04-102513BILE
CITY OF
�. Federal
September 12, 2007
CITY HALL
33325 8th Avenue South
Way Mailing Address: PO Box 9718
Federal Way, WA 98063-9718
(253) 835-7000
www.cityoffederalway.com
Dyanne Sheldon
10230 NE Points Drive, Suite 400
Kirkland, WA 98033
RE: File #04-102513-00-SE; Re -Issuance of Authorization to Proceed (from September 8, 2006)
Gill SEPA for Short Plat & Wetland Violation, 2420 South 298tb Street, Federal Way
Dear Ms. Sheldon:
The purpose of this letter is to authorize the services of Otak to conduct work identified in the May 22,
2006, Sheldon task authorization, in order to continue review of the wetland fill conducted at the site in
the mid 1990's. Previous review work by Sheldon & Associates was authorized in Scopes of Work
(SOWS) dated June 9, 2004, and July 9, 2004.
The current May 22, 2006 SOW, identifies several tasks to be completed with the estimated funds in the
amount of $3,350.00, including review of the file, reports, and Federal Way City Code (FWCC); conduct
an on -site meeting with B-12 Associates, the applicant's wetland biologist, to jointly determine the
location of the wetland edge as it has not been formally delineated (and the B-12 staff person who did the
initial delineation analysis has left the firm); review a revised wetland and buffer restoration plan that
includes the agreed upon wetland delineation edge; and associated correspondence and review. Any
unused funds will be returned to the applicant at the conclusion of the project.
At this time, funds in the amount of $3,350.00 have been paid by the applicant. Please consider this letter
as an authorization to proceed with the review as detailed in your May 22, 2006 SOW, not to exceed
$3,350.00. Please advise me of the arranged meeting date between your firm and B-12 so that City staff
can attend.
I can be reached at 253-835-2641 if you have any questions about this letter.
Sincerely,
eqAX19611�
Laura Kim
Associate Planner
c: John Rutland, 945 North Central Avenue, #104, Kent, WA 98032
Kashmir Gill. 2420 South 298" Street, Federal Way, WA 98003
Doe. I.D. 42351
REr - VED SY
Qff,IUNliY DE, )PMEN7 DEPARIMENI
- Patrick M. Hanis
Michael M. Hanis
JUN
IEIBrian
10
U 1 2007 Sarah K.Wahl
John J. Greaney
Karen J. Scudder
Greg L. Girard
J. Hanis
Dennis J. Shanhan*
Mark W. Prothero
HAMS GREANEY - PLLC
Florian "Ian" Purganan
Jamie L. Danielson
Michael Ditchik**
ATTORNEYS EYS AT LAW
Cynthia A. Irvine***
*CPA/LLM
**Also admitted in New York and Washington DC
***Also admitted in Virginia
phanis@hgzlaw.com
May 31, 2007
City of Federal Way
Attn: Deb Barker
33525 8th Avenue South
PO Box 9718
Federal Way, WA 98063-9718
RE: File #04-102513-SE; Gill SEPA for Short Plat/Wetland Violation
Dear Ms. Barker:
Pursuant to your letter of August 22, 2006, and my letter of September 5, 2006, we were
expecting that the environmental review would continue. 1 understand that my client paid the fee
for the work to be performed. We have not heard anything further to date_
We would appreciate an update of the City's wetland consultant.
Very Truly Yours,
Patrick M. Hanis
6703 South 234th Street, Suite 300 • Kent, Washington 98032-2900.253.520.5000 • Fax 253.893.5007
CITY OF
Federal Way
Ms. Dyanne Sheldon
OTAK, Inc.
10230 NE Points Drive, Suite 400
Kirkland, WA 98033
_1i
J,(Y HALL
33325 8th Avenue South
Mailing Address: PO Box 9718
Federal Way, WA 98063-9718
(253) 835-7000
www.cityoffederalway.com
Re: File #04-102513-00-SE; AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED
Kashmir Gill Short Plat = Continued Investigation of Wetland Violation
Dear Ms. Sheldon:
September 8, 2006
The purpose of this letter is to authorize the services of Otak to conduct work identified in the May, 22,
2006, Sheldon task authorization, in order to continue review of the wetland fill conducted at the site in
the mid 1990's. Previous review work by Sheldon & Associateg was authorized in Scopes of Work
(SOWS) dated June 9, 2004, and July 9, 2004.
The current May 22, 2006, SOW identifies several tasks to be completed with the estimated funds in the
amount of $3,350.00,' including review of the file, reports, and Federal Way City Code (FWCC); conduct
an on -site meeting with B-12 Associates, the applicant's wetland biologist, to jointly determine the
location of the wetland edge as it has not been formally delineated (and the B-12 staff person who did the
initial delineation analysis has left the firm); review a revised wetland and buffer restoration plan that
includes the agreed upon wetland delineation edge; and associated correspondence and review. Any
unused funds will be returned to the applicant at the conclusion of the project.
At this time, funds in the amount of $3,350.00 have been paid by the applicant. Please consider this letter
as an authorization to proceed with the review as detailed in your May 22, 2006 SOW, not to exceed
$3,350.00. Please advise me of the arranged meeting date between your firm and B-12 so that City staff
can attend.
I can be reached at 253-835-2642 if you have any questions about this letter.
Sincerely,
Ah- 16A_kt.
Deb Barker
Senior Planner
enc: May 22, 2006, SOW
c: Martin Nordby, Code Compliance Officer
Tamara Fix, Administrative Assistant
Kashmir Gill, 2420 South 298`h Place, Federal Way, WA 98003-4218
I The task authorization estimated funding in the amount of $4,160.00. In a June 26, 2006 conversation, Dyanne Sheldon determined
that only one Sheldon staff person, not two, would be necessary to meet with B-12 at the subject site and delineate the wetland edge.
Therefore, the cost estimate was revised by $810.00 (eight hours at $90.00/hour), and reduced accordingly to $3,350.00.
Doc I D 37944
GILL PRELIMINARY SHORT PLAT
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
Gill Preliminary Short Plat
2. Name of applicant:
Mr. Kashmir Gill
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
Mr. Kashmir Gill
2420 S. 298`h St.
Federal Way, WA 98003
(253) 946-0310
Agent for Applicant:
B-twelve Associates, Inc.
1103 W. Meeker St.
Kent, WA 98032
(253) 859-0515
Contact: Susan L. Burgemeister
4. Date checklist prepared:
May 24, 2004
5. Agency requesting checklist:
City of Federal Way, WA
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
Completion of the short plat -Fall 2004
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansions, or further activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
One residence may be constructed on each of the 3 northern lots in the future. As
shown on the preliminary short plat map, driveway access will be provided for all
loF,s. RIEGE N E D
JUN 9. 4 ?r"'d
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
BUILDING DEPT.
RE: Environmental Checklist
Gill Preliminary Short Plat/Job #A3-162
B-twelve Associates, Inc.
May 25, 2004
Page 2 of 14
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared,
or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal.
-Wetland and Stream Analysis Report and Buffer Enhancement Plan, by B-twelve
Associates, Inc., dated May 25, 2004.
-Landscape/tree Replacement Plan, by Lauchlin R. Bethune Associates
-Preliminary Technical Information Report (TIR), by John J. Pittman, PE
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals
of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal?
If yes, explain.
None are known.
10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your
proposal, if known.
Preliminary and final short plat approval
Grading and storm drainage plan approval
11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed
uses and the size of the project and site.
The project will subdivide the existing 2-acre lot into 4 lots, creating 3 new lots
for single-family residences and preserving the existing home on the parcel. The
lots will range in size from 9, 000 sf to 22,700sf. The new lots will be served by a
new private road constructed as a continuation of South 29e Place, and named
241h Place South. The project will also include a storm drainage pond.
12. Location of the proposal.
The property is located along the north side of S. 298�h Place and east of S. 296rh
Place if extended.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site: Flat, rolling hilly, steep slopes,
mountainous, other:
RE: Environmental Checklist
Gill Preliminary Short Plat/Job #A3-162
B-twelve Associates, Inc.
May 25, 2004
Page 3 of 14
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
The parcel slopes from south to north at approximately ten percent.
C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay,
sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of
agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland.
The soils are Arents/Alderwood (AmQ, which are Hydrologic Group C.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the
immediate vicinity? If so, describe.
None are known.
e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling
or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill.
The project is not expected to require any fill material.
The construction of the access road will require very little
grading, as the new road will be built nearly at existing grade. The total
size of the driveway tract is 11,500 sf.
The construction of the stormpond will require a cut of approximately 720
cubic yards.
Grading for the individual homes will be typical to construction on 10%
slopes.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so,
generally describe.
Because the site is primarily flat or slightly sloped, no long-term erosion
is expected. Erosion during construction will be controlled according to
the approved Sediment and Erosion Control Plan for the project.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious
surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or
buildings)?
After the access and future residences are constructed, approximately
25-30% of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces.
RE: Environmental Checklist
Gill Preliminary Short Plat/Job #A3-162
13-twelve Associates, Inc.
May 25, 2004
Page 4 of 14
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impact to
the earth, if any:
BMP's including silt fencing and hydroseeding will be employed. A
temporary erosion and sediment control plan will be submitted at the civil
stage.
2. Air
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal .(i.e.
dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction
and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and
give approximate quantities, if known.
Some machinery exhaust may be emitted during construction. Emissions
typical to single-family- residences are expected when project is complete
b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odors that may affect
your proposal? If so, generally describe.
None are known.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to
air, if any: None
3. Water
a. Surface
1. Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity
of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams,
saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and
provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it
flows into.
A Category II wetland and Major Stream are located offsite to the
north. The buffer of the wetland and stream extends approximately
85' into the northern end of the project site. See Wetland and
Stream Analysis Report and Buffer Enhancement Plan, by B-twelve
Associates, dated May 25, 2004.
RE:. Environmental Checklist
Gill Preliminary Short Plat/Job #A3-162
B-twelve Associates, Inc.
May 25, 2004
Page 5 of 14
2. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to
(within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe
and attach available plans.
All construction will be completed outside of the sensitive areas
and their required buffers. Buffer enhancement will occur within
the buffer to mitigate far a clearing violation that removed
primarily blackberries.
3. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be
placed in or removed from the surface water or wetlands and
indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate
the source of fill material.
No grading will occur within sensitive areas or their required
buffers.
4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or
diversions? Give general description, purpose, and
approximate quantities, if known.
No surface water withdrawals or diversions are proposed.
5. Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note
location on the site plan.
No, the site is not within a 100 year floodplain.
6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to
surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and
anticipated volume of discharge.
Discharge of waste materials to surface water is not proposed.
b. Ground
1. Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged
to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and
approximate quantities, if known.
No groundwater will be withdrawn, nor will water be discharged
to groundwater.
RE: Environmental Checklist
Gill Preliminary Short Plat/Job #A3-162
B-twelve Associates, Inc.
May 25, 2004
Page 6 of 14
2. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the
ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example:
Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following
chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the
system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to
be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans
the systems are expected to serve.
The site is connected to sewer; therefore, no waste material will be
discharged into the ground.
C. Water Runoff (including storm water):
L Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and
method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if
known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into
other water? If so, describe.
A combined detention/water quality pond is proposed at the north
end of the site. Please see attached TIR.
2. Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so,
generally describe.
No waste material will enter ground or surface waters.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff
water impacts, if any:
Please see Sections III and IV in TIR (attached).
4. Plants
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
X�deciduous trees:
_X_evergreen trees:
_X_shrubs
_X_grass
alder, maple, aspen, other
fir, cedar, pine, other
_pasture
crops or grains
wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, other
water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
other types of vegetation
RE: Environmental Checklist
Gill Preliminary Short Plat/Job #A3-162
B-twelve Associates, Inc.
May 25, 2004
Page 7 of 14
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
Several trees were removed from the site without a permit. These trees
will be replaced, and additional trees will also be planted in order to meet
landscape requirements.
In addition, buffer enhancement will occur within the buffer to mitigate for
a clearing violation that removed primarily blackberries.
C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
None are known.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to
preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any:
Landscaping requirements will be met on the site. (See Landscape Plan)
In addition, native plants will be installed in the wetland/stream buffer, as
described above and in B-twelve's "Gill Preliminary Short Plat, Wetland
and Stream Analysis Report and Buffer Enhancement Plan ", dated May
25, 2004.
5. Animals
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near
the site or are known to be on or near the site:
Birds: hawks, heron, eagle, soniabird,
other:
Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver,
other:
Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish,
other:
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the
site.
The offsite Major Stream may carry salmonid species during part of the
year.
RE:. Environmental Checklist
Gill Preliminary Short Plat/Job #A3-162
B-twelve Associates, Inc.
May 25, 2004
Page 8of14
C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
None are known.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
Wetland and stream buffers will be observed. Buffer enhancement,
tree replacement, and tree retention will occur on the site.
6. Energy and Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will
be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe
whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc.
Electricity will be used for heating and general purposes in the residences.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by
adjacent properties? If so, generally describe.
No.
C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans
of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control
energy impacts, if any:
None
7. Environmental Health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to
toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste,
that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe.
None are known.
1. Describe special emergency services that might be required.
N/A
2. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health
hazards, if any:
N/A
RE: Environmental Checklist
Gill Preliminary Short Plat/Job #A3-162
B-twelve Associates, Inc.
May 25, 2004
Page 9 of 14
b. Noise
1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your
project (for example- traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
Some airplane noise from Sea-Tac Airport.
2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or
associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term
basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)?
Indicate what hours noise would come from the site.
Minor construction noise (short-term) will occur during building
of the homes. Minimal traffic noise could be a long-term effect.
3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
None
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
The site currently has one single-family residence. Properties to the east
and west are single-family, and protected sensitive areas are located to
the north.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
C0
C. Describe any structures on the site.
One single-family mobile home and one garage.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
No.
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
RS9.6 (Single Family Residential, 1 unit/9, 600 sq. ft.)
RE: Environmental Checklist
Gill Preliminary Short Plat/Job #A3-162
B-twelve Associates, Inc.
May 25, 2004
Page 10 of 14
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
Single Family High Density
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program
designation of the site?
N/A
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally
sensitive" area? If so, specify:
Buffers extend onto the site from the offsite wetland and stream. See
"Wetland and Stream Analysis Report and Buffer Enhancement Plan". by
B-twelve Associates, dated May 25, 2004.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the
completed project?
The 4 residences that could be constructed on site would typically house
2-6 people per home.
Approximately how many people would the completed project
displace?
None.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
None.
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing
and projected land uses and plans, if any:
The project is consistent with the single-family lots to the east and west of
the site.
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate
whether high, middle, or low-income housing.
One house will be placed on each lot in the future; therefore, 3 new
houses will be provided, in addition to the existing house on the site.
RE: Environmental Checklist
Gill Preliminary Short Plat/Job #A3-162
B-twelve Associates, Inc.
May 25, 2004
Page 11 of 14
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated?
Indicate whether high, middle or low-income housing.
None.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
None
10. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including
antennas? What is the principal exterior building material(s)
proposed?
No new structures are proposed on the site for this application. Project
will meet standard height requirements of the City of Federal Way.
b. What view in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
None are known.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
None.
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of
day would it mainly occur?
Small houselights and automobile headlights are likely to be noticeable
after dark.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or
interfere with views?
No.
C. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your
proposal?
None are known.
RE: Environmental Checklist
Gill Preliminary Short Plat/Job #A3-162
B-twelve Associates, Inc.
May 25, 2004
Page 12 of 14
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if
any:
None.
12. Recreation
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the
immediate vicinity?
None are known or designated.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses?
If so, describe.
No.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts of recreation,
including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or
applicant, if any:
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national,
state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the
site? If so, generally describe.
None.
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic,
archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or
next to the site.
None.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
None.
14. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe
proposed access to the existing street system. Show on -site plans, if
any.
South 298`h St. is located at the south end of the site. The driveway for the
RE: Environmental Checklist
Gill Preliminary Short Plat/Job #A3-162
B-twelve Associates, Inc.
May 25, 2004
Page 13 of 14
existing house on the site enters on S. 298"' St. Access for the remaining 3
lots will be located on an extension of South 296`h Place
b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the
approximate distance to the nearest transit stop?
The nearest bus stop (K.C. Metro) is approximately 0.8 miles from the site.
C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How
many would the project eliminate?
Two standard parking spaces will be provided for each home.
The project will have a driveway for each new residence.
The project will not eliminate any parking spaces.
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements
to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally
describe (indicate whether public or private).
As stated above, South 296th Place will be extended east and south as
access to the north 3 lots. The new road will be a private road.
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail
or air transportation? If so, generally describe.
No.
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the
completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would
occur.
Traffic volumes are not known at this time. A Traffic Impact Study will be
submitted at the civil stage.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if
any:
None
RE: Environmental Checklist
Gill Preliminary Short Plat/Job #A3-162
B-twelve Associates, Inc.
May 25, 2004
Page 14 of 14
15. Public Services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for
example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools,
other)? If so, generally describe.
No, the need for public services will increase only slightly to serve the
3 new homes.
b. Proposed measure to reduce or control direct impacts of public
services, if any:
N/A
16. Utilities
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electrici , natural gas,
water, refuse services, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility
providing the service and the general construction activities on the site
or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed.
The existing utilities will be extended to each new residence.
SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to th best of my knowledge. I
understand that the lead agency is relying on;
em to make its decision.
Signature of Ahhlicant.
Date ag 04
Signature of Agenl Date Z p
Date Submitted
File: dm/A3162-Gi1VA3162-Gill-SEPA.doc
CITY OF
A�k Federal Way
June 27, 2006
Mr. Kashmir Gill
2420 298"' Place
Federal Way, WA 98003-4218
FILE
CITY HALL
33325 8th Avenue South
Mailing Address: PO Box 971,8
Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 '
(253) 835-7000
www.cityoffederalway.com
RE: File #04-102513-00-SE; GILL SEPA FOR SHORT PLAT & WETLAND VIOLATION
Dear Mr. Gill:
The purpose of this letter is to advise you of a revision to the Sheldon & Associates Scope of Work
(SOW) for continued review of the revised wetland report prepared by B-12 Wetland Consultants, and
wetland delineation for the site previously impacted by illegal filling.
On May 30, 2006, the City forwarded the current Sheldon SOW, dated May 22, 2006, which identified
several tasks to be completed with the estimated funds, including review of the file, reports and FWCC;
conduct an on -site meeting with B-12 Associates to jointly determine the location of the wetland edge as
it has not been formally delineated (and the B-12 staff person who did the initial delineation analysis has
left the firm); review a revised wetland and buffer restoration plan that includes the agreed upon wetland
delineation edge; and associated correspondence and review. A cost estimate of $4,160.00 was identified
for these tasks. Any unused funds will be returned to the applicant at the conclusion of the project.
In a June 26, 2006 conversation, Dyanne Sheldon determined that only one Sheldon staff person not two,
will be necessary to meet with you at the subject site and delineate the wetland edge. Therefore, the cost
estimate is revised by $810.00 (8 hours at $90.00/hour), and reduced to $3,350.00.
If you agree with the cost estimate, a check in the amount of $3,350.00, payable to the City of Federal
Way, must be submitted before Sheldon & Associates will be authorized to continue review on this
project and meet with B-12. As noted above, any unused funds will be returned to you at the conclusion
of the project.
I can be reached at 253-835-2642 if you have any questions about the status of this project or the estimate.
Sincerely,
GCS & 4_ , �
Deb Barker
Associate Planner
c: Martin Nordby, Code Compliance Officer -
Suzanne Bagshaw, Sheldon & Associates, 5031 University Way NE, #204, Seattle, WA 98105-4341
Ed Sewell, Sewell Wetland Consulting, Inc., 1103 West Meeker Street, Kent, WA 98032-5751
04-102513 Doc I.D. 36975
CITY OF
�. Federal Way
May 30, 2006
FILE
CITY HALL
33325 8th Avenue South
Mailing Address: PO Box 9718
Federal Way, WA 98063-9718
(253) 835-7000
www.cityoffederalway.com
Kashmir Gill
2420 298"' Place
Federal Way, WA 98003-4218
RE: File #04-102513-00-SE; GILL SEPA FOR SHORT PLAT & WETLAND VIOLATION
Dear Mr. Gill:
Following your March 1, 2006, submittal of revised documents for the wetland fill and buffer restoration
at the above -referenced site, the City forwarded relevant documents to Sheldon & Associates for review.
It should be noted that the initial Sheldon & Associates Scope of Work (SOW) dated July 28, 2004, for
$3,010.00, only included review of those documents listed in that SOW.' Review of any revisions
requires supplemental funding as all previous funding allocations have been depleted with initial review
and site visits to verify fill locations.
This current Scope of Work, dated May 22, 2006, identifies several tasks that will be completed with the
estimated funds, including review of the file, reports and FWCC; conduct an on -site meeting with B-12
Associates, the applicant's wetland biologist, to jointly determine the location of the wetland edge as it
has not been formally delineated (and the B-12 staff person who did the initial delineation analysis has
left the firm); review a revised wetland and buffer restoration. plan that includes the agreed upon wetland
delineation edge; and associated correspondence and review. Any unused funds will be returned to the
applicant at the conclusion of the project.
At this point, please review the proposed cost estimate for. the Scope for Gill Wetland/Buffer Violation. If
you agree with the cost estimate, a check in the amount of $4,160.00, payable to the City of Federal Way,
must be submitted before Sheldon & Associates will be authorized to continue on review on this project
or meet with B-12.
I can be reached at 253-835-2642 if you have any questions about the status of this project or the estimate.
Sincerely,
& &kj�
Deb Barker
Associate Planner
enc Sheldon SOW dated May 22, 2006
c: Martin Nordby, Code Compliance Officer
Suzanne Bagshaw, Sheldon and Associates, 5031 University Way NE, #204, Seattle, WA 98105-4341
1 Sheldon invoices for $760 dated 9/30/04, $315 dated 10/31/04, $472.50 dated 12/31/04, and $1263.85 dated 12/14/05 have been
paid leaving a balance of $198.65.
Doc I D. 36537
04-102513
Sheldon &
Associates, Inc,
5031 University Way NE #204 • Seattle, WA 98105-4341
Ph 206-522-1214 o Fax 206-522-3507
Gill Wetland Violation
Scope of Work
Prepared for the City of Federal Way
May 22, 2006
The following scope of work and cost estimate was developed by Sheldon & Associates, Inc. (S&A) to
assist the City of Federal Way with the resolution of the wetland fill and buffer restoration project on
the Gill site. This scope of work includes: reviewing information submitted by the applicant's
consultant; a site visit with the applicant's consultant to determine the former edge of the wetland and
the expectations for a buffer and/or wetland restoration plan; preparation of a memorandum of the
meeting outcome; review and comment letter on a revised buffer and wetland restoration plan; plus
project management. This is a not to exceed Scope of Work: this cost estimate will not be exceeded
without the prior permission of the client and the City. Work will only be billed as actual hours and
expenses are accrued.
Task 1: Background Information
S&A will review previously prepared reports and file content on the Gill project, as well as relevant
portions of the City of Federal Way code.
Task 2: Field Meeting
Sheldon & Associates staff will set up a field meeting with the applicant's biologist, on -site, to jointly
determine the former location of the wetland edge. The edge will be estimated based on hand -
digging through fill present on the site. The approximate boundary of the wetland will be measured
with hand-held tapes in order to be able to sketch the approximate boundary. This jointly agreed
edge will then be used as the premise for a wetland and buffer restoration plan. A brief summary
memo for the City files will be prepared to document concurrence of the wetland edge.
Task 3: Review the Wetland and Buffer Restoration Plan
Staff of S&A will review and comment on the wetland and buffer restoration plan that will have to
be re -submitted by the applicant to reflect the jointly approved wetland boundary. A letter of
findings and recommendations to the applicant for the City will be prepared.
Task 4: Project Management
This includes general project management, development of the project approach, and coordination
with City staff.
Scope of Work — Federal Way/Gill Wetland Violation Page 1 of 2
May 22, 2006
ti
Sheldon &
__. Associates, Inc.
5031 University Way NE #204 • Seattle, WA 98105-4341
Ph 206-522-1214 • Fax 206-522-3507
Scope for Gill Wetland/Buffer Violation
TASK
1: Review Background Information
2: Field Visit & Prepare Memo
IDS
1
SB
2
SS
9
4
Exp.
Sub -Totals
$290
$1,480
9
$40
3: Review Restoration Plan & Prepare Memo
4: Project Management
1
1
18
3
$2,010
$380
Total Hours
Rates Per Hour
Estimated Total
3
$110
$330
32
$90
$2,880
13
$70
$910
$40
$4,160
SIB - Suzanne Bagshaw, Wetland Biologist IDS - Dyanne Sheldon, Principal SS- Stephanie Smith, Field Biologist
Expenses Include: Mileage, Photocopies, Printing, and Faxes.
Scope of Work — Federal Way/Gill Wetland Violation Page 2 of 2
May 22, 2006
B-12 Wetland Consultinq, Inc.
1103 W. Meeker St. (v)253-859-0515
Kent, WA98032-5751 (f 253-852-4732
03-100161
RESUBMITTED
MAR 0 12006
CITY OF FEDERAL. WAY
BUILDING DEPT.
March 1, 2006
Ms. Deb Barker
City of Federal Way
335301st Way South
PO Box 9718
Federal Way, Washington 98063
RE: Gill Wetland Violation - Federal Way File #03-100161
B-12 Project #A3-162
Dear Deb,
This letter and attached restoration plan are in response to your letter to Kashmir
Gill dated January 17, 2006.
Specifically, this letter requested 4 items in regards to the existing
wetland/buffer fill violation as well as several for the proposed Short Plat. The
Short Plat is not being pursued at this time, therefore, this letter and plan will
respond only to the violation.
Item #1 requested a revised wetland delineation addressing the issues in the
previous Sheldon Site inspection reports.
Following site visits that were conducted in late 2004 and on April 21 of 2005,
Darcey Miller of B-12 re -delineated the wetland edge on the site as depicted on
the attached plan. This re -delineation included several excavations throughout
the fill area to determine how much wetland was filled by the current owner.
Specifically, existing trees in the graded area were investigated along the base to
determine the depth of fill at each tree, therefore determining where wetland and
where buffer was impacted by the current grading. It should be mentioned that
previous filling on the site had occurred prior to this owner working on the
property, so the task of determining what was a recent (violation) fill and what
was historic is somewhat difficult.
A Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Company
Gill/#A3-162
B-12 Wetland Consulting, Inc.
March 1, 2006
Page 2
What was discovered was that an area on the northeast portion of the site was
wetland under 12"-14" of fill. To the east and south, older fill and buffer was
discovered as evidenced by an obvious vegetated surface on top of fill under the
more recent fill. The new edge of the wetland was re -delineated by Darcey on
April 21, 2005, and is depicted on the attached as flags B1-B6. This edge depicts
our best estimation of the wetland edge that existed prior to Mr. Gill grading on
the site. All other areas were determined to be previously filled areas prior to
Mr. Gill's ownership of the property.
Items #2,#3 & #4 refers to providing a restoration plan that addresses the fill.
The attached Wetland and Buffer restoration plan addresses restoration of the
wetland filled by Mr. Gill as well as restoring a native plant community to the
buffer area.
Currently, the buffer has a good coverage of grass and the remaining trees are
alive and surviving. Several soil pits were excavated during my site visit in early
February and I found the soil to be gravelly, with a good amount of organic
material creating an adequate growing medium for native trees and shrubs.
Since there is a good coverage of grass on the area and the existing soil appears
to be adequate for plant growth, there is no good reason to remove this material
down to the original soil surface. Additionally, removing the material will
undoubtedly create a blackberry problem as the understory in the previous plant
community had a heavy growth of blackberry. This seed stock is still present in
the underlying filled soil surface and if this soil was opened up to the surface this
species would proliferate. The site currently has little if any blackberry growing
in the buffer making a very good starting point for restoration of a native plant
community in this area.
The proposed restoration plan includes removing approximately 6,000sf of fill
from the filled wetland on the northwest corner of the site. Prior to removing
this material, a silt fence will be installed along the property lines as depicted on
the Restoration Plan. After installation of the slit fence, a backhoe will remove
the fill down to the original soil surface and dispose of the material outside the
wetland and buffer as depicted on the plan. The biologist will be on -site to
coordinate the fill removal. After the fill is removed, a native seed mix will be
spread across the disturbed soil surface.
Next removal of several stumps stockpiled neat the southeast corner of the buffer
will occur. Several of these stumps and a large log will make good habitat
materials in the buffer and will be placed in appropriate locations as determined
by the biologist during the grading work. After this work is completed the
GiIU#A3-162
B-12 Wetland Consulting, Inc.
March 1, 2006
Page 3
proposed plantings will be installed throughout the wetland and buffer.
Sensitive area signs will be placed along the buffer edge to identify and
demarcate this line from any future encroachment.
The proposed restoration area will be monitored for three years as required by
the City.
If you have any questions or require any further information please contact me at
(253) 859-0515 or at ed@bl2assoc.com
Sincerely,
B-12 Wetland Consulting, Inc.
Ed Sewall
President
Attached: Gill Wetland and Buffer Restoration Plan
BILE
ACITY OF
' Federal Way
March 8, 2006
Ms. Dyanne Sheldon
Sheldon and Associates
5031 University Way NE, Suite 204
Seattle, WA 98105-4341
RE: File #04-102513-00-SE; REVISED WETLAND REPORT
Gill Short Plat, 2420 South 298t" Street, Federal Way
Dear Ms. Sheldon:
CITY HALL
33325 8th Avenue South
Mailing Address: PO Box 9718
Federal Way, WA 98063-9718
(253) 835-7000
www.cityoffederalway.com
The purpose of this letter is to request that your firm continue its review. of the wetland reports and a
revised plan submitted for the above -referenced application. On March 1, 2006, the City of Federal Way
received a Wetland and Buffer Restoration Plan and letter prepared by B-12 Wetland Consulting, Inc.
dated March 1, 2006. This information was required by the City to address illegal grade and fill activities
on the subject site.
In reviewing the Gill file, I noted that your Scope of Work dated July 28, 2004, identified an initial fee of
$3,010.00 for project review, and assumed one site visit, with no wetland delineation for the Gill Short
Plat project. It appears that review of the Restoration plan may exceed review work beyond the approved
scope of work. If this is correct, please provide a revised Scope of Work that includes a task of reviewing
the Restoration plant and letter based on the enclosed Wetland Consultant Authorization Form.
I can be reached at 253-835-2642 if you have any questions about this request.
Sincerely,
Deb Barker
Associate Planner
Enc:
Doc l D 35376
04-102513
41111kkk� I
CITY OF
Federal Way
WETLAND CONSULTANT AUTHORIZATION FORM
Consultant: Dyanne Sheldon
Sheldon Associates
5031 University Way NE, Suite 204
Seattle, WA 98105-4341
Project:
Gill Short Plat: Wetland and Stream Restoration/Mitigation
Date:
March 7, 2006
File No:
04-102513-SE, (also 04-102509-SU)
Planner:
Deb Barker, Associate Planner, 253-835-2642
Documents:
1) Gill proposed Short Plat Wetland and Buffer Restoration Plan, prepared by B-Twelve
Wetland Consulting, Inc., March 1, 2006
2) Letter from Ed Sewell B-Twelve Wetland Consulting, Inc., dated March 1, 2006
Task Scope:
1) Review letter and Restoration plan for conformance with Sheldon Memorandums dated
September 30, 2004 and November 16, 2005.
2) Review Delineation as applicable, and determine if it meets FWCC and conforms with
Sheldon Memorandums dated September 30, 2004 and November 16, 2005_
3) Indicate whether the proposed restoration and mitigation identified in the plan and letter is
sufficient to mitigate the impacts of the illegal grading and filling, and if not, what
additional mitigation is required. .
Task Schedule:
Provide task cost estimate by March 28, 2006.
Once task authorization is signed, written project review is to be completed within three weeks of executing task
authorization.
Task Cost: Not to exceed _ without a prior written amendment to this task authorization.
ACCEPTANCE
City of Federal Way Planner Date
Date
Consultant
Date
Applicant
Doc. I D. 35371
04-102513
B-12 Wetland Consulting, Inc.
1103 W. Meeker St (v)25M59-0515
Kent, WA 98032-/51 (fl 253.852-4732
March 1, 2006
Ms. Deb Barker
City of Federal Way
335301st Way South
PO Box 9718
Federal Way, Washington 98063
RE: Gill Wetland Violation - Federal Way File #03-100161
B-12 Project #A3-162
Dear Deb,
03-100161
RESUBMITTED
MAR 0 12006
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
BUILDING DEPT.
This letter and attached restoration plan are in response to your letter to Kashmir
Gill dated January 17, 2006.
Specifically, this letter requested 4 items in regards to the existing
wetland/buffer fill violation as well as several for the proposed Short Plat. The
Short Plat is not being pursued at this time, therefore, this letter and plan will
respond only to the violation.
Item #1 requested a revised wetland delineation addressing the issues in the
previous Sheldon Site inspection reports.
Following site visits that were conducted in late 2004 and on April 21 of 2005,
Darcey Miller of B-12 re -delineated the wetland edge on the site as depicted on
the attached plan. This re -delineation included several excavations throughout
the fill area to determine how much wetland was filled by the current owner.
Specifically, existing trees in the graded area were investigated along the base to
determine the depth of fill at each tree, therefore determining where wetland and
where buffer was impacted by the current grading. It should be mentioned that
previous filling on the site had occurred prior to this owner working on the
property, so the task of determining what was a recent (violation) fill and what
was historic is somewhat difficult.
A Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Company
Gill/#A3-162
B-12 Wetland Consulting, Inc.
March 1, 2006
Page 2
What was discovered was that an area on the northeast portion of the site was
wetland under 12"-14" of fill. To the east and south, older fill and buffer was
discovered as evidenced by an obvious vegetated surface on top of fill under the
more recent fill. The new edge of the wetland was re -delineated by Darcey on
April 21, 2005, and is depicted on the attached as flags B1-136. This edge depicts
our best estimation of the wetland edge that existed prior to Mr. Gill grading on
the site. All other areas were determined to be previously filled areas prior to
Mr. Gill's ownership of the property.
Items #2,#3 & #4 refers to providing a restoration plan that addresses the fill.
The attached Wetland and Buffer restoration plan addresses restoration of the
wetland filled by Mr. Gill as well as restoring a native plant community to the
buffer area.
Currently, the buffer has a good coverage of grass and the remaining trees are
alive and surviving. Several soil pits were excavated during my site visit in early
February and I found the soil to be gravelly, with a good amount of organic
material creating an adequate growing medium for native trees and shrubs.
Since there is a good coverage of grass on the area and the existing soil appears
to be adequate for plant growth, there is no good reason to remove this material
down to the original soil surface. Additionally, removing the material will
undoubtedly create a blackberry problem as the understory in the previous plant
community had a heavy growth of blackberry. This seed stock is still present in
the underlying filled soil surface and if this soil was opened up to the surface this
species would proliferate. The site currently has little if any blackberry growing
in the buffer making a very good starting point for restoration of a native plant
community in this area.
The proposed restoration plan includes removing approximately 6,000sf of fill
from the filled wetland on the northwest corner of the site. Prior to removing
this material, a silt fence will be installed along the property lines as depicted on
the Restoration Plan. After installation of the slit fence, a backhoe will remove
the fill down to the original soil surface and dispose of the material outside the
wetland and buffer as depicted on the plan. The biologist will be on -site to
coordinate the fill removal. After the fill is removed, a native seed mix will be
spread across the disturbed soil surface.
Next removal of several stumps stockpiled neat the southeast corner of the buffer
will occur. Several of these stumps and a large log will make good habitat
materials in the buffer and will be placed in appropriate locations as determined
by the biologist during the grading work. After this work is completed the
GillVA3-162
B-12 Wetland Consulting, Inc.
March 1, 2006
Page 3
proposed plantings will be installed throughout the wetland and buffer.
Sensitive area signs will be placed along the buffer edge to identify and
demarcate this line from any future encroachment.
The proposed restoration area will be monitored for three years as required by
the City.
If you have any questions or require any further information please contact me at
(253) 859-0515 or at ed@bl2assoc.com
Sincerely,
B-12 Wetland Consulting, Inc.
Ed Sewall
President
Attached: Gill Wetland and Buffer Restoration Plan
RECEIVES} BY
-� C0MMUNITYDEVr WENT DEPARTMENT
Michael M. Hams
j t p U 7 2006 Patrick M. Hanis
John J. Greaney ***Cynthia A. Irvine
Greg L. Girard Sarah K. Wahl
Dennis J. Shanhan* Karen J. Seeburger
Mark W. Prothero HANES GRFSEY - PLLC Brian J. Hanis
Michael Ditchik** ATTORNEYS AT ]LAW Florian "Ian' Purganan
*CPA/LLM
"Also admitted in New York and Washington DC
phanis@hplaw.com ***Also admitted in Virginia
September 5, 2006
City of Federal Way
Attn: Deb Barker
33525 8`' Avenue South
PO Box 9718
Federal Way, WA 98063-9718
RE: File #04-102513-SE; Gill SEPA for Short Plat/Wetland Violation
Dear Ms. Barker:
Thank you for your letter and the documents you sent me. It was helpful. I understand that my
client has paid the fee and that the review will continue. We look forward to the response. It
may be sent directly to my client. I also understand that the City is extending any deadlines with
respect to this issue. Please send confirmation to me at your convenience indicating that my
client is in compliance with the process at this point.
VeYck'
ly Yours,
Pa. Hanis
6703 South 234th Street, Suite 300 • Kent, Washington 98032-2900.253.520.5000 • Fax 253.893.5007
FILE
CITY OF
t Federal Way
August 22, 2006
Mr. Patrick M. Hanis
Hanis Greaney PLLC
6703 South 234"' Street, Suite 300
Kent, WA 98032-2900
CITY HALL
33325 8th Avenue South
Mailing Address: PO Box 9718
Federal Way, WA 98063-9718
(253) 835-7000
www.'cityoffederalway.com
RE: File #04.-102513-00-SE; Gill Wetland Violation, 2420 South 2981h Street, Federal Way
Dear Mr. Hanis:
The City is in receipt of your July 31, 2006 letter, regarding the above -referenced application. You
indicate that your client objects to the payment of additional funds for the City's wetland consultant to
conduct review on behalf of the City, and that the City provide specific comments and findings with the
B-12 report, detailed time, and verification of the wetland delineation.
This letter provides background information about the applications submitted by your client, the current
status of those applications including comments from the City's wetland consultant, relevant invoicing
documentation, and specific information about the status of the wetland delineation.
Background
Documentation from the enclosed October 11, 2004 letter,' notes that a preapplication conference for a
proposed short plat was held in 2003; the formal short plat application and environmental checklist were
submitted on June 24, 2004. Those applications were determined to be incomplete on July 8, 2004.
Previously, illegal clearing and filling of a regulated wetland and wetland buffer at the subject site had
been reported to the City's Code Enforcement Officer 2 To address the violations, the applicant submitted
the Gill Preliminary Short Plat Wetland and Stream Analysis Report and Buffer Enhancement Plan
prepared by B-12 Associates, Inc. dated May 26, 2004, with the formal applications.
Invoicing
Funding in the amount of $3,010.00 for the City's wetland consultant Sheldon & Associates (Sheldon) to
review the B-12 wetland report was received on September 15, 2004. The funding was based on a scope
of work (SOW) prepared by Sheldon 3 Their comments on the B-12 report as well as a site visit to
confirm wetland filling have previously been forwarded to your client; copies of those documents are
enclosed a Sheldon invoices from September 30, October 31, and December 31, 2004, as well as
December 14, 2005, are also provided with this letter.5
1 The October 14, 2004 letter, from previous planner lays out summary of the project to date, provides Sheldon comments on
wetland report, and requested additional information.
2 File #03-100161-00-CR
3 SOW dated July 28, 2004
4 Sheldon comments are dated September 29, 2004, September 30, 2004, December 7, 2004, and November 16, 2005
5 Sheldon invoices of September 30, 2004 for $760.00, October 31, 2004 for $315.00, December 31, 2004 for $472.50, and
December 14, 2005 for $1,263.85
Mr. Hanis
August 22, 2006
Page 2
Revised Wetland Report
The City's January 17, 2006 letter, requested specific information to continue review of the proposed
wetland and buffer mitigation. On March 1, 2006, the applicant responded to that request for information
by submitting a letter and revised drawings titled Gill Proposed Short Plat Wetland and Buffer
Restoration Plan, prepared by B-12 Wetland Consulting Inc, dated March 1, 2006. Your. letter asserts that
"in a letter from B-12, consultant for my client, it was stated that compliance with those points has fully
occurred." However, as discussed below, the City's wetland consultant has yet to review this revised
document to confirm conformance.
Peer review by Sheldon for the initial scope of work totaled $2,811.35. The initial scope of work did not
include funding for review of any revisions to any reports. The remaining balance of $198.65 is not
enough to review the revised wetland report. In a May 20, 2006 letter, the City forwarded the May 22,
2006 Sheldon SOW, for their review of the revised wetland report. The review cost was amended to
$3,350.00 in a June 27, 2006 letter. To date, these funds have not been received, and Sheldon has not
reviewed the revised wetland report.
Wetland Delineation
Your letter asserts that the wetland has been delineated and that there has been no reasonable objection to
that delineation. However, Sheldon has stated to the City as well as to Ed Sewell with B-12 Associates
that while there is a -wetland delineation, the applicant has provided no data to substantiate the results of
the delineation. As noted in an April 12, 2006 e-mail from Dyanne Sheldon, "there are no data sheets, no
WL report and no information except anecdotal information in the text of the report as to why the wetland
edge was placed where they did." Knowing that the person who did the B-12 staff work is no longer with
the firm, Sheldon has offered to go to the site with Ed Sewell and together resolve the wetland
delineation. However, funding for this site visit as well as review of the revised wetland report is included
in their May 22, 2006 SOW, and must be received before the City can authorize their consultant to
proceed with a site visit. The wetland delineation. can only be accepted with either the required data sheets
or Sheldon's site verification in conjunction with B-12.
Summary
I understand that your client is interested in resolving the wetland violation. However, the City will not
approve wetland mitigation work without endorsement by the City's wetland consultant. Review of the
revised wetland report requires funding by the applicant. To date, this funding has not been received. In
addition, your client should be aware that correcting the wetland violation requires not only an approved
plan of action, but approved work may also require that a bond or assignment of funds be submitted to the
City and monitoring of the restoration by a qualified wetland biologist. As you are aware, funding of
these items is the responsibility of the applicant. Lastly, as information requested in 2004 to complete the
short plat application has never been submitted, the short plat application has expired pursuant to Federal
Way City Code (FWCC) Section 22-32.
The City's Code Enforcement Officer has been apprised of the current funding requirement for review of
the revised wetland report. If these funds are not remitted by September 5, 2006, the matter will be
referred back to code enforcement for action.
04-102513 Doc. I.D. 37660
Mr. Hanis
August 22, 2006
Page 3
I trust that this letter provides the requested technical requirements as well as requested invoicing
information. I can be reached at 253-835-2642 if there are any questions. We look forward to moving
forward with this review.
Sincerely.
Deb Barker
Senior Planner
Enclosures -as noted
c: Dyanne Sheldon, OTAK, 10230 NE Points -Drive, Suite 400, Kirkland, WA 98033
Suzanne Bagshaw, OTAK, 10230 NE Points Drive, Suite 400, Kirkland, WA 98033
Ed Sewell, B-12 Associates, 1103 West Meeker Street, Kent, WA 98032
Kashmir Gill, 2420 South 2986 Street, Federal Way, WA 98003
John Rutland, Cramer NW, 945 North Central Avenue, Suite 104, Kent, WA 98032
Martin Nordby, Code Enforcement Officer
04-102513 Doc.1.D. 37660