M 6=H,M,L 6=M,M,M 5=H,L,L 5 = M, M, L 4=M,L,L 3=L,L,L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 1 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland 1 _ Maps and Figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington DepressIanaI_W Oands Riverine Wetlands Lake Fringe Wetland Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2 Bounda of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another .ft ure) L 2.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2. 1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3 Slope Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3 Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants (can be added to another figure) S 4.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2. 1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 2 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland 1 HGM Classification of Wetland in Western Washington For questions 1 -7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1 - 7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? NO - go to 2 ❑ YES - the wetland class is Tidal Fringe - go to 1.1 1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? ❑ NO - Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) ❑ YES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to score functions for estuarine wetlands. 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. El NO - go to 3 ❑ YES - The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ❑ The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size; ❑ At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). l] NO - go to 4 ❑ YES - The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ❑ The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), ❑ The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. ❑ The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. <] NO - go to 5 ❑ YES - The wetland class is Slope NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep). 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ❑ The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river, ❑ The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. El NO-goto6 ❑ YES - The wetland class is Riverine NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number Weiland 1 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. ❑ NO-goto7 0 YES - The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. ❑ NO-goto8 ❑ YES - The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM class to use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary of depression Depressional Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 4 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland 1 DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet). points = 3 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. points = 2 1 LJ Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 1 ❑ Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points = 1 D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer is true clay or true organic 0 (use NRCS definitions). Yes = 4 No = O D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub -shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes): Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points = 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 1/2 of area points = 3 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/10 of area points = 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants < 1/10 of area points = 0 D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal pondinq or inundation: This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual. Area seasonally ponded is > 1/2 total area of wetland points = 4 4 Area seasonally ponded is > 1/4 total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < 1/4 total area of wetland points = 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes abovel 10 Rating of Site Potential If score is: ❑ 12 - 16 = H =.1 6 - 11 = M LJO - 5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = O 1 D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that 1 generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = O D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1 - D 2.3? 1 Source Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes abovel 4 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: R1 3 or 4 = H ❑ 1 or 2 = M ❑ 0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, 0 lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0 D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub -basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? 1 Yes=1 No=O D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in 2 which the unit is found)? Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes abovel 3 Rating of Value If score is: (_ _' 2 - 4 = H 1 = M _I 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland 1 DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points = 2 2 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points = 1 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 0 D 4.2. Depth of storage d iring wetperiods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part. Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5 3 ❑ Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3 ❑ The wetland is a "headwater" wetland points = 3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft 6 in oints = 0 ❑ 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. 0 The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5 5 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0 ❑ Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5 Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above 10 Rntinn of Site Potential If score is: ❑12 - 16 = H 1216 - 11 = M ❑0 - 5 = L Record the rating on the first page Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: El 3 = H ❑ 1 or 2 = M ❑ 0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? D 6.1. The unit is in a landscape that Choose the description that best matches conditions around the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the hi hest score if more than one condition is met. The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down -gradient into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds): 0 Flooding occurs in a sub -basin that is immediately down - gradient of unit. points = 2 0 ❑ . Surface flooding problems are in a sub -basin farther down - gradient. points = 1 ❑ Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub -basin. points = 1 ❑ The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why points = 0 ICI There are no problems with floodin downstream of the wetland. points = 0 D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood 0 conveyance in a regional flood control Ian? Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above 0 Rating of Value If score is: J 2 - 4 = H LJ 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 6 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland 1 These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of % ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. ❑ Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4 1-1 Emergent 3 structures: points = 2 7 Scrub -shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points - 1 U Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0 If the unit has a Forested class, check if: U The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon H 1.2. Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or'/4 ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods ). 0 Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3 P] Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2 ❑ Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1 * Saturated only 1 types present: points = 0 ❑ Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Ll Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland ❑ Lake Fringe wetland 2 points ❑ Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ftZ. Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. 0 None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are HIGH = 3 points Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 7 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland 1 H 1.5. Special habitat features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. U Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long) 0 Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland ❑ Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) ❑ Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed) j] At least % ac of thin -stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg -laying by amphibians) ❑ Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of strata Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above 12 Rating of Site Potential If Score,is: ❑ 15 - 18 = H PT1 7 - 14 = M ❑ 0 - 6 = L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat function of the site? H 2.1 Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Calculate: 5 % undisturbed habitat + [ 10 % moderate & low intensity land uses ! 2) = 10% If total accessible habitat is: 1 > 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 20 - 33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 10 - 19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1 < 10 % of 1 km Pol on mints = 0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: 20 % undisturbed habitat + ( 15 % moderate & low intensity land uses / 2) = 27.5% Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 1 Undisturbed habitat 10 - 50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2 Undisturbed habitat 10 - 50% and > 3 patches points = 1 Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.3 Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (-2) -2 s 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above 0 Ratina of Landscape Potential If Score is: ❑ 4 - 6 = H ❑ 1 - 3 = M I] < 1 = L Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2 0 It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) ❑ It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) ❑ It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species 2 ❑ It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources [� It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) with in 100m points = 1 Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0 Rating of Value If Score is: 2 = H 1 = M .... 0 = L Necora me ranng on me nrsi [Jdye Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland 1 , WDFW Priority Habitats Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/listl Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat. ❑ Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha). ❑ Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report). ❑ Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. PI Old-growth/Mature forests: Old -growth west of Cascade crest — Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests — Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. ❑ Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 — see web link above). P-1 Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. ❑ Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161— see web link above). P1 Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. ❑ Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report — see web link on previous page). ❑ Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. ❑ Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. ❑ Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. El Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 9 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland 1 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetiand Type Category Check off any criteria that a ly to the wetland. List the category when the appro rate criteria are met. SC 1.0. Estuarine Wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? ❑ The dominant water regime is tidal, ❑ Vegetated, and ❑ With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt ❑ Yes -Go to SC 1.1 ❑ No = Not an estuarine wetland SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? ❑ Yes =Cate ❑ I ❑ No - Go to SC1.2 SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? ❑ The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina , see page 25) I_ At least'/,, of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un- grazed or un-mowed grassland. ❑ The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. ❑ Yes = Category 1 :._I No = Cateaory II SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV) SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High Conservation Value? ❑Yes - Go to SC2.2 2No-Go to SC2.3 SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value? Yes = Category I ❑ No = Not WHCV SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? htt ://wwwl.dnr.vva. ov/nh /refdesk/datasearch/wnh wetlands. df ❑ Yes - Contact WNHP/WDNR and to SC 2.4 0 No = Not WHCV SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on their website? ❑ Yes = Category I ❑ No = Not WHCV SC 3.0. Bogs Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? ❑Yes - Go to SC 3.3 E1 No - Go to SC3.2 SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or pond? ❑ Yes - Go to SC 3.3 21 No = Is not a bog SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30% cover of plant species listed in Table 4? ❑ Yes = Is a Category I bog ❑ No - Go to SC 3.4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog. SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy? ❑ Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a b❑ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 10 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number Welland 1 ,� SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. ❑ Old -growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more. ❑ Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm). ❑ Yes = Category i No = Not a forested wetland for this section SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? ❑ The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks ❑ The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) ❑ Yes - Go to SC 5.1 21 No = Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? ❑ The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100). ❑ At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un- grazed or un-mowed grassland. ❑ The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ft2) ❑ Yes = Category I ❑ No = Category II _ SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: ❑ Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103 ❑ Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105 ❑ Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 ❑ Yes - Go to SC 6.1 0 No = Not an Interdunal wetland for rating SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M for the three aspects of function)? ❑ Yes = Category I ❑ No - Go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger? ❑ Yes = Category II ❑ No - Go to SC 6.3 SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac? ❑ Yes = Category III - ❑ No = Category IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics [ If you answered No for all types, enter "Not Applicable" on Summary Form Wetland Rating System for. Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 11 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 NOD �, { `�f �� •�� �. R- ,. ���::. ;r � :t� i• .k 3 ...��' 1k i-1 a.i: ;ti•���,1 it • z'�o �r l+. ��� R �' w � r Vic: �, i �}�k� 'S, +E' �} �� 1- . { }'. `� • { �� �a ;�. ,, •�,L.+� may." . evc IIA • " t r 1, : +`+3 �• - r =. a4o ; +' '�1'�. f • � r`F `-.ems Y. 'r �Y �c+ : � :.�;�• ' � .';; 4`�'��';-#S- � �•-.� _ 'ram. Legend Filter Date Zoom To Tools Baselliap 7 Add or remove map data Assessed Waters/Sedinient o Water Category 5 - 303d NVO Category 4C %0 Category 48 %0 Category 4A Category 2 %0 Category 1 - Sediment M Category 5 - 303d < EM Category 4C 4 Category 4B Category 4A Category 2 ZZ Category I Change map data transparency Asses jif., -401 pin�- Figure 6. Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin; from Ecology website (D 3.1, D 3.2) otr AAIx1V'r u• ECOLOGYTill Water Quality Improvement Project Green Riven' and Newaukurn Creek Area: Multi-pararneter Tnte �Sd uctlon Lacxvd In mostern Wasbingron sml#. tba Geean River basin drams about 464 square .Iles of land afex and Indnsles pyrtlonv of King county and lis cities of Auburn, Sla[k [:lamond. egvkp:on, 5nia—lax. %ent, Maple Valley, Perstsn, $WTac. and Tukwila. It flov,s far over 93 miles fra!s1 L'a GArad. Kounta'ins to EOlott l3ay. [4ajor streams dralnhlg A Vry Green Riser Indyae uefeauUm, idM. SpringbronV, Aad Mill crl*$/. slfsraullnnl Creel 1s one Of tvre n411o• arAbosins - '9*uld far Wdl errs -WDL ihtdtes M1 t'ffnptKdt'— and di—NEId oxygen. Ne•warrknm Ci eek is a tributary to the Green Rive!'. tlrxaukuln [rt[k ILIIf ab01C jS mites ftppr It/ hvedwAt4'v [3,000 ft 4bave eta ie1'it; 10 lei OOcifk K*'Ath the Green Rr,,st Mar liver :•er rille 40. � (100 ft. above sea level). (See ,`,-' Sam subbas€n Is the mme major batn. 7Wk on the 9013 no€ersW =fmifnbn[ail in 2004. Wiarmatlan on the 5— may be found at: sx. '�s.as_t::tzcaa[a113s'.xuLtil p2sC- MQL-.;Sln€. Land use In the study area ies f6mild4rably from a mix of residential, commercial forestry and agricultural land uses around the Middle Green River, to residential, Industrial, and LWMWCW sand Was near tiro to Grill A!wf. watf-,r quality iss311es ructlene as, this, Gr"m A]vx and f mr &uen Creek ertdbll unheahhy temFbWM" and oxygen 44rvFSAM. mar catne MM fA fall M Sul Wa0WngMl$ Stan -Ater gOMTV Mndards, fish be WOSe vev",, hl bw NaAf td"6rW paypvr!)- Cade watst tldda more vKypert syalmof water retNlts In less asygeo fat 04h ary other aquade WgA ntams, VViMn 1l atM n21 too 6100 oaygM 0'f Its ifm]eedrleo la ton wane. local cash ran INC* Vw mal sire" and MM. These s11'earnl asry as Imis"m migrataon tql ridnn ane sPalyNnp anal rearfrlg aNe] her - Wlt salrMm species, intjum no atrpet Seurw Lfllnovlt, but u&A, Ceho; chu!n; pink; sockeye; kokanaa; stea!headjraInbow, and aydhaoat trALL`. Th'ase uPN=0e all treed cad waovrs fqr optimum health duping val ious stages of their lives. Status of t F projects. To address the water quality Issues. in 2006 Ecology Initiated water quality imprbVement ;also known as total maximum daily load, of TMW projects for teialw.t— and dissolved oxygen in the Green River and Nawouk um Creek. Ecology, King Count, and others eeeperaced In a su!nir.M 11 eld study to collect data let the tempxatura and dissolved oxygen TMDL studies. As Par. of On TF1Dt. sLvRr. Ecology ldr[lYltied Ole pollytlaq probiems and sgldlfied Iq[r myjh p0lua R needs to ye reduced ca achieve clean water. As a fdpo,'-w ro the rMf]L stflfiy. ECNagy %j& with ln4'.oQJ community to caliper► a x-glrr qua42y Imvlemen adon plan (.VCily? that llealIS Wp simifit.40o" needed to Improve wa al gvapey in W basin The plan describes mlroM .ayniq loi4s, ActMilies, and schedules for pat mar S. Kmv local partners Are awy wed In ENS ef", ltltluding ter t4yCl.lesha6t.dean—,disq. K" CGrrnty, U.S- Army Corps of Fnginaws. Scale OFp?!I trnr>s{ v1 AgrlcUltuty. Tacvrlla avytlr U 01in, artd the p11ss of Aubtv-1. gild. Dllamorld. Kent. Tutaiiv, Rstrtop. Covlrgton, FIA.YIe Valley, 6niutlefaW, clad othe[1. lialtiftwo groups, Vvth la Middle ❑rren River CO'aIII— Arid Midsovnd Arslw Nfs EH!a NiIment Group. watts ills,/ residentl. and Total bon,,," silo play lrRyM• e[ told In mproWing wAur Wlollty. Csi'Cftn W1°f.r Ecology de eloped a water quality lftPMVMm l report ('NQ[R, also known as a Th10Lj to address water temperature isfws In the arleA River. TM ^IQIR consists of the results and "NIM mendatlons of a TMOI- study an tJw O? u River and an Implsl—nteNnn stratt.yy to delermine what needs to br- donv. and 3A WIII carry au: the retmnmend,T:lons, to brinn the Figure 7. Screen capture of TMDLs for WRIA 9; from Ecology website (D 3.3) tar5'SSikISt WetFr•Ilndy t1111»11e: Grid Ali— fte n1[a. um �fe1 p4"111e1~ pY.splvvd � ygerr TrrriMLaYXe • of trstil rinfn FiVer • tE a—u uirn C't-k • I Status: Green Rlyer - approved by EPA Newaukum Creek - approved by EPA; has an Implementation plan CvMect 4We: - N"- vFer. 47Sr.47 01' finea M-1tree,11 Region O,Puus es, HCi6m 3]sC t9Sk aA,r. SE &Pr.:a te9o7Pe.SAx General Legend: Federal Way City Limits Federal Way Zoning Map 20 Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Parcels Sections %/ SEPA Planned Action Area Boundary f n•rp - Fr Subdivisions _ A I = tr ",;" ix ' _ =_: Environmental Legend: r r 4-' Federal Way Stream Classification Points BC • -� - d. �+.><A. � S-296TH ST �-�i�'+r—s ����. S 296TH ST Streams Shoreline Designations- Federal Wa y r,;p 0 B C " . , _".. _. _ .... —_, S 296TH ST .:. ... 'rlr _ _. rr ;uoru—��... 7 �"�'�'�^�"�'��� ��- �� ' , ' .. Shoreline Designations - King County Lakes �. N I .:� :rr to I'• -. r .z �ii •' '�'"' wt� ' .... I R57 2 .y ,' ". J •. m RS7.2 ' .. ".. - ...R Wetlands (1998 City Survey) •Q +.-tm ' a ' ..,tf 1, p a rvsr• "-I't IL .. „i9611 °RS•7.2.Y^r H RS7.2 y 100 Year Floodplains Q6 Month Wellhead Zone /S12 - . qNuu .-:...gas:r,' •.nl 1ntY to 'W j oil N '�- I y - •"'s S 206TH 01 Year Wellhead Zone N� ... N may Q 5 Year Well head Zone 10 Year Wellhead Zone C ..r`es ea .rO!1 Property Legend: City, County and Stale Park Properties j s•ta->t 5 rz s I I rvc" . I rev c" to 9•o- F- •',e� City of Federal Way Propedies King County Properties . O n•.sel•.F } ,,: ,;,ft, +w:o Y"1 ". I It ,t; lOEBTRIDGE � RS7.�L r J N ' 0 , ■ , f •xt I NO. 3 1 a -�.•: a eli�;n .zas�, "y ' q . x or; -/ RS7.2 .2 Landmarks MullWamily Properties h' H� School Properties p ". �tiK - ���_sri _ c�N elm TmcWPrivate Open Space Mr,.t �` n/ _ � S 298THST ,' + $ 298THST �y Federal Way Zoning Designations: QFederal Way Zoning Boundary RS7.2 '' .ae y I I j�s twlr n.ekr• I I iQI ,�':� rx I JEANNETTE Q I H :;:1 r Comm�erMU Ztules_ BC Community Business Business 'SOUNDVIEW TRS i R57 2 rxcaux'` y BN Neighborhood .. susuaenN ��;, w1 4 CE Commercial Enterprise Mixed -Use Zones N �'�• N�, :n. is uu wr ::ry I_ (�S7 _...„q CS9TH $THS•�.,-n,�.CF I ii rc r•. RS7.2 � � CC City Center Core City Center Frame wrr Wit "T99*H PL �� sueu : e .: + N Office Zanes.� CP-1 Corporate Park-1 _ trltt �wvr-1 .Ti, 4.,�� 1 RS7.2 'IJ (IC .•rr rRs nrt OP Office Park H t0 N rsso, .ryW ,w, �j •' ,. OP-1 Office Park-1 r ke BC �,�TaTrsIn a I+ OP-2 Office Park-2 OP-3 Office Park-3 .. OP-4 Office Park-4 Professional Office —S �^ PO - 300TH ST -- a. �, .Kr �.�.� S 300TH ST "4yayftOaO��O °b RM7800 1 uniU1,B00 Sq. Fee[ RM2400 1 uniU2,400 Sq. Feet to- RM3600 1 uniU3,600 Sq. Feet V RS7.2 W i ldwood sS lap Fam4y RRLtld nu Feet Sq. Fee[ QpDYr _ pp�.q r RS 2 nark RS5.0 lunitl5,000 RS7.2 1 uniU7,200 Sq. Feet RM 1800 ,N $ 301ST ST RS9.6 1 unit/9,600 Sq. Feet •I''�' y ". ; RS15,0 1 uniU15,000 Sq. Feet I •.-- -.-- y` - a ' " Q [](s i.� RSi RS35,0 l unit/d5,000 Sq. Feet •nly+tll ''t'� Iltle Q SE 1uniU5 acres trw ,ryRy uta saTntu + t 1— mni M Governed by DevelopmentAgreement N King County Zoning Designations: 02NO ST , King County Zoning Boundary BC S MST PL r� Ra tppa aNZoees A-10 Agricultural, 1 UniVlO Acres I Q z�sr �rva Ccmnrardal orxf pl6ce Zorraz V I Jn9 :us r.. n+r i.". CB Community Business RS7.2 "" Neighborhood Business ,tarr �. .. •'s n • RS7.20 Once BC _ :�•.� �' art ,;,it. Reidenri111 Zones: 3RD ST . � S 302ND P R-1 Residential, 1 UniVAcre ' •'Is ov n,� ~ �� R-4 Residential, 4 UnitsfAcm R-b Residential, 6 UnitsfAcre n a. R S 5. 0 :t .In +"" ++ w. R-, Residential, B Units/Acm R-12 Residential, 12 Units/Acre recce ,e.lv,_ N� R-18 Residential, lB UniWAere N RS7.2 IL R-24 Residential, 24 Uni s Acre R-48 Residential, 48 UniWAcre RS7.2 I Ya -P Special Development Requirements LE PURPOSE OFTHIS WP IS TO a ' wI� an t;+ RS7.2 Q j, D,,THES ENTIFYI ZONING DESIGNATIION&In the event f.mr Q rt, 1tJ Vv rAY sNLwKy b, en this map and the ordinance establi.Wy ft Wmenl zoning, the ordinance snail prevail _j .•111 in ' TV Nr "n „, RS7.2 This map is a compitabon of infarmellun from many differ TH STr S 304TH ST 4 N era S 304TH ST . f,ruwld eear.ey" Lordbonef map llyplurl if — ..a BC 0384-1 „.���+��w..� Minor RS7.Z" etic.L Ln1<. - yaw 3Nw teap. in it" fade. rli"i+y Kg �9 9 wwhlaw5leneerwngeMYry lime. Laanw so-,tnyy = C. ({ ,.pppr.g.dtpyrlay ty. nmmvfrtiw.+n King County. '� RS5.0 - Welland, indenlifed in 1998 City Federal Way were a of survey, .rd ere lebek'd wri Mold r.IrlM* erA aM9. +5 -- -- — Menypryema... .1... 0."Yra YQW i.A'pWW1C.nd i14 1 inch = 150 feet N City of Federal Way y City of Federal Way Regional Zoning Atlas R 333258th AveS Quarter Section Detail Series: Souma:C,tyof Federelwey,FE—, lakeha,n:n Utu,ty Dislricl, Wrg CITY OF Federal Way County are..,. lWmth their Id yq WeV.. The am* leofe, of nd,seilicahon peinLs he, not been yedried. Mile these paints do nal appear on the mop, their id number and raling are displayed or reference. Criticel Areas areshownlmlllustrativepuposeri ONLY: actual ADDITIONAL bopndadesaresmh)ecuorreleyerrrabenaoomoNAL D 75 t50 300 450 Feel y, WA 98003 Map 20 / Lakehaven The K-6 Federal Way, SENSITIVEAREAS MAY EXIST. (253)835-7000 SW 04-21-04 .2 t Map 20-SW 04-21-04- SW quarter of Kroll 703 1Acr www.ci offederalwa com SW quarter 703 ty y. q P ThizmapisinleNedforueasagraphiWepmsenaon"' The CiyolFederal Vvey makes no wenanty 11 to its eccurary. wvaw ft. * e+'-"-- 9 v N O 20 4/17/2019 Map RS9.6 +� )2 ST� Bc RS9.6 R696 --`� 1�P0 Federal Way F igh school RM1800 Map 13�,. P,17 2 W'IdwO 1 RS7.2 Park I�I RS7.2 - r q 1302 � I trn RS7.2 I �TT RS7.2 • J RS5.0 Min RS5.0 "I1(1 it L i}l• n 800 II j U) L0308 RM1800 2 S;� T 1 a) Site Address Parcels City Limits Federal Way Zoning Boundary Subdivisions King County Zoning Boundary Federal Way Stream Classification Points Lakes `"-~- Wetlands (1998 City Survey) Streams Buildings Shoreline Designations - Federal Way 13 Streets cfwgisweb/aspnet_client/ESRI/WebADF/PrintTaskLayoutTemplates/default.htm RS7.2 J' f COU) I� !< RS7.2 � _�� Q 57.2 PGZ"! Steel Lake Asa 2 r„ -- _ 0.04 Miles 100 Year Floodplains Wellhead Protection Zones - -. 6 Months C31 Year C35 Year ©10 year Landslide Hazard Areas 0 Erosion Hazard Area Puget Sound 1/2 RECEIVED MAR 2 7 2019 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONSULTING £N I _ March 27, 2019 Mr. Robert "Doc" Hansen Planning Manager Department of Community Development City of Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue S Federal Way, WA 98003 RE: Request for Pre -Application Conference Danilchik Plat Dear Mr. Hansen: Job No. 1352-023-019 Please accept this letter and accompanying information as our request for a pre -application conference with the City of Federal Way for a potential subdivision of approximately 21.9 acres of vacant property located northwest of the intersection of S. 304th Street and 20th Avenue S. A pre -application conference (#18-101382-00-PC) was previously held in April of 2018 for a different conceptual project and a different project proponent. There is no relation or affiliation between the two proponents. The following is a general project narrative describing the proposed project concept as well as questions in bold italics related to the various design elements: Zoning and Layout Design The subject site has 3 different zoning designations. The majority of the largest parcel is zoned RS5.0. Approximately 5 acres abutting Pacific Highway S is zoned RM-1800. The small 15,681 sf parcel at the northern project limits adjacent to the water tank is zoned RS7.2. Both parcels are currently vacant (no improvements or street addresses). The proposed lot layout is intended to meet all underlying zoning and lot dimension requirements, including lot size, lot coverage, building setbacks and impervious surface maximums. Surrounding uses are as follows: ■ North: Single -Family Residential and Daycare • South: Single -Family Residential • East: Single -Family Residential • West: Single -Family Residential 33400 8th Ave S Ste 205 Tel (253) 838 6113 Federal Way, WA 98003 Fax (253) 838 7104, www esmciviL corn Everett (425) 297 9900 Civil Engineering Land Planning Toll Free (600) 345 5694 Land Surveying Landscape Architecture 3D Laser Scanning GIS Mr. Robert "Doc" Hansel March 27, 2019 Page 2 The depicted project layout proposes to create lots only in the portion of the site zoned RS5.0 and proposes to locate stormwater facilities within the portion zoned RM-1800. Q.• Does current mixed -zoning create any issues or non -conformities specific to the tArj proposed layout/uses? The proposed internal street network depicted creates a looped circulation pattern internal to the plat with secondary emergency vehicle access via existing easements. This was intended to address FWRC 18.55.010 regarding maximum cul-de-sac length restrictions. Q. Does the proposed intemal road network appear to comply with FWRC 18.55.010 (3)? The proposed internal street network depicted is designed to work with, rather than against the existing slopes on site. A realignment of the 20th Avenue S and S 302nd Place intersection is proposed to facilitate efficient street design relative to site grades. Q. Does the proposed intersection realignment appear to comply with FWRC 18.55.010 (2)9 Retaining walls may be proposed to help create level building sites. Please confirm the restrictions on retaining wall height and any exceptions Are there limitations on the height of graded slopes? (assuming geotechnical engineering N VIM approved design) 'ZO-L Please confirm building setback requirements for comer lots Critical Areas Current information indicates the presence of a wetland and non -fish -bearing stream crossing the western portion of the property. Preliminary information indicates a Category 3 wetland 0 65-foot buffer) and a Type Ns stream (35-foot buffer). Information from the previous pre -application conference notes a requirement for a substantial development permit. Q. The SMP maps depict the approximately wetland boundary associated with the Steel Lake "outflow stream'! At what point does the Steel Lake `outflow stream" cease to fall under the shoreline jurisdiction? A portion of the site may be classified as an erosion hazard area per FWRC 19.05.070 due to combination of slopes exceeding 15% and Alderwood soil types (to be confirmed). FWRC 19.145.220(3) states, `The director may permit development activities on or within 50 feet of a geologically hazardous area if the development will not be at risk of damage due to the geologic hazard and will not lead to or create any increased slide, seismic or erosion hazard." FWRC 19.145.240 goes on to list specific performance standards and criteria as prerequisites for proposed improvements within these areas. Please describe the expected approval process and approval criteria relevant to the proposed improvements within an erosion hazard area. Mr. Robert "Doc" Hanse, March 27, 2019 Page 3 With geotechnical support is there reason to NOT expect to be allowed to utilize these areas on site? Please describe the peer review process for geotechnical studies Street Network avid Fronts a Im rovements Type LI and Type W streets seem appropriate considering the expected low volumes within the loop road system. Q.• Do the proposed intemal road classifications meet the Citys standards? Please confirm the frontage improvement requirements for S. 304& Street Please confirm the street modification request process Traffic Peak -hour traffic volumes generated by the proposed project are expected to exceed 50 trips. . Q. Does the required traffic concurrency permit application address all necessary scope for traffic impact/safety analysis, or will a separate study be required? Q.• Are there any known LOS or other traffic safety deficiencies pertinent to the project location? Utilities Water and sanitary sewer services provided by Lakehaven Water and Sewer District are assumed to be available in the adjacent right-of-ways to the property. It is anticipated that these existing water and sewer facilities will provide adequate capacity for development proposed on site. Q.• is the district open to connecting to sewer at either 3040 or Pac Hwy, or both? Connection to sewer in Pacific Highway might necessitate crossing a stream buffer and or stream. Q.• What are the District's thoughts on boring under critical areas to make connection for sewer? Q.• What are the District's policies regarding drop manholes for connecting to exceptionally deep sewer (304h).9 Water connections range from 4757 to 510: Please describe District's an#cipated requirements regarding pressure zone concerns and system looping. Mr. Robert "Doc" Hanse, March 27, 2019 Page 4 Title review indicates that a 30' wide access and utility easement was reserved benefitting the subject property. The proposed project would propose to utilize and improve this easement to provide secondary emergency vehicle access for the site. Access would be limited to emergency vehicles. Q. Does the District have information contrary regarding the 30' access easement? Q.• What design considerations would the District like to see incorporated in the proposed EVA access? Stormwater The project proposes to locate a stormwater facility at the location depicted and discharge to the adjacent stream and/or wetland buffer. Q. Does shoreline jurisdiction have any bearing on the method or location of stormwater discharge? Q. What are the anticipated stormwater standards for the proposed project given its location? Are the any known conveyance deficiencies? Please confirm pond access and landscape buffer requirements (if any) Open Space Due to the existing grades on the site, level areas are scarce. "Useable open space" is proposed to be met via payment in lieu. Please confirm the approval process and timing expectations for fee -in lieu requests? Tree Retention m i rtL45 qrtk) eA1CC,1Pr VA% S WA i �� � Q. Can the trees located in the critical areas or (buffer be counted towards tree retenton? Q. Please confirm that tree inventory maybe conducted via representative sampling. Pre -Application Conference Submittal The following items are included in this submittal: • Project Narrative (this letter); Master Land Use Application; • Conceptual Site Plan Drawing (7 copies); • Submittal fee of $571.00; We understand that these materials constitute a complete submittal and ask that the City schedule Pre -Application Conference at your next available date. Please contact me upon your receipt and review of this information to confirm the date and time. Mr. Robert "Doc" Hansel i March 27, 2019 Page 5 Thank you for your attention to this project and we look forward to working with the City. Very truly yours, ESM CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LLC. 2EVE< RETT Planning Director Enc: As Noted CC: Dmitriy Mayzlin Ilesm8lengrlesm-jobs113521023101 Mocumentlletter-001.docx CITY of .. Federal Way April 5, 2019 John Everett ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC 33400 8"' Avenue South, Suite 250 Federal Way, WA 98003 john. eve7'ett@esmcivi1. coin CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (263) 835-7000 wwol. cityoffederaiway, corn Jim F rreN, Mayor RE: File #19-101438-00-PC; PREAPPLICATION CONFERENCE SCHEDULED Danilchik Plat, *No Site Address* Parcel #'s 042104-9012 & 9221, Federal Way Dear Mr. Everett: The Community Development Department is in receipt of your preapplieation conference request. The application has been routed to members of the Development Review Committee (DRC). and a meeting with the project applicant has been scheduled as follows: 9:00 a.m. — Thursday, April 25, 2019 Hylebos Conference Room Federal Way City Hall, 2°a Floor 33325 81" Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 We look forward to meeting with you. Please coordinate directly with anyone else you would like to attend the meeting as this will be the only notice sent by the department• if you have any questions regarding the meeting, please contact me at becky.chapin@cityoffederalway.com, or 253-835-2641. Sincerely, Becky C hh in � Senior Ph inner C: Dmitriy Mayzlin, American Classic Homes, dmitriyLamericanclassichomes.com Doe I D, 78981 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 5, 2019 TO: Cole Elliott, Development Services Manager Greg Kirk, Plans Examiner Rick Perez, City Traffic Engineer Brian Asbury, Lakehaven Water & Sewer District Chris Cahan, South King Fire & Rescue FROM: Becky Chapin, Senior Planner FOR DRC MTG. ON: April 18, 2019-Internal April 25, 2019, 9:OOam - with applicant FILE NUMBER(s): 19-101438-00-PC RELATED FILE NOS.: 18-101382-00-PC PROJECT NAME: Danilchik Plat PROJECT ADDRESS: *NO SITE ADDRESS* Parcel # 042104-9012 & 9221 ZONING DISTRICT: RS 5.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposal to subdivide 2 lots, approximately 18 acres, into 63 single family lots. LAND USE PERMITS: Preliminary Plat PROJECT CONTACT. John Everett ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC 33400 8tn Ave. S. Federal Way, WA 98003 john.everett@esmcivil.com MATERIALS SUBMITTED: Master Land Use Application ■ Project Summary • Preliminary Short Plat Drawing 4k CITY OF Federal Way APPLICATION NO(s) Project Name Danilchik Plat Property Address/Location Parcel Number(s) Project Description rKllN l MASTER LAND USE APPLICATION 77 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R E C E I� L. D 33325 8"' Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 MAR Z 7 2019 253-835-2607; Fax 253-835-2609 www.cityoffederalway_com CilY OF FEDERAL WAY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Date vacant parcels NW of S. 304th Street and 20th Ave S. *no site address* 0421049012, 0421049221 subdivision of approximately 21.9 acres of RS5.0 zoned property into 63 new single-family residential lots. Type of Permit Required Annexation ~_ Binding Site Plan _ Boundary Line Adjustment _ Comp Plan/Rezone Land Surface Modification Lot Line Elimination x Preapplication Conference _ Process I (Director's Approval) Process H (Site Plan Review) Process III (Project Approval) _ Process IV (Hearing Examiner's Decision) _ Process V (Quasi -Judicial Rezone) _ Process VI SEPA w/Project _ SEPA Only Shoreline: Variance/Conditional Use Short Subdivision Subdivision Variance: Commercial/Residential Required Information RS5.0/RM-1800 Zoning Designation SF high densitjComprehensive Plan Designation 0 Value of Existing Improvements TBD Value of Proposed Improvements International Building Code (IBC): SFR Occupancy Type TBD Construction Type Applicant Name: American Classic Homes c/o Dmitriy Mayzlin Address: 9675 SE 36th ST, STE 105 City/State: Mercer Island, WA Zip: 98040 Phone: (206) 588-1147 Fax: Email: dmitriy@americanclassichomes.com Signature: Agent (if different than Applicant) Name: ESM Consulting Engineers c/o John Everett Address: 33400 8th Ave S, STE 205 City/State: Federal Way, WA Zip: 98003 Phone: (253) 838-6113 Fax: Email: joh v ett@esmcivil.com Signature: Owner Name: American Classic Homes c/o Dmitriy Mayzlin Address: 9675 SE 36th ST, STE 105 City/State: Mercer Island, WA Zip: 98040 Phone: (206) 588-1147 Fax: Email: dmitriy@americanclassichomes.com Signature: Bulletin #003 — January 1, 2011 Page 1 of 1 k:\Handouts\Master Land Use Application /q-ld/6SL(-6m April 9, 2019 Mr. EJ Walsh, P.E. Public Works Director City of Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue S Federal Way, WA 98003 RE: Right -of --Way Modification and Improvement Waiver Request Danilchik Plat (19-101438-00-PC) Dear Mr. Walsh: Job No. 1h52-023-019 ECEIV D APR 0 9 2019 C11" CF FEpcggl WAy CQMMUNI T 1' DEVELOPMENT Please accept this letter as our formal request for a modification of street standards for a portion of South 304th Street as provided in FWRC 19.135.070 - Modification, Deferments and Waivers. Specifically, we are proposing to reduce the improvements where critical areas and existing infrastructure would be impacted. As you may already be aware, the associated preliminary plat proposal has not yet been formally submitted to the City of Federal Way. However, after reviewing a previous pre - application comment letter prepared by the City (18-101382-PC), a determination from Public Works states that a 9-foot right-of-way (ROW) dedication and full street improvements along the property's frontage to South 3041h Street are required for the proposed land development. The subject property includes 21.88 acres to be subdivided into 63 single-family lots. The proposed access will come from the existing 201h Avenue South that extends from South 304th Street. The project site abuts Highway 99 (Pacific Avenue) and South 304th Street The ROW dedication and frontage improvement requirements are due to an element of the Comprehensive Plan that depicts a 3-lane east -west principal collector road extending from Pacific Avenue to Military Road, to accommodate a Type X" street with a 78-foot ROW. The subject property and property directly across from South 3041h Street (tax parcel # 092104- 9012) are the last pieces of undeveloped property along this road section. However, South 304th Street road section improvements are consistent for the entire corridor between Pacific Hwy South and Military Road South. Proposed Street Improvement Modification This modification request proposes to dedicate the required 9' width to public right-of-way and a reduction of right-of-way improvements along the subject site's frontage of South 304th Street. i' w'r d"A6 Everett (425) 297 9900 ivit Engineering Land Planning 33400 8th Ave S Ste 205 Tel (253) 838 6113 Federal Way WA 98003 Fax (253) 838 7104 ToLL Free (800) 345 5694 Land Surveying Landscape Architecture www esmciviL corn 3G Laser Scanning GIS Mr. EJ Walsh, P.E. April 9, 2019 Page 2 The proposed improvements include providing a 12' drive path from the existing road center line in addition to 0.5' for curb and gutter. Additionally, a 5' sidewalk from the edge of curb will be provided for non -motorized uses. An additional 1' for an approved handrail will be provided as required between the sidewalk and wetland, where elevation begins to slope down from the roadway. This equates to an approximate 0.5' - 1.5' expansion of improvements that provides for safe vehicular and pedestrian paths. Please review the included Proposed Cross -Section Exhibitincluded with this submittal. Modification Request Justification We are requesting to modify street improvements along the South 304th Street right-of-way due to the following justifications: FWRC 19.135.070(1) The improvement as required would not be harmonious with existing street improvements, would not function properly or safely or would not be advantageous to the neighborhood or city as a whole. South 304th Street is currently improved with an approximately 24' roadway with shoulders along the corridor between Pacific Hwy South and Military Road South. Except for the subject site and the property across the right-of-way (fully encumbered by critical areas), all parcels of land are fully developed according to the current zoning and land use designation established by the City of Federal Way. This road corridor is "built out". That said, it is highly unlikely that any additional future development be providing Type K right-of-way dedications or improvements elsewhere in the corridor. The approximately 550' of subject frontage improvements makes up less than 5% of the specific South 304th South corridor. Keeping in mind that the remaining 95% of the corridor is unlikely to ever be built, a full standard Type K section in this location would be an island of overbuilt road adjacent only to unbuildable areas with extreme transitions to match/connect to existing improvements. Neither side of South 3041h in this location requires on -street parking or center turn lane due to the existing wetlands, lack of access due to topography/critical areas and the proposed project layout of the Danilchik Plat. Mature streetscape vegetation currently exists on both sides. The expansion of the existing road prism to accommodate Type K section planter strips would require the removal of mature trees and replace them with small caliper street trees. When placed next to the existing road section and in this particular location bisecting a mature forested wetland, the Type "K" road section consisting of a 44- foot street with curb and gutter, 6-foot planter strips and 8-foot sidewalks will not be harmonious with the existing street improvements, nor would they function property or safely for both motorized and non -motorized users. o FWRC 19.135.205.6(c) Complete Streets, Exceptions: Where the cost of accommodation is excessively disproportionate to the need orprobable use. Mr. EJ Walsh, P.E. April 9, 2019 Page 3 Similarly, the intent of the Complete Streets code section is to provide accessible and safe roads for motorists, bicyclists, transit users, freight, emergency responders and pedestrians of all ages and abilities. The 550' length of an additional 8' roadway (for turn -lane or parking serving no one) and a misaligned sidewalk, all terminating at both ends of the property frontage, provides a less safe access environment for drivers and pedestrians alike. To best address provisions for safe school walkways, the project proposes a pedestrian path located on the northwest portion of the site, connecting from the internal development to Pacific Highway that currently provides standard sidewalks and cross walks for students attending Federal Way High School. 2. FWRC 19.135.070(2) Unusual topographic or physical conditions preclude the construction of the improvements as required. Based on the City of Federal Way's GIS system and verified with a wetland consultant, a forested wetland encumbers the subject site to the edge of the property abutting South 304th Street. This wetland is an outfall of drainage from Steel Lake that requires a buffer of 165'. By narrowing the site improvements as proposed, impacts to the critical area can be avoided and mature streetscape vegetation retained. A Type K width road section would require filling of regulated wetlands and the securing of an US Army Corps permit, the issuance of which is by no means guaranteed. East of the wetland and buffer, the property rises steeply above the existing road with an elevation difference of approximately 20'. The project plat layout was designed to minimize significant grading of the site where possible. The proposed right-of-way improvements ensures pedestrian safety while minimizing impacts to either wetlands or existing slopes and avoiding excessive retaining wall installation. Railing or fencing adjacent to top of slope is proposed where appropriate or required for pedestrian safety. Finally, both water and sewer utility main lines run along South 304th Street under or near the existing road pavement. By providing the proposed improvements, impacts to the existing utility infrastructure can be avoided. As noted, the applicant of the 19-101438-00-PC and future preliminary plat of the subject site requests modification of improvements along South 304th street frontage to reduce critical area impacts and provide safe vehicle and pedestrian routes. The following are included with this request: 1. Request and Justification (this letter); 2. Proposed Cross -Section Exhibit; 3. Proposed ROW Improvements Exhibit; 4. Street Modification Request payment of $334. Mr. EJ Walsh, P.E. April 9, 2019 Page 4 We look forward to working with you through the City's review and approval process and would welcome the opportunity to discuss this request at your convenience. Should you have any questions, or require additional information, please contact me directly at (253) 878-5125. Sincerely, ESM CON LTING ENGINEERS, LLC. N EVERETT Planning Director Enc: As Noted cc: Dmitriy Mayzlin (w/enc) Ilesm&engrlesm-jobs11352102310191documentlletter-002.docx =de: \\esmS\F-NGR\ESM-JOBS\1352\023\019\exhlbits\EN-0 Plotted: 47PI/MIQ 11:55 AM Plotted By: Carl —oerts CA C r ) m W x 0 D (n h 2 D 2 O v, / ^ C r 0 m W O r 01 OT O V O N O V Vr /'/ C Vj m o - ,� m X �o o r- 0 rn �- m m � o =0 m y" 00 O � r N m I z n _ O m P W o U ����- (A p �, m D Z p � 0 O m � m ' x D -- �0 D Or O > m (Al m p m Z O CONSULTING ENGINEERS LI.0 33400 8th Ave S. Suite 205 I ® I I I JOB N0. 1352-023-019 Federal way, WA 98003 DRAWING NAME EN-01 FEDOM war (425 2ge-991030 DATE 04/05/2019 www.esmcivil.com DRAWN CJR Civil Engineering !.and Surveying Public Works I Project Xnagement Land Planning I Landscape Architecture SHEET 1 OF 1 I O) O N a; 76 0 UI z O a z O �L) V z x W z W m W O a W cn O a. O w a. w O O c� W W co M cn O pZ� �(n J OO NW }m�Z =�oC ZapQ �+' E a) W = O N _CO CO C=lr O Z op< N t �U� Y �QZLL N Co cU c ZZ E >. aO co m �- ~ .. (U U C (6 c C 0 fB (B 7 O LU � N U C D m mcu O p C p C •"= = m c O O p O c t- (0 Nai=� Q O'N T ow � w > a) N O W p 2 - a7m� m Z� °2 a o.9 m D 2 W O > C T H m a U 00 ON" (a r X C6s a '�� V/ wa 8N J W ;g O C � Lo> c o �j 00 z J �' Q� Y z a N2 WW'ofnQ o w= =a.c oLQIm a U) xJ c TL O u�v�2 a) ( V LP o 2 0 c:N d Zmc: Q aco U) �'55Q� oFU�a Z 7J O � (D r- � j c o w N > C v-am a�= . Q.-. Uo O �-,"O� O La) Q > c2 >a3 U �wa)n)d J M O M O O C O M dC� O N M O•� a3 su U cL ca Q L a0 ) a) ?iHW.Lnw