18-100896CITY OF
ti Federal Way
March 29, 2018
David -and -Kathy Hsiao- -
2512 S 317"' Street, Apt 301
Federal Way, WA 98003
davidlh1232@gmail. com
tiFILL
CITY HALL
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
(253) 835-7000
www.cityoffederalway.com
Jim Ferrell, Mayor
Re: File #18-100896-00-PC, PREAPPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
Hsiao Single Family, *NO SITE ADDRESS*, Parcel #797880-0581 Federal Way
Dear Mr. & Ms. Hsiao:
Thank you for participating in the preapplication conference with the City of Federal Way's Development
Review Committee (DRC) held March 22, 2018. 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, 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.
The key contact for your project is me, Becky Chapin, becky.chapin@cityoffederalway.com, 253-835-
2641. 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 your key contact.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Proposed single family residence on a lot encumbered by stream, wetlands, and wetland buffers.
MAJOR ISSUES
Outlined below is a summary of the major issues of your project based on the plans and information
submitted for preapplication review. These issues can change due to modifications and revisions in the
plans. The major issues section is only provided as a means to highlight critical requirements or issues.
Please be sure to read the comments by all departments in the following section of this letter.
e Planning Division
1. Process III `Reasonable Use' review is required.
2. The proposed site contains several critical areas: wetland, wetland buffer, and stream. An updated
wetland report will be required that includes a mitigation plan.
Mr & Ms. Hsiao
March 29, 2018
Page 2
+ Public Works Traffic Division
1. Transportation Concurrency Management (FWRC 19.90) — Transportation concurrency
permit with application fee of $1,620.00 is required for the proposed project.
2. Traffic Impact Fees (FWRC 19.91) — Traffic impact fees are required for each residential
dwelling unit assessed at building permit issuance.
3. Frontage Improvements (FWRC 19.135.040) — Construct improvements and dedicate right-of-
way along S 330"' St. and 24th Ave.
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@cityoffederalway.com
1. Zoning —The site is zoned Multi -family Residential (RM3600); the minimum lot size is 5,000 sq. ft.
A single-family residence (detached dwelling unit) is a permitted use in the RM zone.
2. Detached Dwclling Unit Regulations — Dimensional requirements are contained in Federal Way
Revised Code (FWRC) 19.205.030 `Detached dwelling units.'
i) Setbacks — 20 ft. front, 5 ft. rear. Side yard setback for a corner lot for that portion of the lot not
adjacent to the primary vehicular access is 10 ft., otherwise 5 ft.
ii) Maximum Height — 30 ft. above Average Building Elevation (ABE)
iii) .Parking — 2 per dwelling unit
iv) Lot Coverage — 60%
v) Minimum Lot Size — 5,000 sq. ft.
vi) Driveway Width — 20 ft. width limitation within required front yards and may not locate within
five-foot side yard setbacks pursuant to FWRC 19.130.240.
Review Process — The proposed building location and improvements appear to be within a wetland
buffer. For construction of a detached dwelling unit on a residential lot, a reasonable use modification
or waiver may be requested through Process III land use review. The intrusion must be the minimum
necessary to provide the applicant with some reasonable use of the subject property. Process III is an
administrative review conducted by city staff with a final decision issued by the Director of
Community Development. The Process III decision criteria are contained in FWRC 19.65.100.2(a).
See FWRC 19.145.090 for `Reasonable Use' requirements.
4. Public Notification — Process III applications require a 15-day comment period. Within 14 days of
issuing the Letter of Complete Application, a Notice of Application will be published in the Federal
Way Mirror, posted at the subject property, and the official notice boards within the city. Mailed
notice to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property is also required. The applicant is
responsible for submitting stamped mailing envelopes for property owners within 300 feet of the
subject property. The city's GIS Division can provide this service for a nominal fee. Please see the
enclosed handout for further information.
18-100896-00-PC Doc ID:77437
Mr & Ms. Hsiao
March 29, 2018
Page 3
Critical Areas — According to the City's critical areas maps and the submitted Critical Areas Report,
prepared by Wetlands Northwest LLC, dated December 22, 2017, the property contains two critical
areas and/or associated buffers: wetland and streams. The construction of a single family residence
would intrude into the wetland buffer. Ordinarily, your next step would be to request a reduction of
the wetland buffer in accordance with FWRC 19.145.440(6). However, the maximum reduction
allowed under that section is 25 percent and it appears the house improvements would intrude more
than that, the _exact amount of intrusion is unknown at this time.
Therefore, pursuant to FWRC 19.145.090, `Reasonable use of the subject property', you may request
a modification or waiver of the buffer requirements to allow "reasonable use" of the property. The
city may approve a Reasonable Use request based on the following criteria:
a) The application of the provisions of this chapter eliminates all reasonable use of the subject
property;
b) No feasible and reasonable on -site alternatives to the proposal are possible, such as changes to
site layout and/or reduction of impervious improvements;
c) It is solely the implementation of this chapter, and not other factors, that preclude all reasonable
use of the subject property;
d) The applicant has in no way created or exacerbated the condition that forms the limitation on the
use of the subject property, nor in any way contributed to such limitation; and
e) The waiver or modification will not lead to, create, nor significantly increase the risk of injury or
death to any person or damage to improvements on or off the subject property.
Any approval or waiver of requirements must be the minimum possible impacts to the function and
values and/or risks associated with proposed improvements on affected critical areas. The city may
impose limitations, mitigation under an approved mitigation plan, conditions and/or restrictions it
considers appropriate to reduce or eliminate any undesirable effects or adverse impacts of granting a
request under this section.
An updated report must be submitted to meet the `Reasonable Use' criteria discussed above;
including a mitigation plan. In addition, the report must demonstrate that all reasonable efforts have
been examined with the intent to avoid and minimize impacts to the critical areas per FWRC
19.145.130 "Mitigation Sequencing." The applicant is responsible for covering the cost of the city's
consultants who may review the reports per FWRC 19.145.080(3).
6. Clearing, Grading, and Vegetation and Tree Retention — The proposal is subject to the provisions
of FWRC 19.120, "Clearing, Grading, and Vegetation and Tree Retention." A clearing and grading
plan that meets FWRC 19.120.020 and FWRC 19.120.040 must be submitted with the formal Process
III application, if clearing and grading work is proposed.
The site is subject to tree density requirements of FWRC 19.120.130(1); note that 30 tree -units per
acre are required for multi -family zoned sites, minus any regulated critical areas. Trees located within
critical area buffers (but not within the wetland itself) can be credited towards satisfying the tree units
per acre requirement. Tree unit credits are in table 2 of FWRC 19.120.130-2. The tree density
calculation must be depicted on the site plan.
7. School Impact Fee — A school impact fee will be assessed and collected from the applicant when the
building permit is issued, using the fee schedule then in effect The fee amount is subject to change as
18-100896-00-PC Doc ID:77437
Mr & Ms. Hsiao
March 29, 2018
Page 4
determined annually by the Federal Way School District; please contact the Permit Center for current
fees.
8. Application Fees — The formal application must be prepared in accordance with the City's
Development Requirements checklist (enclosed) and must be accompanied by the appropriate fees.
As fees change annually, please contact the Permit Center for the current application fees for Use
Process III and other permits/reviews identified in this letter. The Permit Center can be e reached at
permitcenter@cityoffederalway.com or 253-835-2607.
PUBLIC WORKS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION
Kevin Peterson, 253-835-2734, kevin.peterson@cityoffederalway.com
Land Use Issues — Stormwater
1. Surface water runoff control will be required per the 2016 King County Surface Water Design
Manual (KCSWDM). Given the environmentally sensitive features on the site, a civil engineer will
be required to design the stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP's) for runoff from all new
impervious surface from the new residential development. The design will need to be provided as part
of the Process III application.
2. If infiltration is proposed, soil logs prepared by a licensed geotechnical engineer must be provided to
verify infiltration suitability.
3. Show the proposed location and dimensions of the stormwater BMP's on the preliminary plans.
Right -of -Way Improvements
1. See the Traffic Division comments from Sarady Long, Sr. Transportation Planning Engineer, for
traffic related items.
2. If dedication of additional right-of-way is required 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.
Engineering (El) Permit Issues
1. Engineered plans are required for any required road construction. Plans must be reviewed and
approved by the City. The plans will require the signature/seal of a professional engineer
registered/licensed in the State of Washington.
18-100896-00-PC Doc ID:77437
Mr & Ms. Hsiao
March 29, 2018
Page 5
2. The Federal Way Public Works Development Standards Manual (including standard detail drawings,
standard notes, and engineering checklists) is available on the City's website at
li;/lwww.ei offederalwa .comlindex.as x?nid=171 to assist the applicant's engineer in preparing
the plans and TIR.
3. Bonding is required for any street improvements associated with the project. The bond amount shall
be_ 120_percent of the estimated costs -of the improvements. An administrative_ fee deposit will need t_o
- -
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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) measures, per Appendix D of the 2016
KCSWDM, must be shown on the engineering plans.
7. 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 one Single Family Detached Housing, the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation - 8th Edition, land use code 210 (Single Family
Detached Housing), the proposed project is estimated to generate approximately 1 new weekday PM
peak hour trips and 10 daily trips.
2. A concurrency permit is required for this development project. The PW Traffic Division will perform
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 $1,620.00 (1 - 10 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
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
18-100896-00-PC Doc ID:77437
Mr & Ms. Hsiao
March 29, 2018
Page 6
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 one (1) new single family lot, the estimated traffic impact fee is
$3,991. The total amount of the impact fees will be assessed and collected from the applicant when the
building permit is issued, using the fee schedule then in effect. The applicant may request, at anytime
prior to building issuance to defer the payment of the impact fee to final building inspection. 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 on each lot. Please, refer to defer payment of impact fee code for process.
Street Frontage Improvements (FWRC 19.135)
1. The applicant/owner would be expected to construct street improvements consistent with the planned
roadway cross -sections as shown in Map III-4 in Chapter III of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan
(FWCP) and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) shown as Table III-10 (FWRC 19.135.040). Based
on the materials submitted, staff conducted a limited analysis to determine the required street
improvements. The applicant would be expected to construct improvements on the following streets
to the City's planned roadway cross -sections:
241' Ave S shall be constructed to a Type "R" street, consisting of a 40-foot street with curb
and gutter, four -foot planter with street trees, six-foot sidewalks and street lights in a 66-
foot right-of-way (ROW). At a minimum, the improvement shall consist of a 20-foot paved
road, four -foot planter with street trees, six-foot sidewalk and street lights. Assuming a
symmetrical cross section, an additional three-foot ROW dedication is required and half -
street improvements as measured from street centerline is required.
S 330"' St. is a minor collector planned as a Type "R" street, consisting of a 40-foot street
with curb and gutter, four -foot planter with street trees, six-foot sidewalks and street lights
in a 66-foot right-of-way (ROW). At a minimum, the improvement shall consist of a 20-
foot paved road, four -foot planter with street trees, six-foot sidewalk and street lights.
Assuming a symmetrical cross section, an additional three-foot ROW dedication is required
and half -street improvements as measured from street centerline is required.
2. 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 right-of-way modification
requests is available through the Public Works Development Services Division. These modification
requests have a nominal review fee currently at $278.
3. 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.
4. Driveway serving a single family dwelling unit abutting two streets should be at least 25 feet from the
beginning of the street radius.
18-100896-00-PC Doc ID:77437
Mr & Ms. Hsiao
March 29, 2018
Page 7
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT — BUILDING DIVISION
Peter Lawrence, 253-835-2621, Peter.Lawrence@cityoffederalway.com
Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC), 2015
Washington State Amendments WAC 51-56 & WAC 51-57
International_Fire_Code (IFC), 2015
Washington State Amendments WAC 51 -54
National Electric Code (NEC), 2017
International Residential Code, 2015
Washington State Amendments WAC 51-51
Washington State Energy Code, 2015 WAC 5 1 -11
Building Criteria
Occupancy Classification: R-3
Type of Construction: V-N
Floor Area: UNK
Number of Stories: UNK
Fire Protection: may require NFPA 13D system. Consult SKFR fire marshal.
Wind/Seismic: Basic wind speed 85 Mph, Exposure, 25# Snow load, Seismic Zone D-1
A completed building permit application and residential checklist required with the submittal of plans.
(Additional copies of application and checklists may be obtained on our web site at
www.c i tyo ffederaE way.com. )
Submit 2 sets of drawings and specifications. Specifications shall include: 2 Soils report, 2 Structural
calculations, and 2 Energy calculations, 2 Ventilation calculations. Note: A Washington State Registered
architects' stamp is required for additions/alterations (new or existing) of 4,000 gross floor areas or
greater unless specifically listed as an "exempt" structure per the Revised Code of Washington (RCW).
Energy code compliance worksheets are required to be completed and included with your permit
application.
A wet stamp and signature is required on all sheets of plans and on the cover page of any calculations
submitted.
Federal Way reviews plans on a first in, first out basis; however, there are some small projects with
inconsequential review requirements that may be reviewed out of order.
18-100896-00-PC Doc ID:77437
Mr & Ms. Hsiao
March 29, 2018
Page 8
Some project may require a third party review or inspection. The cost to cover these fees is the
responsibility of the applicant. Any third party fee is in addition to regular permit fees and costs.
Review Timing
The first comment letter can be expected within 4-5 weeks of submittal date. Re -check of plans will occur
in one to three weeks after re -submittal.
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.
Other Permits & Inspections
Separate permits may be required for electrical, mechanical, plumbing, fire suppression systems, and
signs. Applicants may apply for separate permits at any time prior to commencement of construction.
When required, special inspections shall be perfonned 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. Plumbing, and mechanical cannot be
deferred orb separate 12ermits for single family homes.
All concerned departments (Planning, Public Works, Electrical, & Fire) must sign off before the Building
Department can final the structure for occupancy. Building final must be approved prior to the issuance of
a Certificate of Occupancy.
Construction projects may be required to have a pre -construction conference. If a pre -con meeting is
required, the general or representative, all subs, the architect or representative, the engineer or
representative, electrical contractor, and any other interested party, should attend this meeting. Meetings
will occur at the Building Department and will be scheduled by the inspector of record for the project.
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.
LAKEHAVEN WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT
Brian Asbury, 253-946-5407, BAsbury@lakehaven.org
Water
1. 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).
Certificate is valid for one (1) year from date of issuance. If Certificate is needed, allow 1-2 work days to
issue for typical processing. 2018 cost for a Water Certificate of Availability is $60.00.
2. Fire Flow at no less than 20 psi available within the water distribution system is a minimum of 1,000
GPM (approximate) for two (2) hours or more. This flow figure represents Lakehaven's adopted
minimum level of service goals for residential areas regarding performance of the water distribution
system under high demand conditions. If more precise available fire flow figures are required or
desired, Applicant can request Lakehaven perform a system hydraulic model analysis (separate from, or
18-100896-00-PC Doc ID:77437
Mr & Ms. Hsiao
March 29, 2018
Page 9
concurrent with, an application for Availability). 2018 cost for a system hydraulic model analysis is
$220.00.
3. A water service connection application submitted separately to Lakehaven is required for each new
service connection to the water distribution system, in accordance with standards defined in Lakehaven's
current `Fees and Charges Resolution'.
4. For water use during site construction/development, the new water service must be utilized for this
purpose- Please contact Lakehaven for further detail.
Based on the proposal submitted, preliminary estimated Lakehaven water service connection
fees/charges/deposits (2018 schedule) will be as follows. Actual connection charges will be determined
upon submittal of service connection application(s) to Lakehaven. Charges -Payable -in -Lieu -of -Extension
(CPILOE) are assessable against the property for water facilities previously constructed that provide
direct benefit to the property (S 330th St). All Lakehaven fees, charges and deposits are typically
reviewed & adjusted (if necessary) annually, and are subject to change without notice.
• Water Service/Meter Installation, 1" preliminary size: $4,430.00 deposit. Actual size TBD by
Lakehaven based on UPC plumbing fixture count.
• Capital Facilities Charge(s)-Water: $3,707.00.
• CPILOE: $740.79.
• ROW Permit Fee (City of Federal Way): $770.00.
Sewer
1. 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).
Certificate is valid for one (1) year from date of issuance. If Certificate is needed, allow 1-2 work days to
issue for typical processing. 2018 cost for a Sewer Certificate of Availability is $60.00.
2. A separate Lakehaven Sewer Service Connection Permit is required for each new connection to the
sanitary sewer system, in accordance with standards defined in Lakehaven's current `Fees and Charges
Resolution'. Minimum pipe slope for gravity sewer service connections is 2%.
3. Based on the proposal submitted, preliminary estimated Lakehaven sewer service connection
fees/charges/deposits (2018 schedule) will be as follows. Actual connection charges will be determined
upon submittal of service connection application(s) to Lakehaven. All Lakehaven fees, charges and
deposits are typically reviewed & adjusted (if necessary) annually, and are subject to change without
notice.
• Sewer Service Connection Permit: $2800.00 fee.
■ Capital Facilities Charge(s)-Sewer: $3,509.00.
• ROW Permit Fee (City of Federal Way): $770.00. There is an existing sewer service stub to the
property, located about 40 feet east of the SW property corner. It's anticipated this existing
service stub may not be able to be used due to the proximity of the wetland/buffer on the subject
site; therefore a connection to existing sewer main in S 330th St is presumed.
General
1. All Lakehaven Development Engineering related application forms, and associated standards
information, can be accessed at Lakehaven's Development Engineering web pages
(htt ://www.lakehaven.or 204/Develo meat -En ineerin ).
18-100896-00-PC Doc ID:77437
Mr & Ms. Hsiao
March 29, 2018
Page 10
2. All comments herein are valid for one (1) 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.
CLOSING
This letterreflectsthe 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 full review 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 at 253-835-2641 or
Becky.chapin@cityoffederalway.com. We look forward to working with you.
Sincerely,
o f
Becky apintn
Associate Planner
enc: Master Land Use Application
Process III Submittal Requirements
Mailing Labels Handout
FWRC 19.205.030
Lakehaven Handouts
C: Kevin Peterson, Engineering Plans Reviewer
Sarady Long, Sr. Transportation Planning Engineer
Peter Lawrence, Plans Examiner, email
Brian Asbury, Lakehaven Water & Sewer District, email
18-100896-00-PC Doe ID:77437
1�k
CITY OF-
Federa! Way
March 22, 2017
9:00 a.m.
NAME
Pre -application Conference Sign in Sheet
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
City Hall
Hylebos Room
Project Name: ��� j Q, 4 Lyn-1 IL�e.
r� N10 S iR, P44 V6 5 �
File Number: / ?, --too �5 / (67 K,
DEPARTMENT / DIVISION I TELEPHONE NUMBER/EMAIL
1
n
► Q
2s3 83s a-7 3 0
co
I
J �tj Pe -A er-1
��.� . . s�v
Ve e-kceiilL-. CA:A .
3.
_ �n�
P%NJ v .
`I�
f� Z
C�
4.
1 A %
Kw prvcic
S wF f� S"7CS (
253- - Corr
�<LsBV�Y dFsv• o,e�
5.
I11 ..
Pw V 61
o(A v �ci �1123 ZCrr Yvc� it cows .
6.
V,N"
iJlr��: �- �✓
�� sc - I (q
7.
y
8..
9.
10.
11.
12.
.)� JA�
Becky Chapin
From: Becky Chapin
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 10:34 AM
To: 'CJ Rey (cj_rey@hotmail.com)'
Subject: Reasonable Use of Property
Hi Sergey,
I reviewed your proposal with Isaac and we have come to the conclusion that a reasonable size house would be a building footprint up
to 1,600 sq. ft., including garage, limited to the 30-foot (above average building elevation) height maximum. As proposed, your current
design is larger especially with a three car garage, the overall house footprint will need to be reduced. The septic system would need to
be placed as far away from the wetland as possible with drain field size as required by Public Health Dept. The driveway or septic
system area would not be included in the building footprint.
Hope this answers your questions and if there is anything you need please let me know.
Thanks,
Becky Chapin
Associate Planner
City of Federal Way
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
Phone:253-835-2641
Becky.Chapiri@citvoffederalway.com
3/15/2018
Planning
Find Parcel Find Address Print
RM
cfwgisweb/Planning Map SeVDefaUlt.aSDX
innn
0
Cedar
0
Creek
Ci
A ,
65 6s
l}O8�
fi i S5 57
00d
e
S
89
6L fib na
0101
71
70S72
011
73
711
2232
711,
-p768
S 330TH
S
l41260 601
5 1 33003
J 33006
97S-7884
OL 0660
41?fi(3 DOI
f 33019
{ • 88+ OCG 'I
N!f 33012
b
0 J41260 00
�� 33018
�7:1 I?!i0 05�4
24i=b0-.i4u
33(JZ3
v zo <o so r
1,111w
-33022
46
48
64 4e -
4 �
ss 16-21.4- 75
FVV RAatri g.
� II
T 001 GA-1
Maur
7,9 8qG 0G
3$003
' 80 0680
er
CFW Intranet
321
320
319
A
318 2t
317 2[
316 29
315 29z
314 295
313 296
312 297
311 298
310 299
309 300
308 301
307 302
306
303
304
305
162104 -'
http://cfwgisweb/Planning°/o20Map°/o2OSet/Default.aspx 1 /1
im
:5
C3
B" TJNDARY & TOPOGRAPHIC -`\VRVEY
A PORTION OF - NW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 16, TOWNSI-.L. 21 N., RANGE 4 E., W.M.
CITY OF FEDERALL INAY, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
a-
VVILL I A IMI L. 0 ONE Y
.2;
.a
q W.-
AMS
k
.4-
ji
LOT 96
J9 a
Scale: CQ
to,
SURVEYO NOT
�I,f�r.4.Vw P
RI]DIM
A
71 WNT �f La a.asw n,Yiw AM —I- e-,
IT
0 max w m -T
DESCRIPTION-
loft
x
20 ft
Vi
...................
A
......
--------------
...................
ti _2
...........
SOUTH 330TH STREET
- - ---------
A
c
A
4
-.L
MMI
iq-e2P11
it
Im
to faro
vrq —a
T=mv,
W.". ..x
Scale:
21..Fth TV —M.
600'
BASIS OF BEARING:
, luffg,
XwA,
��Wkp NN S A A L 0, m ".
THE ��'AUMTa 7 1MA A
masrca
ID
e.
6r
MmN a
VERTICAL DATUM:
—M —I— e11w ff A— p 2m.
R
BEN
CHMARK FEB 2 6 2 18
CITY 0 0
V i
1 2018-01-17 Ram— t, oie wetlwd flag.
01 -d . M
NW —SW 16, T24N., R4&, W1L
Wo "-bg-to =Aa
012 SaIM 317th St -at, APT. MI
F.�3
KING COUNTY, WASBINGTON
260,
SHEET 1 OF 1
'.
I-- —
BnTJNDARY & TOPOGRAPHIC ,-OURVEY
A PORTION OF NW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 16. TOWNS4 21 N., RANGE 4 E., W.M.
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, MG COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ew>h eeenw m . F
ffnta, to nr.aw�
` a
r q �onf,�ff j
::tr-u;w I' €
.ruw Ae / '1
LJ j rcf®
T� A?
;�= /
^
Ld
/ €I
1 l o LOT ail
\ Scale:
SURVEYOR'S NOT�E`S`
/ Mn�>rtrrr •*—" .I; i1I
? a i°S.t ftese•+ic ta'nfi,o rvi d 'iilma defer. 8 t I it �;
a were rfat sera ��
}}�ry if%fa 6 >tlet t W I
Yfl,[Y- rt1iW flute f� If-x9-:Vi!
i n �� 9el e�imfti�fe.i rnpprpr v"mefem .lSareatP,)�r,�rA,,1iHIe amn- tw °rm�' Grffu[wIe.N19 P ,�� ,�. ,vm IMII"TRn
I"--K [%O f�P Re■: I€
9eO
J,tvM
: 1
1 oESCRiPTION: I / loft
1oo
I < <
-/ see•17-1e-t: 1M.Mj
\ der,+ I� rep �r-�.......•.ti:. - . ---.,:..:q�....,....,.. .........�. t...... �... . I " r�i.7
\ — _• — — ___• -fir.—..�............ — !� r
.f r
fold fce n
0�iirc� rfn.te m
SOUTH 330TH STREET - - - -
i
'a9'iu'e�6-e j116..52' � m
•I
fe4•Z!•v f. ieO -v -
.r-
Reeme`.rm fp i
..F.•f� .1W /
s�5 i
p,
Scale:
1" = 600'
•t"
BASIS OF BEARING:'"
" x09 few,
sa,E funit. f nn uvr awc rmnrp[ew :sero- �s
,i�N,�Vt�GaG�Ofx�W(teLid SfA1E IIAM StlI'_WWtesfk5- f
i F
uR{61 If A iVCI Ur�lR lm A�fYA 1fi Iwi[
W
rm snm, er.o f.er v ruffnc
rx n >K eaPHm, vf'faIM tf
=%
to °Amine 'iwr,�c�1°i t�+'%w.
w
VERTICAL DATUM REC
"
+rarer, amine Katfrx ofnr v fm oem a1.
CSF
BENCHMARK
aFEB 2
18
rferlrfot x.n rz£r. ['
-
Ait1K r^IO�I T, i A%�'14lefl' Afl� R r OF
p f��fpf1 [��
YID+ Gtll.
C
Ml ei >91 AF ' R' [:0M-MUWTY GEVELOp�S-. .
feet+ r•
IMIN
'' • C
f INTE
NW -SW 16, T24N., ROE., W7
- zt me
4512 II M 3J2tn etreel. Apt. eMf
tuw w fwK Ore. pp • sr. p en,e
a�vf-e�f �r af.wr-•.,de wa
�
ewfrel M1'• w "NI
,• a wee. h 1.•"efn
ENG COUNTY, WASIIINGTON
'M
r • fo �f
SHEET 1 OF 1
a
a
row , r
Ilk -a
dam• �' ♦ . �' � f I,r # i
. � -. � � ..,1 rill"•. "'^ _.`e..,.... - - `� •�
n . .Ptl
ij 5 .. Fi4yP -d Y
`n as 1 / i ai •� `r Ana -s - .
1 '* • .r q.�iq Pig - k - �� `
:�:gy - 1
LLL 1 ■ S pc
0 S•n yp!f� no
m. � - � r a 'Sld'!�fA.4 99 � '. F� y� •� #
-au - -
aJ�5,4'.s%�
44
� w $� a 1� �,� •i• �'� _ !{•� , ��+■ � �� ri ■
W.1 Yi .}G �. f J 1..: n �� �� ■ M • n .I
f
_ r. ay• 1 .. ♦ .:+� a ��ti� � ,
—�•..� _, rye * � - +.
�Z
s ese
A � r.
Wetlands Northwest LLC
CRITICAL AREA REPORT
of the
Hsiao Property
2200 Block SW 330t" Street
Federal Way, WA 98023
Tax Parcel Numbers: 797880-0581
SW Section 16, Township 21 N, Range 04E,
Prepared for:
Kathy Hsiao
2512 S 317th Street #301
Federal Way WA 98003
Dated:
December 22, 2017
Prepared by:
Robert King, Professional Wetland Scientist
Robert King
5218 Ivanhoe PL NE RECEIVED
Seattle, WA 98105
206-456-5474 FEB 2 6 2018
www.wettandsnw.com
COMMUNTY DEVELOPMENT
Kathy Hsiao
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SITE DESCRIPTION...................................................................................................................1
2.0 PROPOSED USE..............................................................................................................................................................1
3.0 METHODOLOGY...............................................................................................................................................................1
4.0 ON -SITE INVENTORIES...................................................................................................................................................3
5.0 RESULTS...........................................................................................................................................................................3
5.1 WETLANDS AND STREAMS.........................................................................................................................................................3
6.0 CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................................................................3
7.0 LIMITATIONS AND USE OF THIS REPORT...................................................................................................................3
8.0 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................................................................6
Figures
1.0 Vicinity Map............................................................................................................................... c
2.0 NRCS Soils Man........................................................................................................................... 4
3.0 Wetland and Streams Inventories...............................................................................................5
Attachments
Wetland Data Forms
Wetland Rating Forms
Wetland Survey
December2017
Wetlands Northwest LLC
Kathy Hsiao
1.0 Introduction and Site Description
The address for the site is the 2200 Block of S 320t' Street, in Federal Way (see Figure 1 Vicinity Map,
page 2). Ingress and egress is from S 320"' Street along the property's southern boundary. The parcel is
rectangular -shaped, measures approximately 136 feet wide by 158 feet deep and covers an approximate
area of 0.49 acres in the RM3600 Zone. The property is vacant and undeveloped.
2.0 Proposed Use
This critical area report will be used to determine the encumbrances of the on -site critical areas for a future
building permit. Wetlands Northwest LLC visited the property on November 27, 2017 for data collection.
Temperatures were in the mid-40s with clear skies.
3.0 Methodology
The routine methodology described in the Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual
(1987) was utilized during site investigations to make a determination regarding wetlands, as required by
King County. Wetlands Northwest LLC also evaluated the site using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains,
Valleys, and Coast Region produced in 2010 (hereinafter referred to as "the Corps Regional Supplement").
The Corps Regional Supplement provides technical guidance and procedures for identifying and
delineating wetlands that may be subject to regulatory jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act.
According to the federal methodology described above, identification of wetlands is based on a three -factor
approach involving indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and presence or indications of
hydrology. Using the subject manuals, the site characteristics for making a wetland determination include
the following:
1.) Examination of the site for hydrophytic vegetation (species present/percent cover);
2.) Examination for the presence of hydric soils in areas where hydrophytic vegetation is present; and
3.) Examination to determine if adequate hydrology exists for sufficient durations during the early part of
the growing season in the same locations as the previous two steps.
Except where noted in the manuals, the approach requires positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation,
hydric soils, and wetland hydrology for a determination that an area is a wetland.
Wetlands are rated using the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington 2014
update. Wetlands Northwest LLC also reviewed the King County Wetland Inventory GIS data, the
City of Federal Way Critical Areas Map, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) GIS data, the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) GIS data, the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) soils data and aerial data obtained by the United States Geological
Survey (USGS).
Data points for soil profiles were labeled as DP-1 through DP-2. Wetland Points A-1 through A-11
are depicted on the attached survey by Centre Pointe Consultants, Inc.
December 2017 1 Wetlands Northwest LLC
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
1 inch equals 0.25 miles
0 0.125 0.25 0.5
Miles
5 317TH 5 �
w
Q
N r -
sr
w
� a
N �
a
x
r
5 324TH T
w
PA Trail Site a
rn x
!
!PO
x
elebration Park 4
s
a
co
S 330T
ST in
cc
4tNj
2
IN
N
ca
w
S 3324D
5
N
x
T
S 333RD ST
r
N
J
a
'0 U
=
r
w
�
x
S 336
H Sr
Legend ST'
Site
S341S PL `
—
z
KC Tax Parcels
City of Federal Way N
Parks e
DNR Open Water
KC Roads a
S 317TH ST
1
on Park - F
f �
Vdeyer�aeus2r Dam
L- .
r(p
Way
Kathy Hsiao
N
Cn
�
� 1
j
Q
wEL
N
k
z
Uj
¢
M
cr
_ w
J
North Lake
U)
w
Q
x
r
m
S 334TH ST
Cn
2
a
aye,
December 2017 2 Wetlands Northwest LLC
Kathy Hsiao
4.0 On -site Inventories
According to the NRCS King County soils survey, the property is mapped as Alderwood gravelly sandy
loam 0 to 6% slopes (AgB), and Arents Alderwood material 0 to 6% slopes (AmB) (see Figure 2 NRCS
Soils Map, page 4). During site investigation the Alderwood profiles were confirmed in upland soils as
accurate (see DP-2) along with several auger borings sampled throughout the property. The
Alderwood soil profile is described as follows:
The Alderwood series is made up of moderately well drained soils that have a weakly
consolidated to strongly consolidated substratum at a depth of 24 to 40 inches. These
soils are on uplands. They formed under conifers, in glacial deposits. In a representative
profile, the surface layer and subsoil are very dark brown (10YR 2/2), dark -brown (10YR
3/3), and grayish brown (10YR 5/2) gravelly sandy loam about 27 inches thick. The
substratum is grayish -brown (10YR 5/2), weakly consolidated to strongly consolidated
glacial till that extends to a depth of 60 inches and more.
According to the King County, NWI and DNR inventories, there is a Type N stream (identified as
the headwaters of Hylebos Creek) traversing the western area of the parcel within the 225-foot
study area. The City of Federal Way Critical Areas Map has a wetland and a stream inventoried in
the western half of the property (see Figure 3 Wetlands and Streams Inventory Map, page 5).
5.0 Results
5.1 Wetlands and Streams
One wetland (Wetland A) was delineated on along the western half of the property. Wetland A lies
within a stream corridor depression along the headwaters of Hylobos Creek. Wetland A originates
off -site to the north and is consistent with the City's wetland inventory boundary. Wetland A is
rated as Category II scoring 22 points overall which includes 6 habitat points (see attached wetland
rating). Category II wetlands that score 6 habitat points require a 165-foot buffer per the City of
Federal Way Municipal Code (FWC) Chapter 19.145.420 (see attached wetland survey). The
survey does not show the buffer as the eastern half of the property is completely encumbered with
��rrwetland buffer (see attached survey map from Centre Pointe Consultants, Inc).
"_Aylebos Creek as mentioned in the previous paragraph is a Type N water and requires a 35 to 50-
�, foot buffer (per FWMC 19.145.270 depending if it is seasonal or perennial). The stream buffer is
inconsequential as the buffer of Wetland A encompasses the stream buffer of Hylebos Creek.
6.0 Conclusion
There is a Category II wetland and a Type N water on the property. Any future development activity
may utilize Section 19.145.090 as the entire property is encumbered with critical areas.
G� 5. +7Y4'� i7lir Vl ,5re—
7.0 Limitations and Use of this Report
This report is supplied to Kathy Hsiao as a means of determining the critical area encumbrances for
future development. Wetlands Northwest LLC upheld professional industry standards when completing
this review. The information included in this report constitutes a professional opinion and does not
guarantee approval by any federal, state, and/or local permitting agencies.
The laws applicable to Critical Areas are subject to varying interpretations. The work for this report has
conformed to the standard of care employed by professional ecologists in the Puget Sound region. No
other representation or warranty, expressed or implied, is made concerning the work or this report.
This report is based largely on readily observable conditions and, to a lesser extent, on readily
ascertainable conditions. No attempt has been made to determine hidden or concealed conditions. If
hidden or concealed conditions arise, the information contained in this report may change based upon
those conditions.
December 2017 3 Wetlands Northwest LLC
Kathy Hsiao
Figure 2 - NRCS Soils Map N
1 inch equals 200 feet
0 100 200 400
Feet
December 2017 4 Wetlands Northwest LLC
Figure 3 - Wetland and Stream
1 inch equals 200 feet Inventory Map
0 100 200 400
Feet
Kathy Hsiao
No
December 2017 �J Wetlands Northwest LLC
Kathy Hsiao
8.0 References
Cowardin, et al, 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Dee water Habitats of the United States.
U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-79/31. December 1979.
Environmental Laboratory. (1987). Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical
Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Hruby, T. (2014). Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update.
(Publication #14-06-029). Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology.
City of Federal Way Code Chapter 19.145 Critical Areas (Proposed Update). City of Federal Way,
http:/Iwww.citvoffederalway.com/index,asox?NID=640
National Wetland Plant List 2014. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Snyder et al. 1979 King County Soils Survey. United States Department of Agriculture, National
Resource Conservation Service.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2010). Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0)," 1=RDC/EL TR-10-3,
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
December 2017 6 Wetlands Northwest LLC
Kathy Hsiao
ATTACHMENTS
December 2017 7 Wetlands Northwest LLC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project Site: Hsiao City/County: Federal Way: Sampling Date: I V27f20t 7
Applicant/Owner: KathyHsiao State: WA Sampling Point: DP-1
Investigator(s): R.King Section, Township, Range: SW 16 T21N R04E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc ): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): <5
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Norma 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 D. or Hydrology ❑, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks )
IJMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, 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
VEGETATION — Use scientific names of
plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: _)
Absclute
% Cover
Dominant
S eo ties.
Indicator
Status
Dominance Test Worksheet:
1. Pooulus balsamrfera
40
ves
FAC
Number of Dominant Species 4
(A)
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
2,
3.
Total Number of Dominant 4
(B)
Species Across All Strata:
4.
50% _ 20% _ _
= Total Cover
Percent of Dominant Species 100
(A/B)
SaolinglShnub Stratum (Plot size: _)
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
1. Splreae Douglasfi 20 � FACW
T
2. fix sipp,
20
ves
FACW
Total % Cover of: MulGaiv bi
3
OBL species x1 =
4
FACW species x2 =
5
FAC species x3 =
50% _ 20% _ _
= Total Cover
FAC U species x4 =
Herb 5tratum (Plot size:
UPL species x5 = ,
1. cerex abrrlr la
60
ves
OBL
Column Totals: (A)
(B)
2
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
3 J
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
❑ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
6
J
y
❑ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants'
10.
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
it.
'indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
= 20% _
50%be
Total Cover
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Woody Vines turr>_(Plot size:
Hydrophytic
2.
--
Vegetation Yes ® No
❑
50% =— 20% _
= Total Cover
Present?
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Remarks:
Project Site: Hsiao
e... mr- DniM- no_i
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
0-18+ 10YR 3/1 100
Sandy loam
'Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 'Location:
PL=Pon: Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
❑ 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)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (172)
® 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 problinniatic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soils
Present? Yes ® No ❑
Remarks: Chroma 2 or less in "B" layer
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check
all that apply)
® Surface Water (Al)
❑
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
® High Water Table (A2)
(except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48)
® Saturation (A3)
❑
Salt Crust (1311)
❑ Water Marks (61)
❑
Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (84)
❑
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑
Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ® No
❑
Depth (inches): 3
Water Table Present? Yes ® No
❑
Depth (inches): 0
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
(MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413)
❑ Drainage Patterns (1310)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7)
Saturation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Yes ® No ❑
1
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project Site: Hsi City/County: Federal Way/ Sampling Date: t1i�7I2017
Applicant/Owner: KaihV Hsi ao State: WA Sampling Point: DP-2
Investigator(s): R.Kina Section, Township, Range: SW 16 T21N R04E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): <5
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: _ Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood 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.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc.
rHydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑
nc Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ Is the Sampled AreaYes ❑ No
within a Wetland?land Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑
Remarks
VEGETATION — Use scientific names or
plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status
Dominance Test Worksheet:
1. Pooulus balsamifera
40
Yes
FAC
Number of Dominant Species
3
(A)
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3.
Total Number of Dominant
1
(B)
Species Across All Strata:
4,
50% _ _, 20% _
= Total Cover
Percent of Dominant Species
33
(A/B)
a tin !Shrub Stratum (Plot size: �
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
1. prunu� spp, 20 � NI
_
2
Total % Cover of: Multiply hy-
3.
u
—
OBL species x1 =
4
FACW species x2 =
5
u
FAC species x3 =
50% _ _, 20% _ _
= Total Cover
FACU species x4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
UP species x5 =
1. Polyslichum minutum
40
yes
FACU
Column Totals: (A)
(B)
2
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
3 u
4
J
❑ 1 — Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5
_
❑ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
6.
❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.0'
7.
_
4 - Morphological Adaplations' (Provide supporting
❑ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
6
9.
❑ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants'
10.
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
11.
'Indicators of soil and wetland hydrology must
50% _ , 20% _
= Total Cover
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Y%ihadv Vine Stratum (Plot size: —)
1. Hedem helix 40 yes FACU
Hydrophytic
2.
Vegetation Yes ❑ No
50% _ 20% _ _
= Total Cover
Present?
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Remarks
Project Site: Hsiao
C.—Iinn ❑ninl• 1111-9
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
0-12 10YR 3/3 100
Jandy loam
12-18+ 10YR 5/8
J
'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 Soils':
❑ 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)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑ 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 problematir
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soils
Present? Yes ❑ No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
❑
Surface Water (Al)
❑
Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑
High Water Table (A2)
(except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
❑
Saturation (A3)
❑
Salt Crust (B11)
❑
Water Marks (B1)
❑
Aquatic Invertebrates (1313)
❑
Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑
Drift Deposits (B3)
❑
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
❑
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑
Iron Deposits (135)
❑
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑
Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A)
❑
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No
®
Depth (inches): N/A
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No
®
Depth (inches): > 18
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
(MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
❑ Drainage Patterns (1310)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7)
Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): > 18 Wetland Hydrology Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Yes ❑ No ED
Wetland name or number
RATING SUMMARY — Western Washington
Name of wetland (or ID #): Wetland A Date of site visit: 11/27/17
Rated by R. King Trained by EcolDgy? Yes Do Date of training Dec-14
HGM Class used for rating Riverine Wetland has multiple HGM class? Yes no
NOTE: Form is not complete with out the figures requested (figures can be combined).
Source of base aerial photo/map USGS 2012 Aerial
OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY (based on funct®s or special characteristic )
1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS
Category I - Total score = 23 - 27
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 appro,orfate rating (H, M, L)
r
ential H Hpe Potential H H L
L H H Totalased on 7 g 6 22
2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland
Estuarine
Wetland of High Conservation Value
Bog
Mature Forest
Old Growth Forest
Coastal Lagoon
Interdunal
None of the above
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 -January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number
Maps and Figures required to answer questions correctly for
Western Washington
Depressional Wetlands
Map of-
To answer questions:
Figure #
Cowardin plant classes
D 1.3, H 1. 1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods
D 1.4, H 1.2
Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods)
D 1.1, D 4.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to anotherfigure)
D 2.2, D 52
Map of the contributing basin
D 4.3, D 5.3
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)
D 3.1, D 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web)
D 3.3
Riverine Wetlands
Map of:
To answer questions:
Figure u
Cowardin plant classes
H 1 1, H 1 4
A
Hydroperiods
H 1 2
B
Ponded depressions
R 1.1
C
Boundary of area within 150 ftof the wetland (can be added to anotherfigure)
R 2.4
D
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants
R 1.2, R 4.2
A
Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to anotherfigure)
R 4.1
E
Map of the contributing basin
R 2.2, R 2 3, R 5.2
F
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
G
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)
R 3 1
H
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web)
R 3 2, R 3.3
1
Lake Fsinae Wetlands
Map of.-
To answer questions:
Figure #
Cowardin plant classes
L 1. 1, L4.1, H 1.1, H 1 4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants
L 1 2
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to anotherWra)
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 anotherfigure)
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 -January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number
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 wh[ch 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-goto2
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.
NO - go to 3 1 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).
NO - go to 4 1 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-goto5
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)
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.
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 - January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number
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 - go to 7 [ 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 - go to 8 [ 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 - January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number
_RIVERINE AND FRESHWATER TIDAL FRINGE WETLANDS
Water Qua3tky Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality
R 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality?
R 1.1. Area of surface depressions within the Riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a
flooding event:
Depressions cover > 3/4 area of wetland points = 8
8
Depressions cover > Y2 area of wetland points = 4
Depressions present but cover <'/ area of wetland points = 2
No depressions present points = 0
R 1.2. Structure of plants in the wetland (areas with >90% cover at person height, not Cowardin
classes)
Trees or shrubs > 2/,area of the wetland points = 8
Trees or shrubs > % area of the wetland points = 6
8
[ Herbaceous plants (> 6 in high) > % area of the wetland points = 6
Herbaceous plants (> 6 in high) >'/, area of the wetland points = 3
Trees, shrubs and un razed herbaceous <'1, area of the wetland points = 0
Total for R 1 Add the points in the boxes abovel
16
Rating of Site Potential If score iL.! 12 - 16 = H 6 - 1 = M I —I- a = L MUE;UIU IIM [CIEllly Ulf Eric I110E poyc
R 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site?
R 2.1. Is the wetland within an incorporated city or within its UGA? Yes = 2 No = 0
2
R 2.2. Does the contributing basin to the wetland include a UGA or incorporated
1
area? Yes =1 No=0
R 2.3. Does at least 10% of the contributing basin contain tilled fields, pastures, or
0
forests that have been clearcut within the last 5 years? Yes = 1 No = 0
R 2.4. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate
1
pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0
R 2.5. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not
listed in questions R 2.1 - R 2.4?
1
Other Sources Yes = 1 No = 0
Total for R 2 Add the points in the boxes above
5
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 1. 5 = H or 2 = M o = u Kecoru me ranny Ulf Lire ural pays
R 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society?
R 3.1. Is the wetland along a stream or river that is on the 303(d) list or on a
0
tributary that drains to one within 1 mi? Yes = 1 No = 0
R 3.2. Is the wetland along a stream or river that has TMDL limits for nutrients,
0
toxics, or pathogens? Yes = 1 No = 0
R 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 drainage in
0
which the unit is found) Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for R 3 Add the points in the boxes above
0
Rating of Value If score is:_ 1 2 - 4 = H 1 21. 1 0 = LJ
M&E;UfU IIIc /Clary Ulf Eric llraE pays
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
5 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number
RIVERINE AND FRESHWATER TIDAL FRINGE WETLANDS
Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that site Functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion
R 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion?
R 4.1. Characteristics of the overbank storage the wetland provides:
Estimate the average width of the wetland perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of
the stream or river channel (distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width of
wetland)/(average width of stream between banks).
If the ratio is more than 20 points = 9
6
If the ratio is 10 - 20 points = 6
If the ratio is 5 - < 10 points = 4
If the ratio is 1 - < 5 points = 2
If the ratio is < 1 paints = 1
R 4.2. Characteristics of plants that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat large woody debris
as forest or shrub. Choose the points appropriate for the best description (polygons need to have
>90% cover at person height. These are NOT Cowardin classes).
7
Forest or shrub for >'/:; area OR emergent plants > z/:, area points = 7
Forest or shrub for >'/,,, area OR emergent plants >'/a area points = 4
Plants do not meet above criteria pflints = 0
Total for R 4 Add the paints in the boxes above
13
Rating of Site Potential If score i>::_., 12 -16 = H 6 - I_,'= M IJ- 5 = L Record the rating on me nrsr page
R 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site?
R 5.1. Is the stream or river adjacent to the wetland downcut? Yes = 0 No = 1
0
R 5.2. Does the up -gradient watershed include a UGA or incorporated area? Yes = 1 No = 0
1
R 5.3 Is the up -gradient stream or river controlled by dams? Yes = 0 No = 1
1
Total for R 5 Add the points in the boxes above
2
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: jXjH 1 o�—'= M L 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
R 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society?
R 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstream that have flooding problems?
Choose the description that best fits the site.
The sub -basin immediately down -gradient of the wetland has flooding
problems that result in damage to human or natural resources (e.g.,
2
houses or salmon redds) points = 2
Surface flooding problems are in a sub -basin farther down -gradient points = 1
No flooding problems anywhere downstream points = 0
R 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood
0
conveyance in a regional flood control plan? Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for R 6 Add the paints in the boxes above
2
Rating of Value If score is 2 - 4 = H 1 - 1 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 - January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number
These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM Glasses.
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
[ Emergent 3 structures: points = 2
[ Scrub -shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points - 1
Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0
If the unit has a Forested class, check if.
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 % ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods).
[ Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3
Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2 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
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 ft2
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 1
If you counted: > 19 species points = 2
5 - 19 species points = 1
< 5 species paints = 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.
2
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 -January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number
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.
Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long)
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)
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 l _Add the points in the boxes above10
Rating of Site Potential If Score .s: 15 -18 = H 7 - � X M-i - 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:
0.3 % undisturbed habitat + ( 0 % moderate & low intensity land uses / 2) = 0.3%
If total accessible habitat is:
0
>'/:, (33.3%) of 1 km Polvqon points = 3
20 - 33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2
10 - 19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1
< 10 % of 1 km Polygon points = 0
H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland.
Calculate:
30 % undisturbed habitat + ( 0 % moderate & low intensity land uses / 2) = 30%
0
Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3
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 paints = 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
_< 50% of 1km Polygon is high intensity points = 0
Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above
-2
Rating of Landscape Potential If Score is: 1. � 6 = H I .1- 3 = Min < 1 = L Kecoro me raging on We ❑rsc 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-! �,m
the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated.
Site meets ANY of the following criteria:
[ 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
[ 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
Site does not meet any of the criteria above
Rafinn of VnhiP If SCnrP i, . 7 = 1 717 _N 0 = L
use only
points = 2
2
points = 1
points = 0
the rating on the first page
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 8 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number
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.
htt ://wdfw.wa. oy/ ublications/00165/wdfw00165. f or access the list from here:
h itp: //wd fw.wa. govico nse rvatio_n/ohs/I i sU
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.
Old-growth/Mature forests: Old- fowth 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.
C 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).
® 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).
❑ 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.
® 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 a WSDOTAdapted Form -January 14, 2015
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
Wetland name or number
CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Wetland Type Category
Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. List the category when the appropriate 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
F Yes - Go to SC 1.1 ❑4o = Not an estuarine wetland
SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, Natlonal Estuary Reserve,
Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve
designated under WAC 332-30-151?
[ Yes = Category I ! No - Go to SC 1.2
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)
At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-
_ grazed or un-mowed grassland.
F The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open
water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands.
L Yes = Category I r No =Category 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 No - 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?
htto://wwwl.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refde$kL/datase rchlwnhpwetiands.pdf
❑ Yes -Contact WNHPMDNR and to SC 2.4 li 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 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 E 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?
r Yes = Is a Category I bog F 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, Iodgepole 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?
I Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
R10 WSDOT Adapted Form -January 14, 2015
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
Wetland name or number
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)
F Yes - Go to SC 5.1 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 % 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 larqer than '/,o ac (4350 ftZ)
[ Yes = Category I No =.Cateaory 11
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:
L 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 1 p = 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 HAM 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 I 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
N/A
If you answered No for all types, enter "Nat Applicable" on Summary Form
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 11 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Figure A N
A
1 inch equals 100 feet
0 50 100 200
Feet
Figure B N
A
1 inch equals 100 feet
0 50 100 200
Feet
J
� I
r'
i r
I
I v
1 '
I
1
Legend
Site
KC Tax Parcels
Hydroperiods
r Saturated
F Seasonal
Stream
Figure C N
A
1 inch equals 100 feet
0 50 100 200
Feet
I
� 1
Legend
Site
KC Tax Parcels 1
Wetland Sketch
r
Ponded Depressions i
i
Figure D
1 inch equals 100 feet
0 50 100 200
Feet
t. 7 look&-" r
z
Legend
a
Site
KC Tax Parcels
150-Foot Boundary ,
Wetland Sketch
� AA
N
A
Figure E N
A
1 inch equals 100 feet
0 50 100 200
Feet
v� R �� .' r� ' •
Legend
OHWM Stream
Site
KC Tax Parcels
Wetland Sketch
011
WRTIF.-I
�FA
Figure F
ft Winged Foot way
rrU�
wl e Ln
4 ft
IIY
840 ft
P'C wr t2
f
ft
T3
Tna nfarm illon ncluded on the map has been complad by King Counly staff hom a �Adoly or soames and is
subjecl in change without notlae King County mok"no nspreaentations or waaargos, Onprlss ar tmprnd,
!s Is a rnumcy, curnplolenas&. Irnelinass, or rghls Iv Ire use of surh i nfomsauon. Tfis sbc umenlls ml intended
Dr use as a survey pradu mt. Kng County shall mi be Ibblo for any ponomi. spec Bl. MIred. InndentaL or
consequonliaidamages induding, brA not lirriled to, lost reeenues or lost pmfis resuring from the use or misuse
of the Information contained on this map. Any sale of the map or information on this map is pruhitited except by
wdten permission of Kirg County,
Date: 12/19/2017 Contributing Basin 1,275,011 sq. ft.
ft
1 �
LQ King County
GIS CENTER
Legend
Override 1
Parcels
_ index contours -
100 foot
contours - 5 foot
(below 1000 feet)
and 10 foot
1 inch equals 1,000 feet N
500 1,000 2,000 Figure G
Feet
Total Area 1 KM Buffer = 832 Acres
Undisturbed Habitat = 253 Acres (30%)
Accessible Habitat = 2.5 Acres (0.3%)
ti
O
N
0
N
N
E
N
U
N
0
LL
M M
O O
= rnE It It
M
d
i
L L L L L L 4' L L L L L L
Q) 0 0 0 0 0 0 C O O 0 O O O
01 01 01 01 M 01 N 01 01 M 01 01 Ol
N y L v v v aJ v a� E v v v v v a�
dN a)ro �o ro ro �a ro ro t6 �o � ro ro
y U U U U U U U U U U U U
a 3 3: ) I In
s ;Ad 41t Z
PUEZ
,C
ON
1
_
m
_
L�J
�
J
571
roa�S
vJ
f�
M^
LI
w
0
N
0
Ln
N
O
0
IO
U1
Skip main come
Welcome to our new website. Learn more about what's new.
Water Quality improvement projects
This table gives an overview of water quality improvement projects — including total maximum daily
loads (TMDLs) — currently under way in Washington. Projects are listed by county.
Note: This is a partial list of the water quality improvement projects. A full directory will be developed.
Get more information and data
If more information is available about a project, it will be hyperlinked to the water body name. Use our
Water ouaIity Assessment 0uery Tool to get data about water bodies.
Read reports on improvement projects
To see water quality improvement reports, see the Water Cleanup Plans in our publications database.
Water quality improvement projects
County
Waterbody Name
Pollutant(s)
Status
TMDL
Dissolved oxygen
Lead(s)
Adams
Palouse
Under development
Elaine
Fecal Coliform
Snouwaert
509.329-
Lincoln
PCBs
EPA approved
Whitman
Temperature
Has an
3503
Toxics
implementation plan
Clark
East Fork Lewis River
Fecal Coliform
Under development
Andrew
Temperature
Kolosseus
360-407-
7543
Grays
North Ocean Beaches
Shellfish Closure
Under development
Donovan
Harbor
Response
Gray
360-407-
Fecal Coliform
6407
Bacteria
source
investigation
study
King
SammannishRiver-aridDissolved
Oxygen
Under Development
loam
425-549-
Tributaries
Temperature
4425
King
Soos Creek Subbasin
Aquatic Habitat
Under Development
loan Nolan
425-649-
Multiparameter
Dissolved Oxygen
Temperature
4425
County
Waterbody Name
Pollutant(s)
Status
TMDL
Lead(s)
King
Soos Creek Subbasin
Fecal Coliform
Under Development
loan Nolan
425.649-
Bacteria
4425
Mason
Cranberry. lohns._artd-MJA
Temperature
Under development
Be s
Creeks
Dickes
360-407-
6296
Pend
Little Spokane River
Dissolved Oxygen
Under development
Elaine
Oreille
pH
Snouwae
509-329-
Spokane
3503
Stevens
Pierce
Clover Creek
Dissolved Oxygen
Water Quality
Donovan
Fecal Coliform
Assessment project
Grav
Temperature
Under development
360-407-
6407
Skagit
Padilla pay
Fecal coliform
Under development
Qanielle
Devoe
425-649-
7036
Snohomish
French and Pilchuck Creeks
Dissolved Oxygen
Under development
Heather
Temperature
Khan
425-649-
7003
Spokane
Hangman Creek
Fecal Coliform
Approved
Elaine
Temperature
Implementation plan
Snouwaert
Turbidity
sent to EPA
509-329-
3503
Spokane
Spokane River
Dissolved Oxygen
Karin
PCB
BaWMM
509-329-
3601
Toxics
dria e
Borgias
509-329-
3515
Thurston
Deschutes River and
Dissolved Oxygen
Submitted to EPA for
Leanne
tributaries
Fecal Coliform
approval
Weiss
pH
360-407-
Sediment
0243
Temperature
Skip to main wnte
County
Waterbody Name
Pollutant(s)
Status
TMDL
Lead(s)
Thurston
Deschutes Watershed.' 13
Dissolved Oxygen
Underdevelopment
Leanne
Inlet
Phosphorus
Weiss
360-407-
Dissolved Oxygen
0243
Thurston
Henderson Inlet
EPA approved
Donavan
Fecal Coliform
aLay
pH
Has an
360-407-
Temperature
implementation plan
6407
Whatcom
Lake Whatcom Watershed
Dissolved Oxygen
EPA approved
Steve Hood
Multiparameter
Fecal Coliform
360-715-
Phosphorus
5211
Yakima
Mid -Yakima Basin
Bacteria
Under development
Greg Bohn
549-454-
4174
Yakima
Yakima River Basin
Toxics
Under development
Jape
Creech
509-454-
7860
Related links
■ Water Quality Atlas
■ Water Quality Assessment Tracking System
Contact information
Diane Dent
Water Quality Program
diane.dent@ecy.wa.gov
360-407-6616
F-IJNDARY & TOPOGRAPHIC '--)RVEY
A PORTION OF t d NW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP N., RANGE 4 E., W.M.
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
--v
Eia
1'L`'
42,
h� � `� �� � � I �'I''I I � w �• 'I
I
f i zu LOT 90 �� , ..r. f I `
wl'I '\ � �! El! Scale: ` ,� _ — — i 1 I CQ
.car L=Nc
of X>w. t7z
g SURVEYOR'S NOTES:`- i ;,;,",,,,,• •J I � r -
n ]6r,fr "mom Tpl>'uv Icru1iINlililr�E.o
E�p�11� ol� e.mnos
j ✓�Ml[Ia111Gw3Y50.1d Im61 NI, Li1ElN AWIlI1Nl�/ LIAARnc
46911E CF IHE 1RAYERES IEEI IK STA,p,N6 tr N4C ' : I I`
yy 21 UTILIilE9 n1,FA 1NAN ImAqp., RY FJfl6r tll 1 tiH � �••' b, -' • I 'y 8I
, i �; 1N65E pll[H NRE VIS,l.1 �I Wi1NG V1961E E140/i '.� I:
IE1R tN9tALLATIm APE SHOpI HEREW. C 1C... ra .1{ .• � � +
11 1 ],�R yJq{Y RlE� 11NSVJl IInmEMENr C018IIIg5 .9 f � i
/ 3 il<f IN1m Rwil., 1 3a91 iM MIE fF iNI4 FIELV
WII{.. Kf YEiu1G tL1J AdfO l,-ft-2J1] i• o I
� NI S RNIri,Tl n 41,Ip. b Tftlltltlwl ' f I
cl 1uova li"fa<"Ilu Il1SL1 M1s atlol lrEoeln a r
DESCRIPTION:
Y[pp�1[11�1 L[{ FEEr OF rIE ]IE 1 W UT m OF A' • I r \ I I I p
,pt. lYllq'L 1 EIST0.A,N1N SECIAIYMIAIIP 21 1
l
f _ ,• t CIE. Ar ..r a• N ; I I I
{4 ff y,f ff �• �+ + i• o.Y.�
Tv:� r� � ................. ..., ....�,..�... .• �r-•� r�,� R.+^fir f �' "°
—�
1
•ilt w
lWY
A pa TIIOI 9mPl f
SOUTH 330TH STREET
lA' e
_TT'K'[ yKs,ir' -os'E ]
_-_�_�- ° +r r 15
969.2>26oR R]-
[IVR"0n i sww.�nlp�L•+� iiiiee w 3w-
yR BASIS OF BE
1
eIW /n e�. �•.W ^•• �.'w- �1"e•� w j "wiaYnl IAC Ap. atE¢ EmItA1,1nC asid aT E-'
y .Mu 1if10tl1- r V �1yE , IE yCW�M1 7tlCu4OYmYpkq[} + U%
' CcwN.inci.+0•`�i11[�dN�l�[L rl LI I"ti[ �Wi L
R IS W W 1H. xW.I.' ff
p- •
zI
_p ly M1NYY M T �Wln iK YA i[C]1Rq � II`
1 1iY WiFCI '�OMu[P�0 �EVRuiEt fw 9NIIv1 `�i
�R 1 5;E VPl0 Y1F r Wii
,IIN� IiY• VERTICAL DATUM: 3srt x
i! ky11.WLOC6' ein exrR wT10w iRCCIeC iWllu diw Y W'r 1 m �
�S6 >e. 1l9W.C. a W1.Y 0�.-IntiHc. � 02,
BENCHMARK
K. �I�py1� p.21fi6Tt Iltgi d E,�1 II,3
1 4E I' f'r �.' SI a,f fa rG�f 11��iI[ 1��1lL Ylp ii llE 1dIXAY1 4Tf[F S j`
vaCprC MI.1 .*E 1mIM1 . 1pi1 -T. Mt.
�J �• ELEYATIa,r 31fi Sl fFEi�
. � r.w - ip .,.,t».1g�i IL w RUT
wY IIr 9'1[ [NlE®[!l. IN IN W]IM 3301N . fP1 F i. I
r. �r,Y-u of mnll�i"oriluul ilea. r ww wsc.
{j ilk[ 1• w r6,.
n ' S! f
".J. p 1.1 evtlw. Pev 1 2V16-61-1] ny..P le aM wa1,N r1H. e! wa 92 m
j Il4`:Ft'wxn,°: i:v[. CBL1�'! �r `NW -SW 16, T24N., R4E� W.M.
rl wrn �Ix fI�d
W1 •1t-11a... Scale: �...�� ft. �.e
)) ) rGpi TN 1,..-t L,t ,106 • !•wa", fa KYp :5>7 Sptn ',l r[n Fs...,.
1 r a" wr. N• rw�
600 p IQNG COUNTY, WASHINGTON
p ,.00a n .a.
LVr. L 2tl]]
, _ ,o s,; ,� SHEET 1 OF 1
CITY of
L Federal Way
February 28, 2018
David and Kathy Hsiao
2512 South 317th Street, Apt 301
Federal Way, WA 98003
david1h1232@gmaiL com
RE: File #18-100896-00-PC; PREAPPLICATION CONFERENCE SCHEDULED
Hsiao Single Family Residence, Parcel # 797880-0581, Federal Way
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Hsiao:
FILE
CITY HALL
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
(253) 835-7000
www.cityoffederalway.com
Jim Ferrell, Mayor
The Community Development Department is in receipt of your preapplication 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, March 22, 2018
Hylebos Conference Room
Federal Way City Hall, 2°d Floor
33325 81h 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 v pin 4
Associate Planner
Doc LD. 77356
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE TRANSMITTAL
DATE: February 27, 2018
TO: Cole Elliott, Development Services Manager
Peter Lawrence, Plans Examiner
Rick Perez, City Traffic Engineer
Brian Asbury, Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
Chris Cahan, South King Fire & Rescue
FROM: Becky Chapin, Associate Plaimer
FOR DRC MTG. ON. March 15, 2018 - Internal
March 22, 2018, 9:00am - with applicant
FILE NUMBER(s): 18-100896-00-PC
RELATED FILE NOS.: None
PROJECT NAME: Hsiao Single Family Residence
PROJECTADDRESS: *NO SITE ADDRESS*
ZONING DISTRICT.- RM 3600
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed single family residence on a lot encumbered by wetlands.
LAND USE PERMITS: TBD
PROJECT CONTACT.
MATERIALS SUBMITTED:
David & Kathy Hsiao
2512 S 317`' St, Apt 301
Federal Way, WA 98003
Master Land Use Application
Boundary/Topo Survey with proposed house envelope
Aerial Photo
Critical Area Report
RECEIVED MASTER LAND USE APPLICATION
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
[. FEB 2 6 2018 33325 8`h Avenue South
CITY OF x- - Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
Federal Way CITY ,nh= FEDERAL WAY 253-835-2607; Fax 253-835-2609
CAMMUNfTY DEVELOPMENT n �. «.city ofFedcral_�4'ay.cam
APPLICATION NO(S) / 0 ^ / V D X 7 10 — PG Date0�26��01$
Project Name
Property Address/Location ed
Parcel Number(i)
Project Description i
PI,RASF. PRINT
Type of Permit Required
Annexation
Binding Site Plan
Boundary Line Adjustment
Comp Plan/Rezone
Land Surface Modification
Lot Line Elimination
,Tf Preapplication Conference
Process I (Director's Approval)
Process II (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
kl 3GOO Zoning Designation
� I omprehensive Plan Designation
- Value of Existing Improvements
Ai.IA ,Value of Proposed Improvements
International Building Code (IBC):
�A/ //� Occupancy Type
Construction Type
Applicant
Name: Dtwd W 00
Address:-)512 S 2& Ski W3°I
City/State: Wei ", WOV44"v'It.+I
Zip. 9gu3
Phone: 7� 3-7 41 4q LMel, Z,. FAA a53 261 %15' i
Fax..:
Email: o(glh�z�@$r+it,Cov+A
Signature:
t (if different than Applicant)
Name:
Address:
City/State:
Zip:
Phone:
Fax:
Email:
Signature:
Owner
Name: KrvokY i 6iau
Address: ;j_r [3 5 31th Stwi AP601
City/State: rmternl ", W A5R1 U6rTOM
Zip: %Vp3
Phone: Dab .8-7.5. RIB LAT%p - zb-7oiO
Fax:
Email: 06&J23-2@�^;Al,Cvvn .
Signature:
Bulletin #003 —January 1, 2011
Page I of 1
k:\Handouts\Master Land Use Applicr