The URL can be used to link to this page

12-105565•33330 - 8th Ave S Federal Way WA 98003 Phone: (253)-945-2000 www.fWPS.orQ i June 21, 2013 City of Federal Way Janet Shull, Senior Planner Department of Community and Economic Development 33325 8th Ave S Federal Way WA 98003 Re: Park 16 Multifamily Project, File No. 12-105565-00-SE Dear Ms. Shull, or I* Federal Way .L. Public Schools RECEIVED BY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT JUN"24 2013 The Federal Way School District recently received information on Park 16 Multifamily Project, a proposed mixed -use development with 293 residential units. The project is located at 35703 16t" Ave S. Under current boundaries, this development is in the Rainier View Elementary, Sequoyah Middle School and Todd Beamer High School service areas. School service areas are reviewed each year and necessary boundary changes may be made to accommodate enrollment increases. Student safety must be considered for all students who would walk to the schools and to school bus stops from this development. Sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students are factors the district must consider as we comment on development within our service areas. Students living in this area receive school bus transportation to Rainier View Elementary and Sequoyah Middle School. Bus stops are reviewed annually as student transportation needs change. The closest stop for Rainier Elementary is on 16`h Ave S at S 359 h St (Crosspointe Apt). The closest stop for Sequoyah Middle School is on 16ffi Ave S at S 359`h St (Crosspointe Apt). Students would walk to Todd Beamer High. In order to provide a safe walking route for Todd Beamer students, sidewalks are needed on the west side of 16ffi Ave S from the project entrance to S 359th St. The most recent Federal Way School District Capital Facilities Plan indicates a student yield of .274 from new multi -family housing. This development could add 79 to 80 new students. These are averages only; the actual number of students may vary. This may create a need for additional space, equipment and staff. This impact is mitigated by the collection of impact fees. Nascimento i & Demographic Forecaster c Sally McLean, Assistant Superintendent: Business Services David Remman, Safety & Security Manager Cindy Wendland, Transportation Director r-EDER.AL WAY Invoice # 795799 NAME City of Federal Way ADD Economic Development 33325 81hAve S. Federal Way, WA 98003 Ordered by: ez r yPAa-C a,-k Jt'vu-4- DATE PUB. DESC. 5/31/2013 2x6.3" Legal Ad — FWM2018 M )NS Park 16 Multifamily Project 12-105565-00-SE TOTAL DUE RECEIVED JUN 0 5 '2013 City of Federal W'ly Finance Departmen, Acct. No. 83723155 AMT. DUE $90.85 $90.85 31919 1st Ave. S., Suite 101, Federal Way, WA 98003 253-925-5565 FAX :253-925-5750 31919 1 St Ave S, Suite 101 1 Federal, Way, WA 98003 1253.925.5565 1253.925.5750 (f) Affidavit of Publication Rudi Alcott, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that he is the Publisher of The Federal Way Mirror, a weekly newspaper. That said newspaper is published in the English language continually as a weekly newspaper in Federal Way, King County, Washington, and is now and during all of said time has been printed in an office maintained by the aforementioned place of publication of said newspaper. That the annexed is a true copy of a legal advertisement placed by City of Federal Way - Economic Development as it was published in regular issues (and not in supplemental form) of said newspaper once each week for a period of one consecutive weeks(s), commencing on the 31 st day of May 2013, and ending on the 31 st day of May 2013, both dates inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its readers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $90.85, which amount has been paid in full, or billed at the legal rate according to RCW 65.16.020. Subscribed to and sworn before me this 3rd day of .tune 2013. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, �,�etes4 ��, �p U 15's- sIav C3'�r�. ,+., r� • � ifs r D EC v"N 18 :* w 2013 rfrrr4MRY P Residing at Federal Way '-A Federal ►,lifay NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (MONS) Park 16 Multifamily Project File No:12-105565-00-SE The City of Federal Way has determined that the following project does not have a probable signifi- cant adverse impact on the environment, and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not re- quired under RCW 43.21 C-030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmen- tal checklist and other information on file with the city. Proposed Action: Proposai is to develop 26 resi- dential buildings with 293 multifamily lousing units. The project includes a proposed recreation center, recreational open space, landscaping and parking improvements, storm drainage facililm. and utility improvements. The site contains two ex- isting wetlands and their associated buffer areas. Some minor temporary intrusion into the wetland buffer areas is proposed. Proponent: CPH Consultants, Mathew Hough Location: 35703 161h Avenue South, Federal Way, WA MITIGATION MEASURE JSDMMARY): 1) The applicant shall make school access im- provements that provide for safe walking routes and access to bus stops for school -age children as required by the Federal Way School District. Further information regarding this action is available to the public upon request at the Federal Way Department of Community and Economic De- velopment (Federal Way City Hall, 33325 8th Ave- nue South, Federal Way, WA, 98003). Contact Sen- lor Planner Janet Shull at 253-835-2644. This MONS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). Com- ments must be submitted by 5:00 p-m, on ,tune 14, 2013. Unless modified by the city, this determination will become final following the comment deadline. Any person aggrieved by the city's determination may file an appeal with the city within 14 days of the above comment deadine. Published in the Federal Way Mirror on May 31, 2013 f WM 2018 31919 1 s` Ave S, Suite 10 1 1 Federal, Way, WA 98003 1253.925.5565 1253.925.5750 (f) Affidavit of Publication Rudi Alcott, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that he is the Publisher of The Federal Way Mirror, a weekly newspaper. That said newspaper is published in the English language continually as a weekly newspaper in Federal Way, King County, Washington, and is now and during all of said time has been printed in an office maintained by the aforementioned place of publication of said newspaper. That the annexed is a true copy of a legal advertisement placed by City of Federal Way - Economic Development as it was published in regular issues (and not in supplemental form) of said newspaper once each week for a period of one consecutive weeks(s), commencing on the 31 st day of May 2013, and ending on the 31 st day of May 2013, both dates inclusive, and that such Vnewspaper was regularly distributed to its readers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of SJo.85, which amount has been paid in full, or billed at the legal rate according to RCW 65. 16.020. Subscribed to and sworn before me this 3rd day of .Lune 2013. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, an�,ede�3�ti�� 0 L f 3� ❑ EC rAu' " . �� F�Q13 OF WASYN. r�ff0 4 RY PO tti. f1f�l Residing at Federal Way A Federal Way NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NUNSIGNIFICAHCE (MONS) Park 16 Multifamily Project File No:12-105565-00-SE The City of Federal Way has determined that the following project does not have a probable signifi- cant adverse impacl on the environment, and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not re- quired under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmen- tal checklist and other information on file with the city. Proposed Action: Proposal is to develop 26 resl- deniial buildings with 293 multifamily housing units. The project includes a proposed recreation center, recreational open space, landscaping and parking improvements, storm drainage facilities, and utility improvements, The site contains two ex- isting wetlands and their associated buffer areas. Some minor temporary intrusion into the wetland buffer areas is proposed. Proponent: CPH Consultants, Mathew Bough Location: 35703 16th Avenue South, Federal Way, WA MITIGATION MEASURE (SUMMARY): 1) .Ilia applicant shall make school access im- provements that provide for safe walking routes and access to bus stops for school -age ehildren as required by the Federal Way School District. Further information regarding this action is available to the public upon request at the Federal Way Department of Community and Economic De- velopment (Federal Way City Hall, 33325 8th Ave- nue South, Federal Way, WA, 98003). Contact Sen- ior Planner Janet Shull at 253-835-2644. This MDNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). Com- ments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on June 14. 2013, Unless modified by the city, this determination will become final following the comment deadline. Any person aggrieved by the city's determination may file an appeal +ldith the city within 14 days of the above comment deadline. Published in the Federal Way Mirror on May 31, 2013 FWM 2018 31919 151 Ave S, Suite 10 1 1 Federal, way, WA 98003 1 253.925.5565 1253.925.5750 (f) Affidavit of Publication Rudi Alcott, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that he is the Publisher of The Federal Way Mirror, a weekly newspaper. That said newspaper is published in the English language continually as a weekly newspaper in Federal Way, King County, Washington, and is now and during all of said time has been printed in an office maintained by the aforementioned place of publication of said newspaper. That the annexed is a true copy of a legal advertisement placed by City of Federal Way - Economic Development as it was published in regular issues (and not in supplemental form) of said newspaper once each week for a period of one consecutive weeks(s), commencing on the 31 st day of Mav 2013, and ending on the 31 st day of May 2013, both dates inclusive, and that such nlewspaper was regularly distributed to its readers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of sgo.8s, which amount has been paid in full, or billed at the legal rate according to RCW 65. 16.020. Subscribed to and sworn before me this 3rd day of .tune 2013. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, �p U l G'•��n�. v M�ssEoy� A; o z DEC 18 :*= 2013 6----OFWkSY�R 0Y Pu�� Till Residing at Federal Way 41, Ft" deral way NOTICE OF EN VIR 0 NMENTAL MITIGATED 0E'TERMINATION OF N DNS 16 NI FICANCE (MDNS) Park 16 Multifamily Project File No:12-106565-00-SE The City of Federal Way has determined that the IONgwing project does not have a probable signifi- cant adverse impact on the environment, and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not re- quired under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review Of a completed environmen- tal checklist and other information on rife with the city. Proposed Action: Proposal is to develop 26 resi- dential buildings with 293 multifamily housing units. The Project includes a proposed recreation center, recreational open space, landscaping and parking improvements, storm drainage facilities, and utility improvements, The site contains two ex- isting wetlands and their associated buffer areas. Some minor temporary intrusion into the wetland buffer areas is proposed, Proponent: CPH Consultants, Mathew Haugh Location: 35703 16th Avenue South, Federal Way, WA MITIGATION MEASURE (SUMMARY): 1) -The applicant shall make school access im- provements that provide for safe walking routes and access to bus stops for school -age children as required by the Federal Way School f}istrict. Further in regarding this action is available to the public upon request at the Federal Way Department of Community and Economic De- vefopmant (Federal Way City Nall, 33325 81h Ave- nue South, Federal Way, WA, 98003). Contact Sen- ior Planner Janet Shull at 253.835-2644. This MONS is issued under WAC 197-11.340(2). Com- ments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on June. 14, 2013. Unless modified by the city, this determination will become final following the Comment deadline. Any Person aggrieved by the city's determination may file an appeal with the city within 14 days of the above comment deadline. Published in the Federal Way Mirror on May 31, 2013 FWM 2018 U DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way WA 98003 CITY OF253-835-7000; Fax 253-835-2609 www.cit offedaralwa .coal Federal Way DECLARATION OF DISTRIBUTION hereby declare, under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington, that a ❑ Notice of Land Use Application/Action ❑ Notice of Determination of Significance (DS) and Scoping Notice ❑ Notice of Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, DNS) Notice of Mitigated Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, MDNS) ❑ Notice of Land Use Application & Optional DNS/MDNS ❑ FWRC Interpretation ❑ Other_ ❑ Land Use Decision Letter ❑ Notice of Public Hearing before the Hearing Examiner ❑ Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing ❑ Notice of LUTC/CC Public Hearing ❑ Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Adoption of Existing Environmental Document was mailed ❑ faxed ❑ e-mailed and/or ❑ posted to or at each of the attached addresses on 2013. Project Name File Number(s) /ve-` 00 5 Signature r Date z/' - 3 -1-3 K:\CD Administration Files\Declaration of Distdbution.doc/Last printed 5/3/2013 9:53:00 AM 4�� CITY OF Federal Way NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (MDNS) Park 16 Multifamily Project File No: 12-105565-00-SE The City of Federal Way has determined that the following project does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment, and an Environmental Inn ct Stateznent (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c), This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the city. Proposed Action: Proposal is to develop 26 residential buildings with 293 multifamily housing units. The project includes a proposed recreation center, recreational open space, landscaping and parking improvements, storm drainage facilities, and utility improvements. The site contains two existing wetlands and their associated buffer areas. Some minor temporary intrusion into the wetland buffer areas is proposed. Proponent: CPH Consultants, Mathew Hough Location: 35703 16th Avenue South, Federal Way, WA MITIGATION MEASURE (SUMMARY): 1) The applicant shall make school access improvements that provide for safe walking routes and access to bus stops for school -age children as required by the Federal Way School District. Further information regarding this action is available to the public upon request at the Federal Way Department of Community and Economic Development (Federal Way City Hall, 33325 8`I' Avenue South, Federal Way, WA, 98003). Contact Senior Planner Janet Shull at 253-835-2644. This MDNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). Comments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on June 14, 2013. Unless modified by the city, this determination will become final following the comment deadline. Any person aggrieved by the city's determination may file an appeal with the city within 14 days of the above comment deadline. Published in the Federal Way Mirror on May 31, 2013. Doc. I.D. 63526 Park 16 Multifamily Development 35703 16th Avenue South File #12-105564-00-UP & 12-105565-00-SE CITY OF . Federal Way This map is intended for use as a graphical representation only. The City of Federal Way makes no warranty to its accuracy. Construction of 26 new residential buildings with 301 units with site improvements requiring Process III, 'Project Approval.' Vicinity Map Federal Way C._ :* 13 f N 0 405 810 1,620 Feet 2821049070 2921049001 2921049002 CROSSPOINTE KITTS CORNER 2921049077 MURPHY DONALD B APTS LOWES HOME CENTERS CONTRACTORS 35810 16TH AVE S 35433 16T" AVE S 1200 S 356T" ST FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 2921049005 2921049092 MORGAN SPENCER & SMITH 1505 S 356T" ST FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 2921049054 HEIDGERKEN BENJAMIN 1514 S 359TH ST FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 2921049063 WADDOUPS KAY WILKIE & FRANKIE 1414 S 359T" ST FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 2921049071 CHERIAN JESSE 1320 S 359T" ST FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 2921049006 2921049090 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 3580 PACIFIC HWY S FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 2921049060,2921049089, 2921049091 VERMEULEN JOHN A & MARY 1300 S 359T" ST FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 2921049066 TURNER MYONGHUI 35817 16T" AVE S FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 2921049072 LINKE DENNIS & BRIGITTE 1308 S 359T" ST FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 2921049036 MOSIER FAMILY TRUST 1215S356T"ST FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 2921049062 CAUDLE GENE 1500 S 359TH ST FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 2921049070 JOHNSON IAN A 1420 S 359T" ST FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 2921049079 SCHWEITZER JOHN M & DEE 1400 S 359T" ST FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 2921049095 2921049105 2921049132 2921049107 LESSE JAMES DANIEL BILLINGS SAMUEL JR & DOMINION HOLDINGS LLC 35805 16T" AVE S KATHERINETH 1405 S 356TH ST 1506 S 359 ST FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 }§ �j �� \ k� �\ DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Avenue South Federal Way WA 98003 CITY fit` 253-835-7000; Fax 253-835-2609 www.cstvaffed�raiway.corn Federal Way DECLARATION OF DISTRIBUTION hereby declare, under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington, that Cq ❑ Notice of Land Use Application/Action ❑ Land Use Decision Letter ❑ Notice of Determination of Significar-ce (DS) and Scoping Notice ❑ Notice of Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, DNS) Notice of Mitigated Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, MDNS) ❑ Notice of Land Use Application & Optional DNS/MDNS ❑ FWRC Interpretation ❑ Other ❑ Notice of Public Hearing before the Hearing Examiner ❑ Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing ❑ Notice of LUTC/CC Public Hearing ❑ Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Shoreline Management Pemit ❑ Adoption of Existing Environmental Document was )� mailed ❑ faxed A e-mailed and/or ❑ posted to or at each of the attached addresses on 2013. Project Name File Number(s) �- GcS Signature Date K:\CD Administration Files\Declaration of Distribution.doc/Last printed 5/3/2013 9:53:00 AM LORI LULL REVIEW TEAM EPA US ARMY CORPS/ENGINEERS WA DEPT OF COMMERCE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SEC ATTN REGULATORY BRANCH GROWTH MGT SERVICES 1200 6T" AVE MD-126 PO BOX 3755 PO BOX 42525 SEATTLE WA 98101 SEATTLE WA 98124 OLYMPIA WA 98504-2525 lori.c.lull@usace.army.mil reviewteam@commerce.wa.gov RAMON PAZOOKI WSDOT SOUTH KING COUNTY PO BOX 330310 SEATTLE WA 98133-9710 ramin. pazooki@wsdot.wa.gov BOB ZEIGLER DEPT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE PO BOX 43200 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-3155 sepadesk@dfw.wa.gov US FISH & WILDLIFE SERVCE 510 DESMOND DR SE #102 LACEY WA 98503 TANYA NASCIMENTO FW PUBLIC SCHOOLS 31405 18T" AVE S FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 tnascime@fwps.org BRANDON REYNON PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEPT 3009 E PORTLAND AVE TACOMA WA 98404 FW CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PO BOX 3440 FEDERAL WAY WA 98063 pmullen@federalwaychamber.com terih@federalwaychamber.com DOUG CORBIN PSE 6905 S 228T" ST KENT WA 98032 FEDERAL WAY MIRROR 31919 1 ST AVE S STE 101 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 DEPT OF ECOLOGY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SEC PO BOX 47703 OLYMPIA WA 98504-7703 sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov LARRY FISHER (freshwater) WDFW AREA HABITAT BIOLOGIST 1775 12T" AVE NW STE 201 ISSAQUAH WA 98027 larry.fisher@dfw.wa.gov ATTN SEPA REVIEW PUGET SOUND CLEAN AIR AGENCY 1904 3RD AVE STE 105 SEATTLE WA 98101-3317 sepa@pscleanair.org claudew@pscleanair.org BRIAN ASBURY LAKEHAVEN UTILITY DIST PO BOX 4249 FEDERAL WAY WA 98063 basbury@lakehaven.org DEPT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION PO BOX 48343 OLYMPIA WA 98504-8343 gretchen.kaehler@dahp.wa.gov MASTER BUILDERS ASSOC 335 116T" AVE SE BELLEVUE WA 98004-6407 ghuffman@mbaks.com PSRC GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPT 1011 WESTERN AVE #500 SEATTLE WA 98104-1040 imiller@psrc.org SOUTH KING FIRE & RESCUE 31617 1 ST AVE S FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 chris.ingham@southkingfire.org gordon.goodsell@southkingfire.org MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE LAURA MURPHY FISHERIES DIVISION TRIBAL ARCHAEOLOGIST ATTN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWER MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE 39015 172ND AVE SE 39015 172ND AVE SE AUBURN WA 98092 AUBURN WA 98092 FRIENDS OF THE HYLEBOS PO BOX 24971 FEDERAL WAY WA 98093 JILL GASTON REALTY SPEC BPA REAL PROPERTY 28401 COVINGTON WAY SE KENT WA 98042 TOM NEUBAUER DEVCO INC 11100 MAIN ST STE 301 BELLEVUE WA 98004 MONICA ADAMS PIERCE TRANSIT PO BOX 99070 LAKEWOOD WA 98499-0070 madams@piercetransit.org SAM PACE SEA/KING CO ASSOC/REALTORS 29839 154T" AVE SE KENT WA 98042-4557 sampace@concentric. net MATT HOUGH CPH CONSULTANTS 733 7T" AVE # 100 KIRKLAND WA 98033 Matt@cphconsultants.com Tina Piety From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Hello, Tina Piety Friday, May 31, 2013 5:05 PM 'lori.c.lull@usace.army.mil'; reviewteam@commerce.wa.gov; ramin.pazooki@wsdot.wa.gov; sepaunit €@}i ecy.wa.gov; gretchen_kaehler@dahp.wa.gov; sepadesk@dfw.wa.gov; larry.fisher@dfw.wa.gov; Garrett Huffman; sepa@pscleanair.org; claudew@pscleanair.org; imller@psrc.org; tnascime@ia fwps.org; basbury[7v lakehaven.org; Chris Ingham; Gordon Goodsell; 'pmuilen[7a federalwaychamber.com'; Teri Hickel; 'madams@piercttransit.org', Sam Pace Janet Shull Federal Way MDNS Park 16 MDNS and Environmental Checklist.pdf Attached you will find the MDNS, staff evaluation, and environmental checklist for the Park 16 Multifamily Project. Please contact Senior Planner Janet Shull at 253-835-2644, or lanet.chull@citVoffederalway.com with any comments and questions. Tina Piety, Administrative Assistant II Department of Community and Economic Development City of Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 253-835-2601; Fax 253-835-2609 Tina Piety From: Tina Piety Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 5:07 PM To: 'madams@piercetransit.org' Subject: Federal Way MDNS Attachments: Park 16 MDNS and Environmental Checklist.pdf Hello, Attached you will find the MDNS, staff evaluation, and environmental checklist for the Park 16 Multifamily Project. Please contact Senior Planner Janet Shull at 253-835-2644, or anet.chull cit offederalwa .com with any comments and questions. Tina Piety, Administrative Assistant II Department of Community and Economic Development City of Federal Way 33325 ath Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 253-835-2601; Fax 253-835-2609 41k FederalOF Way MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (MDNS) Park 16 Multifamily Project File No: 12-105565-00-SE Description of Proposal: Proposal to develop 26 residential buildings with 293 multifamily housing units. The project includes a proposed recreation center, recreational open space, landscaping and parking improvements, storm drainage facilities, and utility improvements. The site contains two existing wetlands and their associated buffer areas. Some minor temporary intrusion into the wetland buffer areas is proposed. Proponent: CPH Consultants; Matthew Hough Location: 35703 161h Avenue South, Federal Way, WA Lead Agency: City of Federal Way Community and Economic Development Department City Staff Contact: Senior Planner Janet Shull, AICP, 253-835-2644, orjanet.shull@cityoffederalway.com The Responsible Official of the City of Federal Way hereby makes the following decision based upon impacts identified in the environmental checklist, Federal Way Comprehensive Plan, Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist, and other municipal policies, plans, rules, and regulations designated as a basis for exercise of substantive authority under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act Rules pursuant to RCW 43.31C.060. The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment, and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.2 1 C.03 0(2)(c), only if the conditions listed below are met. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The subject property is located at 35703 16th Avenue South, Federal Way, Washington. The proposal is to develop 26 residential buildings containing 293 units along with a recreation center, and includes on -site landscaping and parking improvements, utilities, storm drainage control improvements, pedestrian trail, and other related improvements. The western portion of the site contains two existing wetlands and their associated buffer areas. These portions of the site are to remain undeveloped, although there will be some minor temporary intrusions into the outer portion of the buffer area during construction. 2. The subject property is zoned Multi -Family Residential (RM) 2400, requiring a minimum 2400 square feet of lot area for each residential unit. The comprehensive plan designation for the site is Multifamily. The 293 housing units are designed with families in mind with sizes ranging from 2 to 5 bedrooms. It is anticipated that the development will generate a significant number of new students attending Rainier View Elementary School, Sequoyali Middle School, and Todd Beamer High School. Students residing in the Park 16 development will be walking and riding busses to school. The Federal Way School District has identified the need to provide for safe walking routes and access to bus stops for the residents of Park 16. 4. The "Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist, File No. 12-105565-00-SE," is hereby incorporated by reference as though set forth in full. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Federal Way's comprehensive plan policies adopted by Federal Way, and contained within the Federal Way Comprehensive Play? (FWCP), serve as a basis for the exercise of substantive SEPA authority to approve, condition, or deny proposed actions applicable to potential adverse environmental impacts resulting from this project. The following component of the FWCP supports the conditions for the development. TPII Coordinate street and roadway improvement programs with appropriate state, regional, and local agencies. SEPA CONDITION Based on the above policy, the following mitigation measure is required to minimize identified potential significant adverse impacts. 1) The applicant shall make school access improvements that provide for safe walking routes and access to bus stops for school age children as required by the Federal Way School District and the City of Federal Way. This MDNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date of issuance. Comments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on Friday June 14, 2013. Unless modified by the city, this determination will become final following the above comment deadline. Any person aggrieved of the city's final determination may file an appeal with the city within 14 days of the above comment deadline. Responsible Official: Patrick Doherty Position/Title: Director of Community and Economic Development Address: 33325 8th Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Date Issued: Ma 31 .2013 Signature: Park 16 Multifamily Project Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) File # 12-105565-00-SE / Doc ID 63529 Page 2 of 2 CIT Federal Way Department of Community and Economic Development STAFF EVALUATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Park 16 Multifamily Project Federal Way File: 12-105565-00-SE Related Files: 12-105564-00-UP, and 13-101446-00-SU NOTE: Technical reports and attachments referenced below may not be attached to all copies of this evaluation. Copies of exhibits, reports, attachments, or other documents may be reviewed, and/or obtained by contacting Senior Planner Janet Shull, Community and Economic Development Services, 33325 81h Avenue South, Federal Way, WA, 98003, (253) 835-2644, or janet.shul] c�i offederal►va .com. I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION Proposed action includes construction of 26 residential buildings and a total of 293 multifamily housing units on the eastern portion of the site. The western portion of the site contains existing wetlands and associated buffer areas and will remain undeveloped. The total site size is approximately 16-acres. The proposal also includes street frontage improvements, pedestrian paths and open space areas, landscaping, parking lots, utilities, storm drainage control improvements, and other related infrastructure improvements (Exhibit A). II. GENERAL INFORMATION Project Name: Park 16 Multifamily (Exhibit A) Applicant: DevCo, Inc. Mr. Tom Neubauer 11100 Main Street, Suite 301 Bellevue, WA 98004 Phone: (425) 453-9551 Applicant's Agent: CPH Consultants Mr. Matt Hough 733 71h Avenue, #100 Kirkland, WA 98033 Phone: (425) 285-2390 Location: 35703 16`I' Avenue South and 1405 South 356`I' Street (ExhibitB) Parcel Size: Parcel 2921049107 — 4.76 acres; and parcel 2921049095 — 11.87 acres; Zoning: Multifamily Residential (RM 2400) Comp Plan Designation: Multifamily The following information was submitted as part of the application for the development. 1. Master Land Use Application received December 13, 2012 2. Site Plans prepared by RDA, received December 13, 2012, resubmitted April 18, 2013 3. Building Plan and Elevation Drawings received December 13, 2012, resubmitted April 18, 2013 4. Environmental Checklist prepared by DevCo, received December 13, 2012, resubmitted April 18, 2013 5. Preliminary Grading and Storm Drainage Plans prepared by CPH Consultants, received December 13, 2012, resubmitted April 18, 2013 6. Goetechnical Study, prepared by Earth Consultants, NW, LLC, received December 13, 2012 7. Level 1 Offsite Analysis, prepared by CPH Consultants, received December 13, 2012 8. Preliminary Landscape Plans prepared by Talasaea, received December 13. 2012, resubmitted April 18, 2013 9. Critical Areas Assessment Study prepared by Habitat Technologies, received December 13, 2012 10. Exhibit: Minor Improvements in Wetland Buffer, prepared by CPH Consultants, received April 18, 2013 11. Re -Assessment Update — Critical Areas Assessment Study, prepared by Habitat Technologies, received December 20, 2012 12. Preliminary Technical Information Report (TIR) prepared by CPH Consultants, received December 13, 2012 13. Transportation Impact Study prepared by Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC, received December 13, 2012, with revisions received April 18, 2013 14. Parking Demand Analysis, prepared by Transportation Engineering NorthWest, received December 13, 2012, resubmitted April 18, 2013 15. Hazardous Materials Checklist, received December 13, 2012 16. CPTED Analysis, received April 18, 2013 17. Draft Affordable Housing Covenant, received April 18, 2013 III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The following lists the elements of the environmental checklist (Exhibit Q and a response to each, with: 1. Whether city staff concurs or does not concur with the applicant's response to the checklist item, or 2. City staff's additional comments or clarification to each checklist item. Park 16 Multifamily Project File #12-105565-00-SE / Doc ID 63491 Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist Page 2 of 6 A. BACKGROUND The project development application was submitted on December 13, 2012, and was determined to be a complete application on January 10, 2013. 1-12. Concur with the checklist. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth — a.-h. Concur with the checklist. 2. Air a.-c. Concur with the checklist. Compliance with state and federal air quality standards will provide sufficient mitigation of potential on -site construction activities and long-term site usage. The implementation of an approved Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC) plan that incorporates watering of the site, wheel washing, and approved construction entrances, should adequately mitigate potential adverse construction impacts. 3. Water a. Surface 1. Concur with the checklist. 2. In addition to the proposed soft surface trail construction within the wetland buffer area, the applicant is proposing temporary buffer intrusions associated with construction of retaining walls and dispersion trenches within the outer limits of the wetland buffer area. 3-6.Concur with the checklist. b. Ground. 1-2. Concur with the checklist. c. Water Runoff. 1-2. Concur with the checklist. Final review of the stormwater quality and detention will occur in conjunction with the final engineering plan review. Compliance with local, state, and federal standards will sufficiently mitigate stormwater impacts from the project. d. Concur with checklist. The project must comply with FWRC Section 19.175.040 regarding the proposed intrusions within the buffer areas associated with Wetlands A and B. The project must also comply with all local, state, and federal regulations regarding surface water impacts that are in place at the time of development. Park 16 Multifamily Project File #12-105565-00-SE / Doc ID 63491 Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist Page 3 of 6 4. Plants a-c. Concur with the checklist. Concur with the checklist. An approved landscape plan in accordance with Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Chapter 19. 125 is required for this project. In addition, compliance with the tree retention standards of FWRC 19.120, Article III "Tree and Vegetation Retention Standards" is required. A preliminary landscape and tree and vegetation retention plan has been submitted in conjunction with the application. Areas that must be landscaped include street trees along public roads, perimeter landscaping, and interior parking lot landscaping. Final review and approval of the required landscaping will occur as part of the Process III land use and subsequent building permit approval. 5. Animals a-d. Concur with the checklist. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a-c. Concur with the checklist. 7. Environmental Health a. 1-2. Concur with the checklist. Compliance with applicable local, state, and federal regulations will sufficiently mitigate the potential for significant adverse environmental impacts. b. 1-3. Concur with the checklist. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a-k. Concur with the checklist. 1. As a result of the review process, which includes SEPA review, Process III land use review, engineering review, and building permit review, compliance with all code requirements will be ensured and all potentially adverse environmental impacts will be addressed. No further mitigation is necessary. 9. Housing a. The applicant states that the project will have at least 293 housing units. The proposal reviewed in conjunction with the Environmental Checklist received April 18, 2013, is for 293 housing units. Any changes to the number of housing units in future resubmittals will be reviewed for compliance with associated development standards, such as parking and open space requirements. b-c. Concur with checklist. Park 16 Multifamily Project File #12-105565-00-SE / Doc ID 63491 Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist Page 4 of 6 10. Aesthetics a-c. Concur with the checklist. 11. Light and Glare a-d. Concur with the checklist. 12. Recreation a-c. Concur with the checklist. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a-c. Concur with the checklist. 14. Transportation a-g. Concur with the checklist. 15. Public Services a-b. Concur with the checklist. The Federal Way School District reviewed the submitted site plans and environmental checklist and has noted concerns witli safe walking routes and access to bus stops for school age children who will reside in the Park 16 residential units. The site is located in the service areas for Rainier View Elementary, Sequoyah Middle School, and Todd Beamer High School. The school district is concerned about the lack of sidewalks in the vicinity of the project site. The applicant will need to address these concerns by making off -site improvements to provide for safe walking routes and access to bus stops along 16'h Avenue Soutli and South 359"' Streets. The collection of school impact fees will mitigate impacts to school service delivery. The Federal Way City Council adjusts the impact fee annually, and the applicable fee would be assessed and collected when the building permit is issued by the city. 16. Utilities a-b. Concur with the checklist. The potential for anew water main greater than 8" diameter exists. If a main greater than 8" diameter is ultimately required, a separate SEPA process may be required prior to authorizing construction of any new water system facilities. Park 16 Multifamily Project File #12-105565-00-SE / Doc ID 63491 Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist Page 5 of 6 IV. CONCLUSION The proposal can be found to not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment if appropriate conditions are properly implemented pursuant to. the MDNS . Conditions of the MDNS are based upon impacts identified within the environmental checklist, attachments, and the above "Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist, File 12-105565-00-SE," and are supported by plans, policies, and regulations formally adopted by Federal Way for the exercise of substantive authority under SEPA to approve, condition, or deny proposed actions. The city reserves the right to review any future revisions or alterations to the site, or to the proposal, to determine the environmental significance or nonsignificance of the project. Exhibit A — Reduced Scale Site Plan Exhibit B — Vicinity Map Exhibit C — April 18, 2013, Environmental Checklist Prepared by: Senior Planner Janet Shull, AICP (253-835-2644 or janet.shull@cityoffederalway.com) Date: May 30, 2013 Park 16 Multifamily Project File #12-105565-00-SE / Doc 1D 63491 Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist Page 6 of 6 IN \p „ � |\§ � # § memm_'am, =a &ms7ea�� s143wad#)INVd LU\ .,,.,.. U) a ! § . L, u k, Park 16 Multifamily Development 35703 16th Avenue South File #12-105564-00-UP & 12-105565-00-SE CITY OF Federal way This map is intended for use as a graphical representation only. The City of Federal Way makes no warranty to its accuracy. Construction of 26 new residential buildings with 301 units with site improvements requiring Process III, 'Project Approval.' Vicinity Map r � Federal Way N 0 405 810 1,620 Feet Park 16 Multifamily Process III Project Approval A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Park 16 Multifamily 2. Name of applicant: DevCo., Inc. 3 4. 5. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 11100 Main Street, Suite 301 Bellevue, WA 98004 Ph: (425) 453-9551 Contact: Mr. Tom Neubauer Date checklist prepared: December 12, 2012 (revised April 10, 2013) Agency requesting checklist: City of Federal Way Environmental Checklist 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): RESUBMITTED APR 18 2013 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS The project proposes to begin clearing and grading in Spring 2013, site work continues through Summer/Fall 2013, and building construction begins in late Summer/Fall 2013. Final occupancy and operations are planned for Spring/Summer 2014. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No. There are no plans to phase the project or develop future additions or expansions relative to this proposal. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Project -specific geotechnical, wetland, and traffic studies have been prepared in support of this project proposal. Copies of those reports are included with the application materials that accompany this checklist. 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. No government approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property are known to be pending. DEVCO, INC. CP I H quakv<ounu CONSULTANTS COFW Bulletin #050 / April 10, 2013 Page 1 of 15 Park 16 Multifamily Process III Project Approval Environmental Checklist 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. City of Federal Way — Site/Project Approval (Process III), Engineering Permit, Building Permit Washington State DOE — NPDES General Construction Storm Water Permit 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. The project proposes to redevelop an approximately 16.6-acre site to create 293 multifamily residential units and a private onsite recreation facility. More than 6 acres in the westerly and lowest limits of the site is occupied by two significant wetlands and their buffers. The resulting total developable area of the site is approximately 10 acres. 26 separate buildings ranging from 1- and 2-unit carriages to 24-unit garden style structures make up the residential density for the project. The onsite recreation building is approximately 9,100 square feet and typically contains a basketball court, a swimming pool, weight/workout rooms, and other similar amenities for the residents of the community. 472 surface parking stalls have been identified for use by the residents. Access to the site is provided at its existing public road frontages along South 3561h Street and 16th Avenue South. A commercial/industrial business currently operates on the easterly 1/3 of the site. It is being used here are existing metal and wood buildings, paved driveway and parking areas, and associated utilities. All existing structures and onsite utilities are proposed to be removed to accommodate the project. An architectural site plan, preliminary site design plans, and supporting special studies (e.g., geotechnical report, storm drainage report, etc.) are included with this checklist as part of the project approval application. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. DEVCO, INC. CPI H quality coums CONSULTANTS COFW Bulletin #050 / April 10, 2013 Page 2 of 15 Park 16 Multifamily Process III Project Approval Environmental Checklist The project site is comprised of two separate, contiguous real parcels. The postal address for these are 35703161h Avenue South and 1405 South 356th Street. A detailed site plan, legal description, and vicinity map are included with the other materials that accompany this checklist as part of the overall application. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one): flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Existing topographic grades on the site vary. The steepest areas are localized primarily toward the center of the site. The maximum slope on the site is greater than 45%. A slope analysis was performed for the project and the results of that effort are shown on the Clearing and Erosion Control Plan. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, mulch)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The site is comprised of some local areas of non-native fill comprised of silty sands. Native site soils are primarily outwash type soils which for this site appear to be of recessional outwash classified as SP, SP-SM, and GM. There is no prime farmland on the property. A site -specific geotechnical study was completed for the project and is included with this application. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. There were no surface indications or history of unstable soils on the site or in the immediate vicinity. C. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Filling and grading will occur on the site to bring it to the elevations necessary to support the proposed multifamily buildings with pedestrian routes meeting ADA standards. Preliminary design analyses indicate that approximately 56,200 cubic yards of cut and 44,700 yards of fill will be required. The native soils are expected, based on geotechnical engineering recommendations, to be suitable for structural subgrade. As such, the site is expected to have approximately 11,500 cubic yards of net export from DEVCO, INC. CP I H quality wums CONSULTANTS COFW Bulletin #050 / April 10, 2013 Page 3 of 15 Park 16 Multifamily Process III Project Approval Environmental Checklist the site. If fill is required as a result of design changes or discovery that onsite materials are unsuitable, then fill will be imported from a local commercial source. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Localized erosion could occur during clearing and construction activities. Erosion is not likely with the completed project due to site coverage and permanent drainage controls. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 68% of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces with the completed project. These surfaces will consist primarily of asphalt and concrete pavements, and building roof areas. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any. Temporary erosion control BMPs including, but not limited to, silt fence, inlet protection, interceptor swales, and sediment ponds or temporary tanks will be maintained during construction to limit potential erosion. Water trucks will be used to control dust during dry periods. Construction activities will be limited to construction hours allowed by current City of Federal Way zoning rules and Development Standards (EDDS). 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. Typical vehicular emissions will result from local residential traffic under developed site conditions. Temporary exhaust emissions will occur along with some noise increase from equipment during construction. Soil dust emissions may result from construction operations during dry weather conditions. Approximate quantities are not known. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No offsite sources of emissions or odor that may affect this proposal are known. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any. Construction activities will be limited to established City of Federal Way standard work hours to reduce or control emissions, noise, and other impacts to air. Water trucks or similar methods will be used to limit arrant dust from the site during construction. DEVCO, INC. CP J H quality counts CONSULTANTS COFW Bulletin #050 / April 10, 2013 Page 4 of 15 Park 16 Multifamily Process III Project Approval Environmental Checklist 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 I (Wetland A) and Category III wetland (wetland A and B, respectively) are located in the western limits of the projects. Overflows from these complexes flow west and south toward an unnamed off -site stream. 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. The project proposes to construct a soft surface trail through the outer portions of the onsite 200-foot wetland buffer. A split rail fence is also planned each side of the trail to control pedestrian traffic. This,trail will require minimal clearing and grading within the wetland buffer. The accompanying plans and reports further describe the proposed work in or near this onsite wetland buffer. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No surface water withdrawals or diversion are proposed or required for the project. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. The proposed project does not lie within a 100-year flood plain. 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. The project proposes no discharge of waste materials to surface waters. b. Ground. 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No ground water will be withdrawn or discharged to with the proposed project. DEVCO, INC. CPJH quality counts CONSULTANTS COFW Bulletin #050 / April 10, 2013 Page 5 of 15 Park 16 Multifamily Process III Project Approval Environmental Checklist 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; ctc.). 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 system(s) are expected to serve. No waste material will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources as part of this project. c. Water Runoff (including stormwater) 1) Describe the source of runoff (including stormwater) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Storm water runoff will occur from the improved areas of the site. This runoff will be collected by a series of catch basin inlets in the onsite parking lot areas. The catch basins are connected by underground pipes that provide a controlled conveyance of storm water to an onsite detention/infiltration vault in the southwestern limit of the site. This vault is located below a large recreation space. The vault will control the release rate from the site to allowable City of Federal Way development standards. The vault discharges in the outer limits of the wetland buffer by means of a gravel dispersion trench. Three (3) additional gravel dispersion trenches located in the upper limit of the buffer are proposed to discharge "clean" water from some of the onsite building roofs. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No waste materials will enter ground or surface waters as a result of the proposed project. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any. An onsite, below -grade storm water detention/infiltration vault will collect, store, and release storm water runoff from the site at a controlled rate. A mechanical filtration vault facility such as a Stormfilter system is proposed to treat storm water flows prior to release to the infiltration vault. These storm water controls mitigate potential runoff water impacts in accordance with City of Federal Way surface water management and development standards. 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site. X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other DEVCO, INC. CPI H gwfity counts CONSULTANTS COFW Bulletin #050 / April 10, 2013 Page 6 of 15 Park 16 Multifamily Process III Project Approval Environmental Checklist X shrubs X grass _pasture _crop or grain X wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other _water plant: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other _other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Mature trees, shrubs, grasses, and other landscaping will be removed from the site with the project. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No known threatened or endangered plant species or critical habitat is on or near the site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any. Preliminary landscape plans have been prepared and accompany this application. This design makes use of native and drought tolerant plant. Some of the existing trees along the north and south boundaries are likely to remain if grading efforts can be accommodated without impact. 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: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, 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. No threatened or endangered species are known to be on or near the site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. The site is not known to be part of a migration route. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any. A large, heavily vegetated, and protected buffer area will remain at the west boundary of the property. No additional special measures are proposed or believed to be necessary to preserve or enhance wildlife areas. DEVCO, INC. CP I H quality couas CONSULTANTS COFW Bulletin #050 / April 10, 2013 Page 7 of 15 Park 16 Multifamily Process III Project Approval Environmental Checklist 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed proj ect's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. The project will extend existing electrical power and communication distribution systems to serve the proposed residential units. Natural gas service and electrical sources are expected to be provided to the project from existing sources at South 356th Street and 16th Avenue South. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. The proposed project would not affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties. 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. The residential portion of hte project will meet Evergreen Sustainable Development standards, which includes energy savings modeling to show a minimum of 15% above the current Washington State Energy Code standard. 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. Local fuel spills are possible from equipment during construction activities for the project. No other environmental health hazards are known or expected to result from the planned development. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. No special emergency services are required for the project proposal. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention and Spill Control Plan (SWPPSCP) will be prepared with the final permit and construction documents for the project. The SWPPPSCP will include specific measures for addressing construction equipment fuel or other lubricant spills, which will include maintaining absorbent blankets or sands to contain potential spills. DEVCO, INC. CP I H gwhty counu CONSULTANTS COFW Bulletin #050 / April 10, 2013 Page 8 of 15 Park 16 Multifamily Process III Project Approval Environmental Checklist b. Noise. 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment operation, other)? Road/vehicle noise from 16th Avenue and 3561h Street exists in the area of and will likely affect the built project. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Typical sounds and sound levels associated with individual passenger cars will occur with the project. Temporary noise level increases will result from equipment during construction activities. Construction activities will be limited to established City of Federal Way standards. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any. Construction activities will be limited to established City of Federal Way standard work hours to reduce or control equipment emissions and noise. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The western, approximately two thirds of the site is mostly undeveloped with mature vegetation. The easterly portion of the site is mostly cleared. It is occupied by an active commercial/industrial business. paved driveways and gravel parking areas facilitate access for the current use. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. c. Describe any structures on the site. The more level (at -grade), approximately easterly 1/3 of the property is occupied by a commercial/industrial business. This existing business operates out of a number of older metal and wood buildings and the primary access is from 16th Avenue South. A mixture of paved and gravel areas adjacent to these buildings. The accompanying Topographic Survey map shows the extent of existing structures on the property. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? All existing buildings will be demolished and their associated utilities, driveways, and parking areas will be removed with the project. DEVCO, INC. CP J H quality counts CONSULTANTS COFW Bulletin #050 / April 10, 2013 Page 9 of 15 Park 16 Multifamily Process III Project Approval Environmental Checklist e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The current site is zoned RM-2400 Multifamily. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? The current comprehensive plan designation is Multifamily. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Unknown. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an environmentally critical area? If so, specify. Yes. There is a large Category 1 wetland and a small Category 3 wetland with their associated buffer areas covering the western limits of the site. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately 1055 people would reside in the proposed multifamily units. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? No residential units or occupants will be displaced by the completed project. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any. No specific measures are proposed to avoid or reduce displacement impacts. 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any. The project complies with existing and projected land uses and plans as described by the Comprehensive Plan for City of Federal Way. As such, no special mitigation measures are proposed or required. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. The project proposes at least 293 middle to low income housing units. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. No existing residential units would be eliminated with the project. DEVC0, INC. CP J H CONSULTANTS COM Bulletin #050 / April 10, 2013 Page 10 of 15 Park 16 Multifamily Process III Project Approval Environmental Checklist c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any. No special "measures are proposed or expected to be necessary to control housing impacts 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? The maximum height of the tallest multifamily building is approximately 30 feet, measured in accordance with City of Federal Way zoning standards. The principal exterior building material will likely be a manufactured material such as Hardi plank or vinyl. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? The more level (at -grade), approximately easterly 1/3 of the property is occupied by a commercial/industrial business. This existing business operates out of a number of older metal and wood buildings and the primary access is from 16`h Avenue South. The topography of the site steepens downward as it moves west away from this business area towards a large wetland complex in the lower regions of the property. This area west of the existing commercial operations is forested and mostly undeveloped. As such, the surrounding neighbors have a view of mature vegetation at the western limits and mostly cleared and industrial condition at the east. The project would alter these views with the construction of 2 or 3 story residential buildings and associated retaining walls. The finished grade of the western portion of the site will remain much lower than the adjacent public roadways. As such, the buildings and associate improvements will be much less visible. Perimeter walls are located primarily at the north and east property boundary. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any. Landscaping in accordance with City of Federal Way Revised Code landscaping development standards and Community Design Guidelinelis proposed to improve the appearance of the project. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Typical exterior and interior light will be visible from the occupied structures onsite. The parking lots will also have lighting. This increased lighting would be most visible (i.e., most often occur) from dusk to early morning. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Light or glare from the finished project will not be a safety hazard or interfere with views. DEVCO, INC. CP J H qualitycounts CONSULTANTS COFW Bulletin #050 / April 10, 2013 Page 11 of 15 Park 16 Multifamily Process III Project Approval Environmental Checklist c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? No existing offsite sources of light or glare will affect the current project proposal. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any. Site lighting fixtures will be full cut-off or a shielded type per current and applicable City of Federal Way Municipal Code requirements. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Various local parks, public open space, including trails, are located west of the site. Several of these occur in the vicinity of the Puget Sound which is located approximately 7 miles west of the site. Public and private golf courses are located within less than a 4 mile radius from the site. Onsite recreation amenities are also proposed for use by the residents of the multifamily units. b. Would the proposed displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No existing recreational uses will be displaced by the project. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any. The project proposes to provide an onsite recreation facility for use by the residents of the multifamily units. This facility typically includes indoor sport court, swimming pool and spa, exercise facilities, and other similar amenities. Several outdoor recreation spaces will also be provided onsite in accordance with City of Federal Way development standards. A soft surface trail is proposed through the upland buffer area of the large onsite wetland complex at the west boundary. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, nation, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. There are no known places or objects on or next to the site that are listed on or proposed for listing on national, state, or local preservation registers. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. There are no known landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance on or next to the site. DEVCO, INC. CP I H yua 6Ly<0W)h CONSULTANTS COFW Bulletin #050 / April 10, 2013 Page 12 of 15 Park 16 Multifamily Process III Project Approval Environmental Checklist c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any. No special measures are proposed or expected to be required to reduce impacts to historic or cultural resources. 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. The site is fronted by South 356th Street along a portion of its north boundary and 16th Avenue South along its western edge. A single commercial driveway approach is proposed at each of these frontages to access the site. The location and dimensions of these two new site access points are shown on the accompanying site plan and preliminary right-of-way frontage plans. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? A public transit stop is not currently located at the site. The nearest transit stop is near the site at the intersection of SR161 and South 3561h Street. The site is currently served by Pierce Transit (Route 402). c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The project proposes approximately 472 new private parking spaces onsite and the elimination of an estimated 20 parking spaces from the existing commercial business that will be closed. 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). Yes, roadway improvements will be required along both street frontages of the site. The easterly frontage of 16th Avenue South will be widened to include concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk with a continuous landscape strip. A new commercial access driveway will be installed at this access in accordance with City standards. The north frontage of South 3561h Street will be improved with a new 8-foot wide concrete sidewalk separated from the existing curb and gutter by a new landscape strip. An improved commercial drive approach will be installed to access the site from South 356th Street. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. The project site is located approximately 10 miles south of SeaTac International Airport. The site is within 7 miles of the Amtrak train station in Tacoma. DEvCor INC. CPI H gwhty counts CONSULTANTS COFW Bulletin #050 / April 10, 2013 Page 13 of 15 Park 16 Multifamily Process III Project Approval Environmental Checklist f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. The project will generate approximately 1,782 new vehicular trips per day. New peak AM and PM trips for the project are estimated to be 119 and 152 per day respectively. Additional project traffic information is provided in the accompanying traffic impact study (Transportation Engineering NW, Inc., April 9, 2013). g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. Roadway widening at 161h Avenue South in accordance with City of Federal Way development standards is proposed to reduce or control transportation impacts. Vehicular and pedestrian accessibility and sight distance will be improved with the frontage improvements at the northerly South 356th Street frontage 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. The project will increase population within existing fire, police, health care, and school service areas with the addition of approximately 293 multifamily residential units. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Mitigation fees as allowed by current City of Federal Way Municipal Code are proposed to be paid with the construction or initial occupancy of the multifamily residential units to offset impacts on public services. 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other (please list) Natural Gas - Puget Sound Energy Electricity — Puget Sound Energy Water and Wastewater — Lakehaven Water and Sewer District Communication/TV - Centurylink, Verizon/Frontier Comm., Comcast 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. Each of the utilities and service providers listed in 16(a.) are proposed to services the project. Existing public utility facilities in the vicinity of the project site will be extended to complete service. Final sizing and configuration of these system extensions will be determined during final engineering design. This extension will involve trenching and backfill efforts for each of the utilities. DEVCO, INC. CP I H gaality counts CONSULTANTS COFW Bulletin #050 / April 10, 2013 Page 14 of 15 Park 16 Multifamily Process III Project Approval Environmental Checklist C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its -sion. SIGNATURE: DATE SUBMITTED: z/ Veb) DEVCO, INC. CPJH quality counts CONSULTANTS COFW Bulletin #050 / April 10, 2013 Page 15 of 15 CITY OF Federal May 31, 2013 Mr. Matthew Hough, PE CPH Consultants 733 7" Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland, WA 98033 CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Way Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com FILE Re: File #12-105565-00-SE; ENVIRONMENTAL TIRRESHOLD DETERMINATION Park 16 Multifamily Project, 35703 16'h Avenue South, Federal Way, WA Dear Mr. Hough: This office and other city staff have reviewed the environmental checklist you submitted. We have determined that the proposal will not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment, provided the mitigation measures identified in the enclosed Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) are met. As a result, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required to comply with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). A 14-day comment period is required by the SEPA rules (WAC 197-11-340). A notice inviting comments will be published in the Federal Way Mirror on May 31, 2013. At the end of the comment period, the department will determine if the MDNS should be withdrawn, modified, or issued as proposed. All final determinations may be appealed within 14 days following the comment deadline. No licenses, permits, or approvals will be issued until completion of the appeal period. Our decision not to require an EIS does not mean that the license, permit, or approval you are seeking from the city has been granted. Approval or denial of the proposal will be made by the appropriate administrative or legislative body vested with that authority. The environmental record is considered by the decision maker(s) and conditions will be imposed to reduce identified environmental impacts, as long as the conditions are based on adopted and designated city policy. After a final decision has been made on your proposal (i.e., after a permit has been issued or City Council action taken, as applicable), you may, but are not required to, publish a Notice of Action as set forth in RCW 43.21C.075. The Notice of Action sets forth a time period after which no legal challenges regarding the proposal's compliance with SEPA can be made. A copy of the File # 12-105565-00-SE Doc. I.D. 63530 Mr. Matthew Hough, PE Page 2 of 2 May 31, 2013 Notice of Action form and copies of RCW 43.21C.080 and WAC 197-11-680 providing instructions for giving this notice are available from the Department of Community and Economic Development. The city is not responsible for publishing the Notice of Action. However, the city is responsible for giving a notice (to parties of record) stating the date for commencing a judicial appeal (including the SEPA portion of that appeal) if your proposal is one for which the city"s action on it has a - specified time period Viithin which any court appeals must be made. If you need further assistance, feel free to contact Senior Planner Janet Shull, AICP, at 253-835- 2644, or 'anet.shull ci offederalwa .corn. Sincerely, +a"Cdlc irce�rty� Community and onomic Development Director enc: MDNS Staff Evaluation of SEPA Checklist File #12-105565-00-SE Doc. I.D. 63530 Tina Piety From: Tina Piety Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 5:01 PM To: matt@cphconsultants.com Cc: Janet Shull Subject: Park 16 Multifamily Project Park 16 Env Threshold Determination Letter.pdf; Park 16 MDNS and Environmental Attachments: Checklist.pdf Hello, Attached you will find the Environmental Threshold Determination letter, MDNS, staff evaluation, and environmental checklist for your Park 16 Multifamily Project. Please contact Senior Planner Janet Shull at 253-835-2644, or 3anet.chuil 6 yoffederalway.com, with any comments and questions. Tina Piety, Administrative Assistant II Department of Community and Economic Development City of Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 253-835-26ol; Fax 253-835-2609 CITY 4F . Federal 7 May 31, 2013 Mr. Matthew Hough, PE CPH Consultants 733 7t` Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland, WA 98033 CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South y Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www. cityoffederalway.. com Re: File #12-145565-00-SE; ENVIRONMENTAL THRESHOLD DETERMINATION Park 16 Multifamily Project, 35703 161h Avenue South, Federal Way, WA Dear Mr. Hough: This office and other city staff have reviewed the environmental checklist you submitted. We have determined that the proposal will not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment, provided the mitigation measures identified in the enclosed Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) are met. As a result, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required to comply with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). A 14-day comment period is required by the SEPA rules (WAC 197-11-340). A notice inviting comments will be published in the Federal Way Mirror on May 31, 2013. At the end of the comment period, the department will determine if the MDNS should be withdrawn, modified, or issued as proposed. All final determinations may be appealed within 14 days following the comment deadline. No licenses, permits, or approvals will be issued until completion of the appeal period. Our decision not to require an EIS does not mean that the license, permit, or approval you are seeking from the city has been granted. Approval or denial of the proposal will be made by the appropriate administrative or legislative body vested with that authority. The environmental record is considered by the decision maker(s) and conditions will be imposed to reduce identified environmental impacts, as long as the conditions are based on adopted and designated city policy. After a final decision has been made on your proposal (i.e., after a permit has been issued or City Council action taken, as applicable), you may, but are not required to, publish a Notice of Action as set forth in RCW 43.21C.075. The Notice of Action sets forth a time period after which no legal challenges regarding the proposal's compliance with SEPA can be made. A copy of the File #12-105565-00-SE Doc. I.D. 63530 Mr. Matthew Hough, PE Page 2 of 2 May 31, 2013 Notice of Action form and copies of RCW 43.21C.080 and WAC 197-11-680 providing instructions for giving this notice are available from the Department of Community and Economic Development. The city is not responsible for publishing the Notice of Action. However, the city is responsible for giving a notice (to parties of record) stating the date for commencing a judicial appeal (including the SEPA portion of that appeal) if your proposal is one for which the city's action on it has a - specified time period within which any court appeals must be made. If you need further assistance, feel free to contact Senior Planner Janet Shull, AICP, at 253-835- 2644, or ianet.shull@ciiyoffederalway.com. Sincerely, Patric o erty Community and 56onoinie Development Director enc; MDNS Staff Evaluation of SEPA Checklist File #12-105565-00-SE Doc. I.D. 63530 2a*,D CLA�A CE COYPREHER.pVE PLAN 1 ATIOIT• I<E I I � � 2921049036 2921049090 -`•_� S8831'29"E 767.65' 61 ~ ¢1 — I. �d Y a 1 �• -.-.-. 1 r ' «j:. I 10'SET ACK 1.- -. . --• .. . . •_•. . . .. . .-i ammlmm ,. • . . - l I , d I < 2921049092 „ •. _ _ . _ . _ . 26210490Ds :;I. . . . . . • - �..- _ aUB a�� =mom + ie +. .-_•a•. _ --• -. .-_ T WE7UW0 BlPFPER 1 - . . - . . . r !I i 1 ;r n �„rIt _ _ - . . • • seew, wve I m 7 RECTf1El z 1 • • • • - • - - 9Y1O.S09 1 TRA$fl F1•CLZ$1ms _--_ -- _____________________________ - v 1 vov 1C 2921049006 - . - - • - - - - . - � . - . • '' 9PARCEL 27.42 Ss _ _ e i m �' • r `F .�rn.11 - l_ . • j $1.87 AC10E5 S17.21 I 1 c 1 3 T ...r mum�i Idem _ _ _ .; I r ` Ill►i111 SEWER EASEMENT ALONC 1• . _ r r _ Il THE NEST 5' OF THE NEST , _ _ . _ - 71 ! 6 p 30 I 3 0 5 p 1 p 7gM..0 10 PROPERTY ONE RECORDING F. . . . 7 I 10 0 4 p ¢ SOB 30 30 (y 4.A I 40B ¢ NO" 850B200605. 0$ l g �k --_ __ 30B 30A �5� I1L Sw I . . . . .-.•. R I .;.t+n:1A 7 so� 30� ��36� e. .-.-.•. .-.- _ .-.-_�' - •-� m i mm l m j EJI soe aoe I maREC SLOG �soA sw\ f 4. tL e 4eo loon It� I-••. .-.•.`. . .•.• •� IJ �-0 o ' I ro f I1 F +rpv1 - I + I. -. r •`• • •. ..I -0o Io o allY 61 61 J fit fit'": fi.1 •�, �1 ok I li _611 6.0 r -. �.. • • • _ a< I ----- %� +e 30 !0 69 70 7o I m 30 30 fir-• a60 60 - • - • -. . /' n$a ' •o••9:a = ^608 y- -'a�_ } 3aB- 70R L. 60Bo 550 08� l06 30 ]ue j30 p -{ 106 3Mb B 60 i I •� - • - •I so +.6 ao 30 ec ^ so 3p 31 : I 74 30 60 : --�� — -.F—...—..�__—__—_..._•-_—__—._�.. ' 396 4.00 ]0$ 390 GW 50� p ED" 4 1010 Sd 30 0 I _ - � _—__—__ _— J• .—__ —_ _�.. 2 7$pl" Sp! 3m 3W� 60, 16159ME - --- ••—_. ��_� �•_ sns�FazE 12n1"ar .....T.-...�� w I 1 I I Sl1875'30•E 18850' ,rr I l � I ; / i' _i ❑071 1 1 2049063 i 06F21 i! 2921049 29212921049060 2921049091 2921049089 292JO49072 SHED 292104929210490079 910. 049054 i $9;1749 I II � !I • I � j •'� ; � � ; 1l UUU � n SITE PLAN -- 293u-474s N 0' 50' 100' 150' 200' SCALE: 1• = 50' DJECT STATISTICS PARKING: REQUIRED: 1 7A1NIT 499 STALLS CT SCOPE: MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENT RECREATION CENTER REQUIRED SETBACKS: FRONT: 3 FT (ADDITIONAL R O W.) OCCUPANCY CLASS : R-2 (STACKED MULTI -FAMILY APARTMENTS) 1.61UNIT 469 STALLS (2 % ACCESSIBLE) i/AGENT: DEVCO, INC. TOM NEUBAUER, (425) 453-9557 20 FT (BUILDING) R� (CARRIAGE HOUSES) :L NUMBERS: PARCEL A 2921049095 20 FT (TYPE III LANDSCAPING) A-3/B (REC. CENTER) PARCEL B: 2921049107 REAR: 5 FT (BUILDING) CONSTRUCTION TYPE: V-B (CARRIAGE HOUSES) PROPOSED: T SAL 474 STµ.S 11 611 UN DCATION: 16TH AVE S & S 356TH ST , FEDERAL WAY, WA 25 FT (WETLAND( A CATEGORY III BUFFER) V-B (REC. CENTER) REGULAR: 271 REA: EXISTING: 726,106.50 SF (16"67 AC) 200 FT (WETLAND B CATEGORY 1 BUFFER) V-B (BUILDINGS B, D. E. P) COMPACT: 100 (21%) (25%ALLOWED) REQUIRED DEDICATION: 3,924 SF (0.10 AC) SIDE (SOUTH): 5 FT (BUILDING) V-A (BUILDINGS A, J. K. L, M. V. X, AA) GARAGE B7 PROPOSED: 722.152 31 (16 57 AC) 20 FT (TYPE II LANDSCAPING) ACCESSIBLE GARAGE 3 (1%) 31CTION: CITY OF FEDERAL WAY SIDE (NORTH): 20 FT (ADDITIONAL R O W.) PROPOSED UNIT MIX ACCESSIBLE 19 (6%) DNING: RM2400 5FT(BUILDING) UNITTYPE BEDROOM/BATH UNITS SITE% )SED SITE USE: STACKED MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL 10 FT (TYPE III LANDSCAPING) 30 1 1 66 22 BICYCLE: 8 SIDE (EAST): 5 FT (BUILDING) 4-0 2 2 78 27 ROSS DECKMAN 8 ASSOCIATES INC "Nil FI 211 FOURTH AVENUE SC3UINFA4T 1 iR,l� PUYALLUP. WASHINGTON 98372 PHONE: 2S3 Mp &O6 FM: 257. &4 BSN 11 1�3BSD RECISiERED 1 \ RRC)iIFEL'i - O 1 , •` ROSS E. DECKIIMN • s71LTE or wwsNu+cxw 1 ti,1 i i 1 i � I I I� - � V y V f 7 V ,B S K' �. .DEnr�A7Kx4 Z O W z_ F H � a m Q O C* a W } I awl caW_j I Y a %!=o I a(DLL w f o a a I SITE F PLAN REVISIONS 041013 SITE REVIEW, RESU6N1ITfED APR 19 2013 CITY OF F�SRAL WAY JOB NO : ISSUE DATE 1124 12-12-12 REVISED: 4102013 CITY OF Federal Way DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way WA 98003 253-835-7000; Fax 253-835-2609 www.cifyoffederalway.com DECLARATION OF DISTRIBUTION I, C �),' �` . hereby declare, under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington, that a: / ❑ Notice of Land Use Application/Action ❑ Notice of Determination of Significance (DS) and Scoping Notice ❑ Notice of Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, DNS) 1 Notice of Mitigated Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, MDNS) ❑ Notice of Land Use Application & Optional DNS/MDNS ❑ FWRC Interpretation ❑ Other - ❑ Land Use Decision Letter ❑ Notice of Public Hearing before the Hearing Examiner El Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing ❑ Notice of LUTC/CC Public Hearing ❑ Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Adoption of Existing Environmental Document was ❑ mailed ❑ faxed Ae-mailed and/or ❑ posted to or at each of the attached addresses on 30 , 2013. Project Name f Yiso I I IFe. File Number(s) 0c, Signature ri z Date K:\CD Administration Files\Declaration of Distribution.doc/Last printed 5/3/2013 9:53:00 AM A�k CITY OF Federal Way NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (MDNS) Park 16 Multifamily Project File No: 12-105565-00-SE The City of Federal Way has determined that the following project does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the env ironr ent, and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Th is decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the city. Proposed Action: Proposal is to develop 26 residential buildings with 293 multifamily housing units. The project includes a proposed recreation center, recreational open space, landscaping and parking improvements, storm drainage facilities, and utility improvements. The site contains two existing wetlands and their associated buffer areas. Some minor temporary intrusion into the wetland buffer areas is proposed. Proponent: CPH Consultants, Mathew Hough Location: 35703 16"' Avenue South, Federal Way, WA MITIGATION MEASURE (SUMMARY): 1) The applicant shall make school access improvements that provide for safe walking routes and access to bus stops for school -age children as required by the Federal Way School District. Further information regarding this action is available to the public upon request at the Federal Way Department of Community and Economic Development (Federal Way City Hall, 33325 8"' Avenue South, Federal Way, WA, 98003). Contact Senior Planner Janet Shull at 253-835-2644. This MDNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). Comments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on June 14, 2013. Unless modified by the city, this determination will become final following the comment deadline. Any person aggrieved by the city's determination may file an appeal with the city within 14 days of the above comment deadline. Published in the Federal Way Mirror on May 31, 2013. Doc. I.D. 63526 Tina Piety From: Rudi Alcott <ralcott@fedwaymirror.com> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 11:55 AM To: Tina Piety Subject: Re: Legal Notice Tina, We will get this taken care of for you. Thanks, Rudi Alcott Publisher Office: 253-925-5565, Ext 1050 Internal: 02-1050 Fax:253-925-5750 Mobile: 253-336-5359 31919 1st Ave S, Ste 101, Federal Way, WA 98003 A! Sound Publishing, Inc. Map Print Rates Online Rates Media Kit Sound In a On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Mary Lou Goss cm oss sound ubiishin .comp wrote: Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Tina Piety Tina Piety[�xi_,Cityoffederalwa,�m> Date: May 30, 2013, 10:50:36 AM PDT To: Admin. at Fed Way Mirror min oss cr fedwayrnirror.com> Subject: Legal Notice Hello, Please publish the attached legal notice (Park 16 Multifamily MDNS, 12-105565-00-SE) in Friday's (5/31/13) issue. Please furnish an affidavit of publication. Thank you, Tina Piety, Administrative Assistant II Department of Community and Economic Development City of Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Park 16 Multifamily Process III Project Approval Environmental Checklist A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Park 16 Multifamily 2. Name of applicant: DevCo., Inc. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 11100 Main Street, Suite 301 Bellevue, WA 98004 Ph: (425) 453-9551 Contact: Mr. Tom Neubauer 4. Date checklist prepared: December 12, 2012 (revised April 10, 2013) 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Federal Way 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): RESUBMITTED APR 18 2013 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS The project proposes to begin clearing and grading in Spring 2013, site work continues through Summer/Fall 2013, and building construction begins in late Summer/Fall 2013. Final occupancy and operations are planned for Spring/Summer 2014. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No. There are no plans to phase the project or develop future additions or expansions relative to this proposal. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Project -specific geotechnical, wetland, and traffic studies have been prepared in support of this project proposal. Copies of those reports are included with the application materials that accompany this checklist. 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. No government approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property are known to be pending. DEVCO, INC. CP I H quality counts CONSULTANTS COFW Bulletin #050 / April 10, 2013 Page 1 of 15 Park ] 6 Multifamily Process III Project Approval Environmental Checklist 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. City of Federal Way — Site/Project Approval (Process III), Engineering Permit, Building Permit Washington State DOE — NPDES General Construction Storm Water Permit 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. The project proposes to redevelop an approximately 16.6-acre site to create 293 multifamily residential units and a private onsite recreation facility. More than 6 acres in the westerly and lowest limits of the site is occupied by two significant wetlands and their buffers. The resulting total developable area of the site is approximately 10 acres. 26 separate buildings ranging from 1- and 2-unit carriages to 24-unit garden style structures make up the residential density for the project. The onsite recreation building is approximately 9,100 square feet and typically contains a basketball court, a swimming pool, weight/workout rooms, and other similar amenities for the residents of the community. 472 surface parking stalls have been identified for use by the residents. Access to the site is provided at its existing public road frontages along South 356th Street and 16th Avenue South. A commercial/industrial business currently operates on the easterly 1/3 of the site. It is being used here are existing metal and wood buildings, paved driveway and parking areas, and associated utilities. All existing structures and onsite utilities are proposed to be removed to accommodate the project. An architectural site plan, preliminary site design plans, and supporting special studies (e.g., geotechnical report, storm drainage report, etc.) are included with this checklist as part of the project approval application. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. DEVCO, INC. CPI H quahtycounts CONSULTANTS COFW Bulletin #050 / April 10, 2013 Page 2 of 15 Park 16 Multifamily Process III Project Approval Environmental Checklist The project site is comprised of two separate, contiguous real parcels. The postal address for these are 3570316th Avenue South and 1405 South 356th Street. A detailed site plan, legal description, and vicinity map are included with the other materials that accompany this checklist as part of the overall application. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one): flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Existing topographic grades on the site vary. The steepest areas are localized primarily toward the center of the site. The maximum slope on the site is greater than 45%. A slope analysis was performed for the project and the results of that effort are shown on the Clearing and Erosion Control Plan. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, mulch)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The site is comprised of some local areas of non-native fill comprised of silty sands. Native site soils are primarily outwash type soils which for this site appear to be of recessional outwash classified as SP, SP-SM, and GM. There is no prime farmland on the property. A site -specific geotechnical study was completed for the project and is included with this application. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. There were no surface indications or history of unstable soils on the site or in the immediate vicinity. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Filling and grading will occur on the site to bring it to the elevations necessary to support the proposed multifamily buildings with pedestrian routes meeting ADA standards. Preliminary design analyses indicate that approximately 56,200 cubic yards of cut and 44,700 yards of fill will be required. The native soils are expected, based on geotechnical engineering recommendations, to be suitable for structural subgrade. As such, the site is expected to have approximately 11,500 cubic yards of net export from DEvCO, INC. CP I H quahcyco-t, CONSULTANTS COFW Bulletin #050 / April 10, 2013 Page 3 of 15 Park 16 Multifamily Process III Project Approval Environmental Checklist the site. If fill is required as a result of design changes or discovery that onsite materials are unsuitable, then fill will be imported from a local commercial source. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Localized erosion could occur during clearing and construction activities. Erosion is not likely with the completed project due to site coverage and permanent drainage controls. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 68% of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces with the completed project. These surfaces will consist primarily of asphalt and concrete pavements, and building roof areas. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any. Temporary erosion control BMPs including, but not limited to, silt fence, inlet protection, interceptor swales, and sediment ponds or temporary tanks will be maintained during construction to limit potential erosion. Water trucks will be used to control dust during dry periods. Construction activities will be limited to construction hours allowed by current City of Federal Way zoning rules and Development Standards (EDDS). 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. Typical vehicular emissions will result from local residential traffic under developed site conditions. Temporary exhaust emissions will occur along with some noise increase from equipment during construction. Soil dust emissions may result from construction operations during dry weather conditions. Approximate quantities are not known. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No offsite sources of emissions or odor that may affect this proposal are known. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any. Construction activities will be limited to established City of Federal Way standard work hours to reduce or control emissions, noise, and other impacts to air. Water trucks or similar methods will be used to limit arrant dust from the site during construction. DEVCO, INC. CP J H quahry count, CONSULTANTS COM Bulletin #050 / April 10, 2013 Page 4 of 15 Park 16 Multifamily Process III Project Approval Environmental Checklist 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 I (Wetland A) and Category III wetland (wetland A and B, respectively) are located in the western limits of the projects. overflows from these complexes flow west and south toward an unnamed off -site stream. 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. The project proposes to construct a soft surface trail through the outer portions of the onsite 200-foot wetland buffer. A split rail fence is also planned each side of the trail to control pedestrian traffic. This trail will require minimal clearing and grading within the wetland buffer. The accompanying plans and reports further describe the proposed work in or near this onsite wetland buffer. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No surface water withdrawals or diversion are proposed or required for the project. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. The proposed project does not lie within a 100-year flood plain. 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. The project proposes no discharge of waste materials to surface waters. b. Ground. 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No ground water will be withdrawn or discharged to with the proposed project. DBVCO, INC. CPIH quality counts CONSULTANTS COFW Bulletin #050 / April 10, 2013 Page 5 of 15 Park 16 Multifamily Process III Project Approval Environmental Checklist 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 system(s) are expected to serve. No waste material will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources as part of this project. c. Water Runoff (including stormwater) 1) Describe the source of runoff (including stonnwater) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Storm water runoff will occur from the improved areas of the site. This runoff will be collected by a series of catch basin inlets in the onsite parking lot areas. The catch basins are connected by underground pipes that provide a controlled conveyance of storm water to an onsite detention/infiltration vault in the southwestern limit of the site. This vault is located below a large recreation space. The vault will control the release rate from the site to allowable City of Federal Way development standards. The vault discharges in the outer limits of the wetland buffer by means of a gravel dispersion trench. Three (3) additional gravel dispersion trenches located in the upper limit of the buffer are proposed to discharge "clean" water from some of the onsite building roofs. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No waste materials will enter ground or surface waters as a result of the proposed project. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any. An onsite, below -grade storm water detention/infiltration vault will collect, store, and release storm water runoff from the site at a controlled rate. A mechanical filtration vault facility such as a Stormfilter system is proposed to treat storm water flows prior to release to the infiltration vault. These storm water controls mitigate potential runoff water impacts in accordance with City of Federal Way surface water management and development standards. 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site. X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other DEVCO, INC. CP I H quautV e000n CONSULTANTS COFW Bulletin #050 / April 10, 2013 Page 6 of 15 Park 16 Multifamily Process III Project Approval Environmental Checklist X shrubs T grass _pasture _crop or grain X wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other water plant: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other _other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Mature trees, shrubs, grasses, and other landscaping will be removed from the site with the project. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No known threatened or endangered plant species or critical habitat is on or near the site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any. Preliminary landscape plans have been prepared and accompany this application. This design makes use of native and drought tolerant plant. Some of the existing trees along the north and south boundaries are likely to remain if grading efforts can be accommodated without impact. 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: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, 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. No threatened or endangered species are known to be on or near the site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. The site is not known to be part of a migration route. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any. A large, heavily vegetated, and protected buffer area will remain at the west boundary of the property. No additional special measures are proposed or believed to be necessary to preserve or enhance wildlife areas. DEVCO, INC. CPI H quality counts CONSULTANTS COFW Bulletin #050 / April 10, 2013 Page 7 of 15 Park 16 Multifamily Process III Project Approval Environmental Checklist 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. The project will extend existing electrical power and communication distribution systems to serve the proposed residential units. Natural gas service and electrical sources are expected to be provided to the project from existing sources at South 356th Street and 16th Avenue South. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. The proposed project would not affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties. 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. The residential portion of hte project will meet Evergreen Sustainable Development standards, which includes energy savings modeling to show a minimum of 15% above the current Washington State Energy Code standard. 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. Local fuel spills are possible from equipment during construction activities for the project. No other environmental health hazards are known or expected to result from the planned development. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. No special emergency services are required for the project proposal. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention and Spill Control Plan (SWPPSCP) will be prepared with the final permit and construction documents for the project. The SWPPPSCP will include specific measures for addressing construction equipment fuel or other lubricant spills, which will include maintaining absorbent blankets or sands to contain potential spills. DEVC0 INC. CPI H quality counts CONSULTANTS COFW Bulletin #050 / April 10, 2013 Page 8 of 15 Park 16 Multifamily Process III Project Approval Environmental Checklist b. Noise. 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment operation, other)? Road/vehicle noise from 161h Avenue and 3561h Street exists in the area of and will likely affect the built project. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Typical sounds and sound levels associated with individual passenger cars will occur with the project. Temporary noise level increases will result from equipment during construction activities. Construction activities will be limited to established City of Federal Way standards. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any. Construction activities will be limited to established City of Federal Way standard work hours to reduce or control equipment emissions and noise. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The western, approximately two thirds of the site is mostly undeveloped with mature vegetation. The easterly portion of the site is mostly cleared. It is occupied by an active commercial/industrial business. Paved driveways and gravel parking areas facilitate access for the current use. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. c. Describe any structures on the site. The more level (at -grade), approximately easterly 1/3 of the property is occupied by a commercial/industrial business. This existing business operates out of a number of older metal and wood buildings and the primary access is from 16th Avenue South. A mixture of paved and gravel areas adjacent to these buildings. The accompanying Topographic Survey map shows the extent of existing structures on the property. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? All existing buildings will be demolished and their associated utilities, driveways, and parking areas will be removed with the project. DEVCO, INC. CP I H quality counts CONSULTANTS COFW Bulletin #050 / April 10, 2013 Page 9 of 15 Park 16 Multifamily Process III Project Approval Environmental Checklist e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The current site is zoned RM-2400 Multifamily. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? The current comprehensive plan designation is Multifamily. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Unknown. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an environmentally critical area? If so, specify. Yes. There is a large Category 1 wetland and a small Category 3 wetland with their associated buffer areas covering the western limits of the site. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately 1055 people would reside in the proposed multifamily units. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? No residential units or occupants will be displaced by the completed project. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any. No specific measures are proposed to avoid or reduce displacement impacts. 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any. The project complies with existing and projected land uses and plans as described by the Comprehensive Plan for City of Federal Way. As such, no special mitigation measures are proposed or required. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. The project proposes at least 293 middle to low income housing units. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. No existing residential units would be eliminated with the project. DEVCO, INC. CP I H yuaMv suwms CONSULTANTS COM Bulletin #050 / April 10, 2013 Page 10 of 15 Park 16 Multifamily Process III Project Approval Environmental Checklist c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any. No special measures are proposed or expected to be necessary to control housing impacts 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? The maximum height of the tallest multifamily building is approximately 30 feet, measured in accordance with City of Federal Way zoning standards. The principal exterior building material will likely be a manufactured material such as Hard! plank or vinyl. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? The more level (at -grade), approximately easterly 1/3 of the property is occupied by a commercial/industrial business. This existing business operates out of a number of older metal and wood buildings and the primary access is from 16th Avenue South. The topography of the site steepens downward as it moves west away from this business area towards a large wetland complex in the lower regions of the property. This area west of the existing commercial operations is forested and mostly undeveloped. As such, the surrounding neighbors have a view of mature vegetation at the western limits and mostly cleared and industrial condition at the east. The project would alter these views with the construction of 2 or 3 story residential buildings and associated retaining walls. The finished grade of the western portion of the site will remain much lower than the adjacent public roadways. As such, the buildings and associate improvements will be much less visible. Perimeter walls are located primarily at the north and east property boundary. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any. Landscaping in accordance with City of Federal Way Revised Code landscaping development standards and Community Design Guidelinesis proposed to improve the appearance of the project. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Typical exterior and interior light will be visible from the occupied structures onsite. The parking lots will also have lighting. This increased lighting would be most visible (i.e., most often occur) from dusk to early morning. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Light or glare from the finished project will not be a safety hazard or interfere with views. DEVCO, INC. CP I H quality counts CONSULTANTS COFW Bulletin #050 / April 10, 2013 Page 11 of 15 Park 16 Multifamily Process III Project Approval Environmental Checklist c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? No existing offsite sources of light or glare will affect the current project proposal. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any. Site lighting fixtures will be full cut-off or a shielded type per current and applicable City of Federal Way Municipal Code requirements. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Various local parks, public open space, including trails, are located west of the site. Several of these occur in the vicinity of the Puget Sound which is located approximately 7 miles west of the site. Public and private golf courses are located within less than a 4 mile radius from the site. Onsite recreation amenities are also proposed for use by the residents of the multifamily units. b. Would the proposed displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No existing recreational uses will be displaced by the project. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any. The project proposes to provide an onsite recreation facility for use by the residents of the multifamily units. This facility typically includes indoor sport court, swimming pool and spa, exercise facilities, and other similar amenities. Several outdoor recreation spaces will also be provided onsite in accordance with City of Federal Way development standards. A soft surface trail is proposed through the upland buffer area of the large onsite wetland complex at the west boundary. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, nation, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. There are no known places or objects on or next to the site that are listed on or proposed for listing on national, state, or local preservation registers. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. There are no known landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance on or next to the site. DEVCO, INC. CP I H yuahtycount, CONSULTANTS COM Bulletin #050 / April 10, 2013 Page 12 of 15 Park 16 Multifamily Process III Project Approval Environmental Checklist c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any. No special measures are proposed or expected to be required to reduce impacts to historic or cultural resources. 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. The site is fronted by South 356th Street along a portion of its north boundary and 16th Avenue South along its western edge. A single commercial driveway approach is proposed at each of these frontages to access the site. The location and dimensions of these two new site access points are shown on the accompanying site plan and preliminary right-of-way frontage plans. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? A public transit stop is not currently located at the site. The nearest transit stop is near the site at the intersection of SR161 and South 356th Street. The site is currently served by Pierce Transit (Route 402). c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The project proposes approximately 472 new private parking spaces onsite and the elimination of an estimated 20 parking spaces from the existing commercial business that will be closed. 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). Yes, roadway improvements will be required along both street frontages of the site. The easterly frontage of 16eh Avenue South will be widened to include concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk with a continuous landscape strip. A new commercial access driveway will be installed at this access in accordance with City standards. The north frontage of South 356th Street will be improved with a new 8-foot wide concrete sidewalk separated from the existing curb and gutter by a new landscape strip. An improved commercial drive approach will be installed to access the site from South 3561h Street. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. The project site is located approximately 10 miles south of SeaTac International Airport. The site is within 7 miles of the Amtrak train station in Tacoma. DEVC0, INC. CP J H quality Counts CONSULTANTS COFW Bulletin #050 / April 10, 2013 Page 13 of 15 Park 16 Multifamily Process III Project Approval Environmental Checklist f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. The project will generate approximately 2,782 new vehicular trips per day. New peak AM and PM trips for the project are estimated to be 119 and 152 per day respectively. Additional project traffic information is provided in the accompanying traffic impact study (Transportation Engineering NW, Inc., April 9, 2013). g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. Roadway widening at 16`h Avenue South in accordance with City of Federal Way development standards is proposed to reduce or control transportation impacts. Vehicular and pedestrian accessibility and sight distance will be improved with the frontage improvements at the northerly South 3561h Street frontage 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. The project will increase population within existing fire, police, health care, and school service areas with the addition of approximately 293 multifamily residential units. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Mitigation fees as allowed by current City of Federal Way Municipal Code are proposed to be paid with the construction or initial occupancy of the multifamily residential units to offset impacts on public services. 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other (please list) Natural Gas - Puget Sound Energy Electricity — Puget Sound Energy Water and Wastewater — Lakehaven Water and Sewer District Communication/TV - Centurylink, Verizon/Frontier Comm., Comcast 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. Each of the utilities and service providers listed in 16(a.) are proposed to services the project. Existing public utility facilities in the vicinity of the project site will be extended to complete service. Final sizing and configuration of these system extensions will be determined during final engineering design. This extension will involve trenching and backfill efforts for each of the utilities. DEVCO, INC. CPI H gUdIdY COM15 CONSULTANTS COFW Bulletin #050 / April 10, 2013 Page 14 of 15 Park 16 Multifamily Process III Project Approval Environmental Checklist C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its 1sion. SIGNATURE: DATE SUBWTvoe / F DEVCO, INC. CP I H qualitYcounts CONSULTANTS COFW Bulletin #050 / April 10, 2013 Page 15 of 15 HABITAT TECHNOLOGIES CRITICAL AREAS ASSESSMENT STUDY PARCELS 2921049096 and 2921049107 36703 -16th Avenue South CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON This document has been revised to incorporate review comments provided by the City of Federal Way prepared for The Abbey Road Group @ Project Number 07-179 PO Box 1224 Puyallup, Washington 98371 prepared by HABITAT TECHNOLOGIES P.O. Box 1088 Puyallup, Washington 98371-1088 253-845-5119 November 10, 2008 Revised August 13, 2009 wetlands, streams, fisheries, wildlife -- mitigation and permitting solutions P.O. Box 1088, Puyallup, Washington 98371 voice 253-845-5119 fax 253-841-1942 habitattech@gwestoffice.net Table of Contents INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................1 DOCUMENTPURPOSE..............................................................................................................1 PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION..................................................................................................1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION....................................................................................................2 NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY...........................................................................................2 STATE OF WASHINGTON PRIORITY HABITATS AND SPECIES ............................................ 2 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE ....................................... 2 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES.................................2 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MAPPING........................................................................................... 3 SOILSMAPPING....................................................................................-•.......................•-- ........3 WASHINGTON STATE NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM....................................................... 3 ONSITEASSESSMENT..................................................................................................................3 CRITERIA FOR WETLAND AND STREAM IDENTIFICATION................................................... 3 STUDYMETHODS......................................................................................................................4 FIELDOBSERVATION................................................................................................................ 4 Soils......................................................................................................................................... 5 Hydrology................................................................................................................................ 5 Vegetation.....................................................................................................-----..................... 6 WETLAND AND DRAINAGE COFF Ri n DEETEORAIAIATInKI : L DOI. v E LE\MINA 1 .V............................. .._c------c-•---- WETLAND FUNCTION AND VALUE ASSESSMENT...................................................................9 ONSITE WETLAND VALUATION..............................................................................................10 WILDLIFEOBSERVATIONS........................................................................................................11 OBSERVEDSPECIES..............................................................................................................11 MOVEMENTCORRIDORS.......................................................................................................12 STATEPRIORITY SPECIES.....................................................................................................13 FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES................................................................................................14 REGULATORY CONSIDERATION...............................................................................................14 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS - SECTION 404................................................................14 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY...... ". ......... I .................... L ............. 15 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY - CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS CHAPTER 22..................................... 15 PROPOSED STORMWATER FACILITY...................................................................................20 PROPOSED RECREATIONAL TRAIL SYSTEM.......................................................................20 FIGURES.......................................................................................................................................22 REFERENCELIST........................................................................................................................ 23 APPENDIX A — FIELD DATA FORMS..........................................................................................24 ATTACHMENT— SITE PLAN.......................................................................................................25 INTRODUCTION This report details the culmination of activities and onsite evaluations undertaken to complete a critical areas assessment study as an essential element of potential project planning. The project site was approximately 16-acres in size, was composed of two (2) existing parcels (parcels 2921049095 and 2921049107), and was located at 35703 16th Avenue South in the City of Federal Way, Washington (part of Section 29, Township 21 North, Range 4 East, W.M.) (Figure 1). The evaluation and characterization of onsite and adjacent critical areas (i.e. wetlands, drainage corridors, and critical habitats) is a vital element in the planning and selection or a potential site development action. The goal of this approach is to ensure that planned site development, to include the establishment of protective buffers, does not result in either short-term or long-term adverse environmental impacts to identified critical areas within and immediately adjacent to the project site. DOCUMENT PURPOSE This purpose of this document is to present the results of an onsite assessment and evaluation of potential critical areas within and immediately adjacent to the project site following the methods and procedures defined in the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (1987 Manual), the Washington Slate Wetlands identification and Delineation Manual (!Nash Manual), the State of Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Forest Practice Rules (VIWAC 222-16-030), the State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Species and Habitats Program, and City of Federal Way Chapter 22. PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION The project site was composed of two existing parcels. The project was accessed via adjacent public roadways - 16t'' Avenue South and South 356tn Street. The eastern portion of the project site had been developed a number of years ago, and continued to be used as a steel fabrication facility. The western portion of the project site was vacant land that exhibited areas of regenerated forest and overgrowing pasture areas. The site sloped generally from east to west and a depressional corridor was present generally along the western boundary of the project site. The project site was located within an area of mixed urban developments. These developments included commercial and light industrial uses, moderate to high intensity residential uses, and remnant single-family homesites. BACKGROUND INFORMATION NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping completed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was reviewed as a part of this assessment (Figure 2). This mapping resource identified the upper end of a wetland complex encroaching onto the western portion of the project site from areas to the west and southwest. The onsite portion of this wetland complex was identified as palustrine, forested, temporarily flooded (PFOA). STATE OF WASHINGTON PRIORITY HABITATS AND SPECIES The State of Washington Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) Mapping was reviewed as a part of this assessment (Figure 3). This mapping resource generally identified the upper end of a wetland complex within the western portion of the project site as noted in the NWI Mapping above. This mapping resource also identified the presence of resident and anadromous fish associated with a drainage that originated well offsite to the north and continued through the wetland area along the western boundary of the project site. STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE The State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Mapping (Salmonscape) was reviewed as a part of this assessment (Figure 4). This mapping resource identified a stream crossing through the northern portion of the project site and then turning to the south offsite to the west of the project site. This stream is mapped as a seasonal tributary to West Hylebos Creek. This mapping resource identified the potential presence of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and rain bow/steel head trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) as limited within this stream. The furthest upstream potential utilization by these species within the stream was mapped as directly south of South 359th Street - approximately 425 feet from the southern boundary of the project site. The Salmonscape program also identified the documented presence of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) within the West Hylebos Creek more than one-half of a mile downstream of the project site (downstream of South 373rd Street) and potential rearing habitats for this species more than one -quarter of a mile downstream of the project site. STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES The State of Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Mapping was reviewed as a part of this assessment (Figure 5). This mapping resource generally identified the upper end of a wetland complex within the western portion of the project site as noted in the NWI Mapping above. This mapping resource also identified a 2 08136 drainage corridor offsite to the west within the wetland complex. This mapping resource identified the wetland as a WDNR Type FW (forested wetland) and the drainage corridor as a WDNR Type F Water (fish bearing). CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MAPPING The City of Federal Way Mapping was reviewed as a part of this assessment (Figure G). This mapping resource depicted a City of Federai Way "FW Rating 1" wetland generally along the western boundary of the project site that continues offsite to the west. This wetland was also identified to extend offsite generally to the south west. This mapping resource further noted the start of a City of Federal Way "Major stream" offsite to the southwest of the project site — adjacent to South 3591' Street. SOILS MAPPING The soli mapping inventory completed by the Soils Conservation Service was reviewed as a part of this assessment (Figure 7). This mapping resource identified the soils throughout the majority of the project site as Everett gravelly sandy loam (EvC). The Everett soil series is defined as somewhat excessively well drained and as formed in gravelly glacial outwash. This mapping resource also noted a band of Kitsap silt loam generally crossing through the central -western portion of the project site. The Kitsap soil series is defined as moderately well drained and as formed in glacial lake deposits. These soils are not listed as "hydric." This mapping resource also noted a band of Bellingham silt loam generally along the western boundary of the project site. The Bellingham soil series is defined as poorly drained, as formed in alluvium under grass and sedges, and as listed as "hydric." WASHINGTON STATE NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM The Washington State Natural Heritage Program was reviewed as a part of this assessment. This resource did not identify any high quality, undisturbed wetland or a wetland that supports state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species within the Sectionffownship/Range of the project site. ONSITE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA FOR WETLAND AND STREAM IDENTIFICATION Wetlands are transitional areas between aquatic and upland habitats. In general terms, wetlands are lands where the extent and duration of saturation with water is the primary factor determining the nature of soil development and the types of plant and animal communities living in the soil and on its surface (Cowardin, et al., 1979). Wetlands are 3 08136 generally defined within land use regulations as "areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions" (1987 Manual). Wetlands exhibit three essential characteristics, all of which must be present for an area to meet the established criteria within the Wash. Manual and the 1987 Manual. These essential characteristics are: 1. Hydrophytic Vegetation: A predominance of plants that are typically adapted for life in saturated soils. 2. Hydric Soil: A soil that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper horizons. 3. Wetland Hydrology: Permanent or periodic inundation, or soil saturation to the surface, at least seasonally. A stream is generally defined as a location where surface waters produce a defined channel or bed. A defined channel or bed is typically an area which demonstrates clear evidence of the passage of water and includes, but not limited to, bedrock channels, gravel beds, sand and silt beds, and defined channel swales. A stream need not contain water year-round. A stream typically does not include irrigation ditches, canals, storm or surface water run-off devices, or other artificial watercourses unless the constructed watercourse conveys a stream which naturally occurred prior to the construction of such watercourse. STUDY METHODS Habitat Technologies completed a series of site visits during October 2008. In addition, the staff of Habitat Technologies has completed similar assessments for a variety of parcels within the area of the project site dating back to 1979. The objective of this evaluation was to define and delineate potential wetland and drainage areas that may be present within the project area, and to characterize existing habitats and habitat utilization. Boundaries between wetland and non -wetland areas were established by examining the transitional gradient between wetland criteria. Onsite activities were completed in accordance with criteria and procedures established in the 1987 Manual, the Wash. Manual, City of Federal Way Chapter 22, and the WDNR Forest Practice Rules, Delineation was performed using the routine methodology for areas larger than five acres as detailed in the 1987 Manual, Field data sheets are provided in Appendix A and sample plot locations are noted in the surveyed site plan. FIELD OBSERVATION As noted above the project site contained two (2) parcels. The project site had undergone prior land use manipulations to include forest harvest, clearing, grading, pasture creation, building construction, fencing, internal and external roadway 4 08136 construction, and the development of adjacent properties. The project site was generally sloped from east to west/southwest. Since the eastern portion of the project site was dominated by an existing commercial/light industrial facility the onsite assessment focused generally within the central and western portions of the project site. Soils As identified at representative sample plots within the majority of the central and western portions of the project site the soil exhibited a gravelly loam, gravelly sandy loam, to sandy loam texture and coloration typical of the Everett and Kitsap soil series. In addition, the soils did not exhibit prominent redoximorphic features within the upper 20 inches of the soil profile. The soil appeared to drain moderately well to well following seasonal storm events. Field indicators of wetland hydrology patterns were absent throughout the majority of the project site. A small depression identified within the central portion of the project site exhibited a surface layer of very dark gray (10YR3/1) coloration and silty loam texture. The subsoil ranged from very dark gray (1OYR3/1) to dark gray (10YR 4/1) in coloration and silty loam texture. The subsoil also exhibited prominent redoximorphic features (i.e_ soil mottles). Based on existing soil piles and the eastern slope of this area this small depression appeared to have been excavated a number of years ago. A depressional corridor was present along the western boundary of the project site. This corridor generally commenced offsite to the northwest of the project site and continued offsite generally to the south. The soil within this depressionai corridor exhibited gravelly silty loam to silty loam texture. The surface soil exhibited a black (1OYR 211) to very dark brown (1OYR 3/2) to a depth of six (6) to twelve (12) inches. The surface soil often exhibited organic materials captured in small depressions. The subsoil to a depth to approximately 20 inches exhibited a black (1 OYR 2/1) to dark grayish brown (1 QYR 4/2) coloration. The subsoil also exhibited prominent redoximorphic features (i.e. soil mottles). The surface and subsoil also exhibited prominent oxidized root channels. The soil within this corridor exhibited field characteristics typical of hydric soil. Hydrology Onsite hydrology appeared to be the result of seasonal stormwater runoff from onsite, seasonal stormwater runoff from adjacent properties, site topography, and soil characteristics. The majority of the project site appeared to drain moderately well and did not exhibit field indicators associated with the movement of seasonal surface water runoff. The small depression identified in the central portion of the project site exhibited an area of shallow seasonal stormwater ponding. This shallow depression appeared to receive seasonal stormwater sheet flow from the upslope locations generally to the east. This 5 08136 shallow depression appeared to have been excavated a number of years ago. However, this shallow depression did not appear to be supported by seeps. A depressional corridor within the western portion of the project site was identified to commence offsite to the northwest and continue offsite to the south. This corridor was noted to receive season stormwater flow from an installed culvert associated with South 356th Street Corridor and adjacent parcels, and from adjacent onsite and offsite areas. This corridor extended generally to the south along the western boundary of the project site. The prior development of South 3591h Street had filled this corridor to create the road right-of-way. The development of the South 359th Street Corridor included the placement of a culvert with a controlled inlet on the upstream site of South 359" Street. This controlled culvert appeared to have created a large area for the impoundment of seasonal surface flow upstream — north — of South 359th Street. The movement of seasonal surface water runoff within the western corridor was generally to the southwest. No continuous defined channel was identified onsite within this corridor. Portions of this corridor appeared to remain po nded/satu rated through at least the majority of the growing season. The majority of this swale appeared to become dry at or near the surface by mid -summer. Vegetation As noted above the eastern portion of the project site had been developed into a commercial/light industrial facility. The central and western portions of the project site generally exhibited four (4) separate plant communities. The first plant community, noted in the east -central and central portions of the project site, was identified as a prior managed pasture. This community exhibited a few retained mature trees and a pasture plant community that had become overrun with Scots broom (Cytisus scoparius) and other invasives in many areas. Observed species within this plant community included Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), domestic apple (Pyrus spp.), crabapple (Pyrus fusca), hawthorne (Crataegus monogyna), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus procera), evergreen blackberry (Rubus laciniatus), Pacific blackberry (Rubus ursinus), Scot's broom, rose (Rosa spp.), snowberry (Symphoricarpus albus), bracken fern (Pteridium aquilium), nettle (Urtica dioica), Canadian thistle (Cirsium arvensis), orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata), fescue (Festuca spp.), velvet grass (Holcus lanatus), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), smooth cats ear (Hypochaeris glabra), hairy cats ear (Hypochaeris radicata), sheep sorrel (Rumex acetosella), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), clover (Trifolium spp.), bluegrass (Poa spp.), and buttercup (Ranunculus repens). This plant community was identified as non- hydrophytic in character (i.e. typical of uplands). The second plant community was identified in a shallow depressional area within the central portion of the project site. This depression was dominated by species more typically associated with damp to saturated soils and included crabapple, Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis), Douglas spiraea (Spiraea douglash), salmonberry (Rubus 6 08136 spectabilis), speedwell (Veronica scutellata), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), buttercup, big leaf avens (Geum macrophyllum), and curled stock (Rumex crispus). This plant community was identified as hydrophytic in character (i.e. typical of wetlands). The third plant community was identified in the northwestern and west -central portions of the project site. These areas exhibited remnant upland forests. Observed species included Douglas fir, Western red cedar (Thuja plicata), Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), red alder (Alnus rubra), black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), cherry (Prunus spp.), and cascara (Rhamnus purshiana). The understory was dominated by a wide variety of shrubs and herbs that included Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis), vine maple (Acer circinatum), hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), saimonberry, Pacific red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), red huckleberry (Vaccinium parvifolium), Oregon grape (Berberis nervosa), salal (Gaultheria shallon), sword fern (Polystichum munitum), bracken fern (Pteridium aquilium), nettle (Urtica dioica), and geranium (Geranium spp.). This plant community was identified as non-hydrophytic in character (i.e. typical of uplands). The fourth plant community was identified in the western portion of the parcel. This plant community was within a topographical corridor and was dominated by species more typically associated with damp to saturated soils. Observed species included Oregon ash (Fraxinus lafifolia), black cottonwood, Western red cedar, Western hemlock, Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra), crabapple, Sitka willow, salmonberry, black twinberry (Lonicera involucrata), red osier dogwood (Corpus stolonifera), Douglas spiraea, vine maple, Nootka rose (Rosa nufkana), reed mannagrass (Glyceria grandis), reed canarygrass, common lady fern (Athyrium filix-femina), slough sedge (Carex obnupta), skunk cabbage (Lysichitum americanum), water parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa), speedwell, buttercup, and big leaf avens. This plant community was identified as hydrophytic in character (i.e. typical of wetlands). This plant community extended offsite to the west, northwest, and south. WETLAND AND DRAINAGE CORRIDOR DETERMINATION Wetland determination was based on sample plots which contained hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology in accordance with the 1987 Manual and the Wash. Manual. Based on these methods two (2) areas within the project site were identified to exhibit all three of the established wetland criteria. In addition, no area within the project site was identified to exhibit characteristics of a continuously defined stream. WETLAND I CLASSIFICATION (USFWS) A PSSEx OB FEDERAL WAY CATEGORY 3 1 FUNCTIONAL VALUE Low FEDERAL WAY BUFFER WIDTH 25 feet 200 feet 7 08136 Wetland A: Wetland A was identified within a shallow depression in the central portion of the project site. Wetland A had undergone prior land use manipulations to include forest harvest, clearing, grading, excavation, and utilization by livestock. Wetland A was dominated by Doulas spiraea. Wetland A appeared to be hydrologically supported by seasonal stormwater sheetilow from the surrounding area. Wetland A appeared to remain ponded/saturated following seasonal storm events and to remain saturated to the surface into at least the early part of the growing season. Wetland A met the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) criteria for classification of palustrine, scrub -shrub, seasonally flooded/saturated, excavated (PSSEx). Wetland A was further identified to meet the criteria for designation as a City of Federal Way Category 3 Wetland. Wetland A was identified by survey as 2,775 square feet in total size and was confined solely within the project site. Wetland B: Wetland B was identified within topographical corridor crossing along the western boundary of the project site. Wetland B was identified to commence offsite to the northwest of the project site and to extend generally to the south through the western portion of the project site. Wetland B had undergone prior land use manipulations to include forest harvest, clearing, grading, excavation, fencing, culveI: installation, internal and external roadway development, and the development of surrounding properties. Wetland B exhibited a forest plant community. Wetland B appeared to be hydrologically supported by seasonal stormwater sheetflow, from the surrounding area, stormwater from the South 356t" Street Corridor and adjacent parcels, seasonal ground water seeps, and soils characteristics. Onsite Wetland B appeared to remain ponded/saturated following seasonal storm events and to remain saturated to the surface into at least the early part of the growing season. Areas within the lower portion of the wetland would be expected to remain saturated throughout the growing season. Onsite Wetland B met the USFWS criteria for classification of palustrine, forested, seasonally flooded/saturated (PFOE). Wetland B had been identified by the City of Federal Way as a Category 1 Wetland. This wetland was further identified as a part of the West Hylebos Creek System. Wetland B was identified by survey as 115,876 square feet in size onsite. Wetland B was also identified to extend offsite. Onsite Drainage: This assessment did not identify any continuously defined stream channels within the project site. IF such a stream channel were present within the area offsite to the west, such a stream channel would appear best defined as a City of Federal Way Major Stream based on downstream fish utilization. The standard City of Federal Way buffer for such a Major Stream would be fully encompassed onsite within the defined areas for Wetland B and its associated 200-foot buffer 8 08136 WETLAND FUNCTION AND VALUE ASSESSMENT Wetlands are known to perform significant roles in the ecosystem, some of which are of immediate value to society. These roles vary greatly with the size, type, hydrology, vegetation, and location of wetland areas. Although the ecological functions performed by these wetlands are complex, interrelated, and difficult to assess and quantify, methods have been developed for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Adamus et al. 1987: Reppert et al. 1979). The functions provided by wetlands include hydrologic support, shoreline protection, stormwater and floodwater storage, water quality, groundwater recharge, and provision of wildlife habitat. The HYDROLOGIC SUPPORT FUNCTION is defined by the measure of hydrologic stability and environmental integrity that the wetland provides. This function is measured by the frequency of inundation and saturation by tidal actions, stream flow, runoff, and precipitation. Wetlands permanently inundated or saturated, or intertidal wetlands are valued as high. Medium valued wetlands are seasonally flooded or are open water systems that remain saturated during most of the growing season. Wetlands that are intermittently flooded or hydrologically isolated are considered of low value. The SHORELINE PROTECTION FUNCTION is defined by the measure of shielding from wave action, erosion, or storm damage that a wetland provides. This function is measured by the location and width of the wetland along shoreline areas, types of vegetation present, and the extent of development along the shoreline. A high value is given to wetlands along a shoreline that have a width greater than 200 yards and dense woody vegetation. A medium value is given to a wetland with a width of 100 to 200 yards, sparse woody vegetation, and dense emergent vegetation. Wetlands less than 100 yards in width and emergent or lacking vegetation are considered of low value. The STORMWATER AND FLOODWATER STORAGE FUNCTION is defined by the ability of a wetland to store water and retard flow during periods of flood or storm discharge. Wetlands of larger size are generally considered to have greater ability to provide this function. In addition, wetlands nearer to urban or potentially develop -able areas are also considered to provide greater flood protections than wetlands that are in undeveloped areas. The WATER QUALITY FUNCTION is defined by the physical, biological, and chemical processes which wetlands provide to naturally purify water. This function removes organic and mineral particulates through natural filtration. In general, wetlands of greater size, more dense vegetation, and those that are close to point sources of pollution are considered to be of higher value. Wetlands that are small (<5 acres), lacking dense vegetation, and not close to point or non -point sources of pollution are considered of low value. The GROUNDWATER RECHARGE FUNCTION is defined by the interaction of the underlying geology and soils, and the surface topography. This function provides for 9 08136 the movement of surface water into groundwater systems. Important to this function is wetland size, period of inundation, and depth of standing water within the wetland. High value is given to permanently inundated wetlands greater than 10 acres in size. Medium value is given to wetlands that are seasonally flooded and 5 to 10 acres is size. Wetlands less than 5 acres in size, isolated, and temporarily saturated are considered of low value. The NATURAL BIOLOGICAL FUNCTION is defined by the complexity of physical habitats and biological species within the wetland area. The value given to a wetland depends upon its ability to provide habitat for nesting (spawning), incubation, feeding, rearing, and cover of aquatic and terrestrial animal and fish species. In addition, the ability of a wetland to provide support for varying food chains is an important element in value assessment. Wetlands of high species diversity, three or more habitat types, unique habitat features, large in size, and associated with a permanent stream or tidal marsh is considered of high value. Wetlands with moderate species diversity, two habitat types, moderate in size, and associated with an intermittent stream or high salt marsh are considered of medium value. A low value is given to wetlands of low species diversity, small size, and isolated. These six functions are rated low, moderate, or high, based on the criteria outlined above. These criteria are guidelines compiled from Adamus (1987) and Reppert (1979) and professional judgment must be exercised in assessing these criteria. Overall values for a wetland are assigned, based on a synthesis of individual values. In addition to intrinsic functions, extrinsic functions are also recognized. These extrinsic functions provide social values that have indirect benefits to wetlands. Education and recreational opportunities are most often mentioned as extrinsic functions. Associated values are often in the eye of the beholder and are thus difficult to evaluate. As such, these functions are not rated, but are nonetheless important when considering creation, restoration, or enhancement projects. ONSITE WETLAND VALUATION Wetland A was evaluated following the functional value assessment process noted above and defined to exhibit an overall low functional value. Water Quality Benefits and Hydrologic Support (low) - This wetland had a total area of 2,775 square feet and had been modified by prior land use actions. This wetland appeared to seasonally pond This wetland appeared to retain and convey less than 30% of the runoff which occurred within the local area and exhibited a vegetation density greater than 90%. The primary water quality benefit provided by this wetland included biofiltration of surface stormwater from onsite areas. is Stormwater Storage and Groundwater Recharge (low) - This wetland had a total area of 2,775 square feet. This wetland had been modified by prior land use actions. Wetland A appeared to retain a limited amount of seasonal 10 08136 stormwater a Natural Biological Function (low) —This wetland had been modified by prior land use actions and was dominated by Douglas spiraea. This wetland exhibited no unique habitat features. Wetland B was evaluated following the functional value assessment process noted above and defined to exhibit an overall moderate to high functional value. • Water Quality Benefits and Hydrologic support (moderatelhigh) - This wetland appeared to have a combined area larger than twenty-five (25) acres in total combined size and had been modified by prior land use actions. This wetland was identified to seasonally pond and was identified by mapping resources to contain a Hylebos Creek. This wetland appeared to retain and convey more than 80% of the runoff which occurred within the local area and exhibited a vegetation density greater than 80%. The primary water quality benefit provided by this wetland included biofiltration of surface stormwater from public roadways, onsite and offsite areas. • Stormwater Storage and Groundwater Recharge (high) - This wetland was identified to extend offsite and appeared to have a combined area greater than twenty-five (25) acres in total size. This wetland had been modified by prior land use actions. Wetland B appeared to retain a high amount of seasonal stormwater following rainfall events. • Natural Biological Function (moderate/high) — This wetland had been modified by prior land use actions and exhibited a moderate range of plant diversity and vegetation complexity. This wetland was associated with a stream corridor and exhibited a moderate amount of unique habitat features. WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS The onsite assessment of wildlife species presence was also completed as a part of the onsite assessment of wetland and drainage corridor characteristics. It is unlikely based upon the existing site conditions, coupled with adjacent land uses, that species which require large areas of undisturbed habitat would exist onsite. OBSERVED SPECIES Onsite assessment was completed during October 2008. In addition, Habitat Technologies had completed prior site assessments within the surrounding area. Avian species that were observed to utilize the habitats provided by the project site or that may potentially utilize these habitats included red tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pifeatus), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), tree 11 08136 swallow (Tachycineta bicolor), brown creeper (Certhia familiaris), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), American crow (Corvus brachynchos), American robin (Turdus migratorius), dark eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), Steller's jay (Cyanocitta stellen), starling (Stumus vulgaris), black capped chickadee (Parus atricapillus), bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), Northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), sharp -shinned hawk (Accipiterstriatus), merlin (Falco columbarius), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), Western screech owl (Otus kennicottr), barred owl (Strix varia), common raven (Corvus corax), rock dove (Columbia Livia), red winged blackbird (Agelaius phoenisues), Brewer's blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus), marsh wren (Cistothorus palustirs), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), violet green swallow (Tachycineta thallassina), barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), brown creeper (Certhia familiaris), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), Steller's jay (Cyanocitta stollen), starling (Stumus vulgaris), black capped chickadee (Parus atricapillus), hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus), rufous hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus), and great blue heron (Ardea herodias). Many of these avian species would be expected to feed throughout the project site. Many of these species would also be expected to nest within the habitats provided by the project site. As a result of its forested character and lack of long-term ponding into the growing season the project site did not appear to provide habitats suitable for concentrations of waterfowl. Mammal species that were observed to utilize the habitats provided by the project site or that may potentially utilize these habitats included black tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus), coyote (Canis latrans), raccoon (Procyon lotor), porcupine (Erithizon dorsatum), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), opossum (Didelphis virginianus), eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), Townsend mole (Scapanus townsendh), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), vales (Microtus spp.), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), shrew (Sorex spp.), and bats (Myotis spp.). The project site also provided habitats for Pacific treefrog (Hyla regilla), red -legged frog (Rana aurora), roughskin newt (Taricha granulosa), and common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis). Onsite assessment did not include a specific assessment of fish species. During the onsite assessment no portion of the project site exhibited surface water. In addition, the movement of surface water within the Wetland B Corridor appeared seasonal and did not appear to exhibit a continuously defined channel. The placement of a control culvert at South 3591h Street also appeared to have created a passage barrier to the upstream movement of fish from south of South 359t" Street to north of South 359t' Street. MOVEMENT CORRIDORS 12 08136 Numerous active wildlife trails were identified throughout the central and western portions of the project site and into adjacent parcels that allowed the movement of mammals. Wetland B also provided a movement corridor for a wide variety of aquatic and terrestrial species. STATE PRIORITY SPECIES Game Species: A couple of species identified by the State of Washington as "Priority Species" potentially may utilize the project site and immediately adjacent habitats. These species are identified as "game species" and are regulated by the State of Washington through recreational hunting bag limits, harvest seasons, and harvest area restrictions. These species include black -tailed deer and mourning dove. State Monitored: State Monitored species are native to Washington but require habitat that has limited availability, are indicators of environmental quality, require further assessment, have unresolved taxonomy, may be competing with other species of concern, or have significant popular appeal. Two State Monitored species — great blue heron and merlin may potentially use the habitats provided within the project site. State Candidate: State Candidate species are presently under review by the State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) for possible listing as endangered, threatened, or sensitive. A single State Candidate species - pileated woodpecker - was identified during the assessment to utilize the habitats provided within and adjacent to Wetland B. As a result of the protective buffer required by the City these woodpecker usage areas were also noted as outside of the areas of potential future development. Of special note: the WDFW "Salmonscape" mapping program has identified the documented presence of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus fshawyfscha) within West Hylebos Creek more than one-half of a mile downstream of the project site (downstream of South 373`d Street) and potential rearing habitats for this species more than one -quarter of a mile downstream of the project site. State Sensitive: State Sensitive species are native to Washington and is vulnerable to declining and is likely to become endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range without cooperative management or removal of threats. No State Sensitive species were observed, or have been documented, within the project site. In addition, the project site does not provide critical habitats for listed State Sensitive species. However, a single State Sensitive species — bald eagle — has been observed within the project area and may potentially overfly the project site. State Threatened: State Threatened species means any wildlife species native to the state of Washington that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout a significant portion of its range within the state without cooperative management or removal of threats. The project site did not provide critical habitats for listed State Threatened species. 13 08136 State Endangered: State endangered species means any species native to the state of Washington that is seriously threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the state. The project site did not provide critical habitats for listed State Endangered species. FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES No Federal listed endangered or threatened species, or critical habitats for such listed species, were observed within the project site. However, bald eagle — a federally listed species of concern has been observed within the general area of the project site and may occasionally overfly the project site. Of special note: the WDFW "Salmonscape" mapping program has identified the documented presence of Chinook salmon (a federally listed threatened species) within West Hylebos Creek more than one-half of a mile downstream of the project site (downstream of South 373Id Street) and potential rearing habitats for this species more than one -quarter of a mile downstream of the project site. REGULATORY CONSIDERATION The proposed alteration of lands defined by various federal, state, and local authority rules and regulations as "wetlands," "streams," or "critical areas" raises environmental concerns that are generally addressed in the development review process. These concerns center on the development's potential adverse impacts to the structure, function, value, and size of these areas. Such adverse impacts may include a reduction in wildlife habitats, reduced surface water quality, reduced water retention, a reduced ground water recharge rate, reduced plant species diversity, and the reduction in the function and value of other associated characteristics. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS - Section 404 Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States" without a permit from the Corps of Engineers (Corps). The Corps has jurisdiction over freshwater systems waterward from the ordinary high water line of a water body or waterward from the upland boundary of the adjacent wetland. The definition of fill materials includes the replacement of aquatic areas with dry land, grading which changes the surface contour of a wetland, and mechanized land clearing in wetlands. For the purposes of Section 404 permitting the Corps makes the final determination as to whether an area meets the wetland definition and would be subject to regulation under the Corps program. Applications to the Corps for permitting actions must follow the 1987 Manual wetland delineation format. Currently the Corps has two specific types of permits which apply to wetland fill proposals. These two types are a series of specific Nationwide Permits and the Individual Permit. The Nationwide Permit process identifies specific categories of 14 08136 work that can be undertaken following a set of specific conditions applicable to each Nationwide Permit number. The Corps requires an Individual Permit where proposed activities within an identified jurisdictional wetland area cannot be authorized under one of the Nationwide Permits. Within the Individual Permit process the Corps undertakes a much more in-depth review of the proposed project and the proposed impacts. The Corps must evaluate whether the benefits derived from the project outweigh the foreseeable environmental impacts of the project's completion. All projects that proceed forward using either one of the Nationwide Permits or the Individual Permit process must also comply with the provisions of the Endangered Species Act. As defined by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions the Corps of Engineers does not typically regulated "isolated" wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Under this decision "isolated" wetlands do not exhibit a continuous surface water connection to other, downstream aquatic system. STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Proposed action undertaken through either of the Corps of Engineers processes (Nationwide, Individual, or isolated) are also subject to the provisions of the Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Certification Process. Projects that may be exempt from Corps of Engineers Section 404 jurisdiction may still require review by the Washington State Department of Ecology to ensure consistency with State water quality protection provisions. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY - Critical Areas Regulations Chapter 22 The City of Federal Way regulates activities in and around wetlands, streams, and other critical areas through Critical Areas Regulations Chapter 22. The City has adopted the following criteria to define wetlands and streams for purposes of this regulation (22-- 1357). Wetlands and Streams Defined Category 1 Wetlands meet one of the following criteria. a. Contain the presence of species or documented habitat recognized by state or federal agencies as endangered, threatened or potentially extirpated plant, fish or animal species; or b. Contain the presence of plant associations of infrequent occurrence, irreplaceable ecological functions, or exceptional local significance including but not limited to estuarine systems, peat bogs and fens, mature forested wetlands, groundwater exchange areas, significant habitat or unique educational sites; or c. Have three or more wetland classes, one of which is open water. 15 08136 Category 2 Wetlands are greater than 2,500 square feet in area, do not exhibit the characteristics of Category 1 wetlands, and meet one of the following criteria: a. Are contiguous with water bodies or tributaries to water bodies which under normal circumstances contain or support a fish population, including streams where flow is intermittent; or b. Are greater than one acre in size in its entirety; or c. Are less than or equal to one acre in size in its entirety and have two or more wetland classes, with neither class dominated by non-native invasive species. Category 3 Wetlands are greater than 2,500 square feet in area and do not exhibit those characteristics of Category 1 or 2 wetlands. Major Stream means any stream, and the tributaries to any stream, which contains or supports, or under normal circumstances contains or supports, resident or migratory fish. If there exists a natural permanent blockage on the stream course which precludes the upstream movement of anadromous salmonid fish, then that portion of the stream which is downstream of the natural permanent blockage shall be regulated as a major stream. Minor Stream means any stream that does not meet the definition of "major stream." • Wetland and Stream Buffers The City of Federal Way has established the following standard protective buffers for regulated wetlands and streams. WETLAND OR STREAM STANDARD CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PROTECTIVE BUFFER WIDTH___ Categoy 1 Wetland 200 feet Category 2 Wetland 100 feet _ Category 3 Wetland 50 feet >10,000sgft wetland 25 feet < 10,000sgft wetland Major Stream 100 feet Minor Stream 50 feet The protective buffer is measured perpendicular from the identified wetland boundary or from the ordinary high water mark of a stream. The City of Federal Way may allow intrusions into regulated wetlands, streams, and the associated protective buffers for such areas based on the following: Structures, improvements, and land surface modification within regulated wetland buffers (22-1359). 16 08136 (a) Generally. Except as allowed in this section, no land surface modification may take place and no structure or improvement may be located within a regulated wetland buffer. (b) Buffer Averaging. Buffers may be averaged only when the wetland or the buffer which is proposed to be reduced contains habitat types which have been so permanently impacted that reduced buffers do not pose a detriment to the existing or expected habitat functions. Through process Ill, the applicant must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the director of community development that the proposed buffer averaging will meet all of the following criteria: (1) Reduced buffers will not affect the water quality entering a wetland or stream; (2) Reduced buffers will not adversely affect the existing quality of wildlife habitat within the wetland or the buffer; (3) Reduced buffers will not result in unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards; and (4) Reduced buffers will not be detrimental to any other public or private properties, including the loss of open space. At no point shall the buffer width be reduced to less than 50 percent of the required standard buffer width, unless the buffer, in existing conditions, has already been permanently eliminated by previous, legally permitted actions. The total area contained within the buffer after averaging shall be equal to the area required for standard buffer dimensions. (c) Essential public facilities, public utilities and other public improvements. The director of community development may permit the placement of an essential public facility, public utility or other public improvements in a regulated wetland buffer if he or she determines that the line or improvement must traverse the buffer because no feasible or alternative location exists based on an analysis of technology and system efficiency. The specific location and extent of the intrusion into the buffer must constitute the minimum necessary encroachment to meet the requirements of the public facility or utility. (d) Minor improvements. Minor improvements such as footbridges, walkways and benches may be located within the buffer from a regulated wetland if approved through process Ill, based on the following criteria: (1) it will not adversely affect water quality; (2) It will not adversely affect the existing quality of the wetland's or buffer's wildlife habitat; (3) It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities; 17 08136 (4) It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards; and (5) It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor to the city as a whole. (e) Buffer reduction. Through process III, the director of community development may reduce the standard wetland buffer width by up to 50%, but in no case to less than 25 feet, on a case -by -case basis, if the project includes a buffer enhancement plan which utilizes appropriate native vegetation and clearly substantiates that an enhanced buffer will improve and provide additional protection of wetland functions and values, and where one of the following conditions can be demonstrated: (1) Existing conditions are such that the required standard buffer exists in a permanently altered state (e.g., roadways, paved parking lots, permanent structures, etc.) which does not provide any buffer function, then the buffer can be reduced for that portion where the intrusions are existing. (2) Except for Category 1 wetlands, existing conditions are such that the wetland has been permanently impacted by adjacent development activities, as evidenced by such things as persistent human alterations or the dominance of non-native invasive species. (3) A project on an existing single-family lot platted prior to the incorporation of the city, where imposition of the standard buffer would preclude reasonable use of the lot. The director shall have the authority to determine if buffer averaging is warranted on the subject property and, if so, may require additional buffer area on other portions of the perimeter of the sensitive area. {f) Buffer Modification. Other than as specified in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, the city may approve any request to locate an improvement or engage in land surface modification within the buffer from a regulated wetland through process IV, based on the following criteria: (1) It will not adversely affect water quality; (2) It will not adversely affect the existing quality of the wetland's or buffer's wildlife habitat; (3) It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities; (4) It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards; and (5) It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor to the city as a whole, including the loss of open space. 18 08136 Any modification under this subsection shall not reduce the standard buffer by more than 50%, and in no case shall the remaining buffer be less than 25 feet. The city may require, as a condition to any modification granted under this subsection, preparation and implementation of a wetland buffer enhancement plan to protect wetland and buffer functions and values. (g) Revegetation. The applicant shall stabilize all areas left exposed after land surface modification with native vegetation normally associated with the buffer. (h) Buffer Increases. The director shall require increased environmentally sensitive area buffer widths on a case -by -case basis when the director determines that a larger buffer is necessary to protect environmentally sensitive area functions, values or hazards based on site -specific conditions. This determination shall be supported by appropriate documentation showing that additional buffer width is reasonably related to protection of environmentally sensitive area functions and values, or protection of public health, safety and welfare. Such determination shall be attached as permit conditions. The determination shall demonstrate that at least one of the following factors is met: (1) There is habitat for species listed as threatened or endangered by state or federal agencies present within the sensitive area and/or its buffer, and additional buffer is necessary to maintain viable functional habitat; (2) There are conditions or features adjacent to the buffer, such as steep slopes or erosion hazard areas, which over time may pose an additional threat to the viability of the buffer and/or the sensitive area. In such circumstances the city may choose to impose those buffers, if any, associated with the condition or feature posing the threat in addition to, or to a maximum, beyond the buffer required for the subject sensitive area. SELECTED DEVELOPMENT ACTION The proposed development of the project site includes commercial facilities as well as residential units consistent with the City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan and local zoning. The proposed development within the project site would not require any adverse impacts to identified onsite wetlands, associated buffers, identified listed species, or critical habitats for listed species. In addition, the proposed project would locate all buildings, parking, roadways and stormwater facilities outside of the standard buffers to be established in accordance with the City of Federal Way Critical Areas Regulations Chapter 22. As an amenity to the overall site development proposal a recreational, five (5) foot wide trail system would be installed within the established onsite wetland buffer areas in accordance with FWCC22-1359(d). This trail system would utilize approximately 5,973 square feet of existing area within the established buffer. 19 08136 PROPOSED STORMWATER FACILITY The proposed overall selected development action would install a stormwater facility generally to the east of the eastern buffer boundary for Wetland A. This storm facility would focus on the pre-treatment of seasonal stormwater runoff from the developed portion of the project site, seasonal stormwater retention, and final release the treated stormwater via a dispersal trench adjacent to the upslope eastern boundary of Wetland A. The release of seasonal stormwater from this facility would provide hydrologic support to Wetland A and potentially Wetland B via shallow groundwater to generally mimic existing hydrologic support provided to these wetlands via seasonal surface water runoff from the areas of the project site to be developed. As such, the development of this stormwater facility would not adversely impact the identified wetland areas and would ensure continued hydrologic support to these wetlands. PROPOSED RECREATIONAL TRAIL SYSTEM The design of the recreational trail system has focused on the placement of the majority of the trail system within the buffer areas to be established for the onsite wetlands. In addition, the majority of the trail system would be located within that portion of the buffer that had historically been utilized as livestock pasture and is presently dominated by grasses, herbs, and clumps of invasive shrubs. That portion of the proposed trail system to be located within the remnant forested area of the project site would follow existing internal roadways and trails as much as possible and be constructed to minimize impacts to existing desirable vegetation. • The development of the trail system shall utilize pervious asphalt to ensure no adverse affect to water quality, drainage patterns, soil erosion, or stormwater retention within the onsite buffer area. • The selection of pervious asphalt for the construction of the recreational trail system shall provide an environmentally friendly, stable base for the enjoyment and accessibility. • The development of the recreational trail system would include the installation of a protective split rail fence adjacent to the trail to limit access by pedestrian traffic within the buffer to the trail system. The installation of this fencing would also allow for the unrestricted movement of onsite wildlife species. • City of Federal Way Wetland Buffer Boundary signs would be posted along the outer boundary of the established buffer. • The development of the recreational trail system would add value to the character of the proposed development. This trail system would provide an environment for exercise, bird watching, and nature enjoyment. za 08136 STANDARD OF CARE This wetland, drainage corridor, and critical habitat assessment study and delineation report has been completed by Habitat Technologies for use by The Abbey Road Group. Prior to extensive site planning the wetland and drainage corridor boundaries, wetland and drainage corridor classifications, wetland and drainage corridor ratings, the defined critical habitats, and proposed protective buffers should be reviewed and verified by the City of Federal Way and potentially other resource and permitting agencies. Habitat Technologies has provided professional services that are in accordance with the degree of care and skill generally accepted in the nature of the work accomplished. No other warranties are expressed or implied. Habitat Technologies is not responsible for design costs incurred before this document is approved by the appropriate resource and permitting agencies. Bryan W. Peck Wetland Biologist Thomas D. Deming Certified Professional Wetland Scientis wl� L 21 08136 FIGURES zz 08136 0,55C 7 U V lk JLake ,� A HABITAT TECHNOLOGIES Figure 2 NW1 Resource Mapping HABITAT TECHNOLOGIES yi r\ A Figure 3 PHS Resource Mapping T21-ON R4-OE r k� I N G { r; HABITAT TECHNOLOGIES 9 Q PLSS Townships RNERS(1:24.000) DNR 7 rans 24k '. PLSS Sections • • Paved Road CITIES Unpaved Road Tl Road Surface Unknown Major Cities Trall Cities Railroad W H B Towns Aboandonod/Orphan rSs n Figure 4 3 WATERBODIES (1:24,000) WDFW Mapping COUNTY El EVAT ION' TRANSPORTATION P.,, .1 R., I WATER BODIES 14 . 'i� 40'i,.I.l 11 0I.. Wmu fW% C.,%d B\,, STREAMS P-i Suc.miWntcrTyjvl-.F.N U. Wo Ami X. jjLn.j)ped Per WAC 222-16 IN ETLUNDS • Wma T)p. Change 1\y, A F—od 1S-P* B other HABITAT Figure 5 TECHNOLOGIES WDNR Mapping I PwIfff, C E C E C E —;W ... .127 'c"N S 356TIl ST FCE 21214 CO 25"14F*2 14 H C E M" cr ()31po Apia RS 15.0 RS1 5.1 0 NIM x" wqwr '1111:4wi I IN 1110 W 11 4 RM Mw 26! UX�3 1514 Icl :0115,0111 J, Wmnis --sill S 359T11 ST S36071 313WO Nclollm Rs 15.0 ]A]; INIM.", FIR 35112 MG Bilt nauoul RS1 5.0 w HABITI AT Figure 6 TECHNOLOGIES City of Federal Way Mapping a c :) 19 rn <o Z 7 N 0 N }� n[n rzS 0066,1 oos n OwlrUg At 10 0MM9 OOS ZS DOP LS ' pGE9fLS •;i REFERENCE LIST Adamus, P.R., E.J. Clairain Jr., R.D. Smith, and R.E. Young. 1987. Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET); Volume II: Methodology, Operational Draft Technical Report Y-87, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Office of Biological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, FWS/OBS-79/31. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss, Hitchcock, C.L., A. Cronquist. 1977. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington. Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington. Revised, Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #04-06-025. Reppert, R.T., W. Sigleo, E. Stakhiv, L. Messman, and C. Meyers. 1979. Wetland Values - Concepts and Methods for Wetland Evaluation. Research Report 79-R1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soils Conservation Service. Soils Survey of King County Area Washington. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Publication Number 96-94. Washington State Department of Fisheries, Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization, Volume 1., 1975. 23 08136 APPENDIX A -- FIELD DATA FORDS 24 08136 � rw i l _ r • .n Alt ',o; i,� 4w �'� au •.`7�.�.. Y jj A ,0 °' co j� as N y U) , a EL N ti 7 • A•' - a N � a IV N Jet m N A i •'.J (J1 CV N h O� f® O `-. N ti i1 P 1 r,= �f' a0 1� �� f'. .W .t S' i,� �:/ � � >< 1 �. � .ram `� •� �� y � �r � F. � i Ir N•N M •slr" Lx ,s �J NN N f ]]]yyyaaa M a SAMPLE PLOT SPB 1 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project Site Parcels 292104-90951-9107 Date: 28 OCT 08 ApplicantlOwner: County: King Investigator: Habitat Technol❑ ies State: Washington Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO Community ID: Is the area a potential Problem area? YES NO Transect ID: VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an *) r,..—:--- 4 01-4 Cnoninc S#rnIlI Indicator Dominant Plant S eCieS iCa 1.+ C.. isus sco arius S UPL 2. Rubus ursinus S FACU 3. Galium a arine H FACU 4. Poa spo. H 5. 6. 7. 8. Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACK or FAC (except FAC-). Include species noted (*) as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Remarks: Northern portion of site — area dominated HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph Other No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: None Depth to Saturated Soil: None Remarks: Onsite assessment during fall 2008 0% Scots broom Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated Saturated in upper 12" Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " Water -Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Soil appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events Map Unit Name: Everett gravelly sandy loam Taxonomy (Subgroup) SAMPLE PLOT SPB 9 Drainage Class: Somewhat excessive Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type YES NO Profile Description: Depth Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, inches Munseil Moist Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Rhizos heres, etc. 0-1 8 Hydric Soil Indicators: 10YR 3/3 Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor . Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Remarks: : None Gravelly sandy loam Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer Organic Streaking Listed on Local Hydric Solis List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Soil appears to drain moderately well followin seasonal storm events Prominent redoximorphic features NOT present Field indicators of h dric soil NOT present. T WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES NO Hydric Soils Present? YES NO Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Remarks: WETLAND CRITERIA NOT MET Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? NO Northern portion of site — area dominated by Scots broom Area appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events No field evidence of wetland hydrology atterns SAMPLE PLOT SPB 2 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1887 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project Site Parcels 292104-9095 /-9107 Date: 28 OCT 08 Applicant/Owner: County: King Investigator: Habitat Tech nolo ies State: Washington Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YYES NO ES NO CommTransunity ID: . Is the area a potential Problem area? VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morohological adaptations to wetlands with an *) _. r,1__L n ..:.. C+roli Lm Inrfirafnr LJ V11111 1. Csa Pseudotsu a menziesii T FACU 2. C lisus sco arias S UPL 3. Rubus ursinus S FACU 4. Galium a arine H FACU 5. Taraxacum officinale H FACU 6. Poa spp. H --- 7. 8. Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC-). Include species noted (*) as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks: Area dominated by Scots broom HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph Other No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: None Depth to Saturated Soil: _- None 0% Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated Saturated in upper 12" Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns In Wetlands Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " Water -Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Onsite assessment during fall 2008 Soil appears to drain moderate) well following seasonal storm events Map Unit Name: Everett gravelly sandy loam Taxonomy (Subgroup) SAMPLE PLOT SPB 2 Drainage Class: Somewhat excessive Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type YES NO Profile Description: Depth Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, inches Munsell Moist Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Rhizos heres, etc. 0-4 4-18 10YR 3/2 10YR 313 Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidlc Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Remarks: : None None _Gravelly sandy loam Gravelly sandy loam Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer Organic Streaking Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Soil appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events Prominent redoximor hic features NOT eresent Field indicators of h dric soil NOT present. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES NO Hydric Soils Present? YES NO Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Remarks: WETLAND CRITERIA NOT MET Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? NO Area dominated by Scots broom Area appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events No field evidence of wetland hydrology atterns SAMPLE PLOT SPB 3 Project Site Applicant/Owner: Investigator: DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Parcels 292104-90951-9107 Habitat Technologies Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO is the area a potential Problem area? YES NO Date: 128 OCT 08 County: King State: Washington Community ID: TransectlD: VEGETATION (Note those species observed to haves mornholoaical adaptations to wetlands with an I _. r�i_�■ o. .:.. Cfrsfttm Inriin.nmr iJVfl 1. 2. 3. it JC'-t Cytisus sco arius Rubus ursinus Cirsium arvensis ----- S S H - UPL FACU FACU+ 4. Poe spP. H --- 5. 6. 7. 8. Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC-). Include species noted (*) as showing morphological ada tations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks: Area dominated by Scots broom HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph !~ Other No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: �— None Depth to Saturated Soil: None 0% Wetland Hydrology Indicators: _ Inundated Saturated in upper 12" Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " Water -Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Onsite assessment during fall 2008 Soil appears to drain moderate l well following seasonal storm events Map Unit Name: Everett gravelly sandy loam Taxonomy (Subgroup) SAMPLE PLOT SPB 3 Drainage Class: Somewhat excessive Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type YES NO Profile Description: Depth Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, inches Munsell Moist Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Rhizos hares, etc. 0-3 10YR 3/2 3-18 10YR 313 Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Remarks: None None Gravelly sandy loam Gravelly sandy loam Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer Organic Streaking Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Soil apeears to drain moderately well followin seasonal storm events Prominent redoximor hic features NOT present Field indicators of h dric soil NOT present. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophyt€c Vegetation Present? YES NO Hydric Soils Present? YES NO Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Remarks: Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? NO WETLAND CRITERIA NOT MET Area dominated by Scots broom Area appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events No field evidence of wetland hydrology atterns SAMPLE PLOT SPB 4 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project Site Parcels 292104-90951-9107 Date: 28 OCT 08 Applicant/Owner: County: Icing Investigator: Habitat Technologies State: Washington Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO YES NO CommTransunity ID: . Is the area a potential Problem area? VEGETATION (Nate those species observed to have moroholooical adaptations to wetlands with an *) C.,eniee GtrgfLIM Inrlicalor 1. „P rus s~ -- -- T '---- 2. C tlsus scO arlus S UPL 3. Rubus procera S FACU 4. Rubus ursinus S FACU 5. Cirsium arvensis H FACU+ 6. Pteridium a uiflum H FACU 7. Dact lis lomerata H FACU 8. Poa s . H I" - Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC-). Include species noted (*) as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks: Prior managed pasture area HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph ~— Other No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: None Depth to Saturated Soil: None Remarks: Onsite assessment during fall 2008 U% Wetland Hydrology Indicators: inundated Saturated in upper 12" Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " Water -Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Soil appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events SAMPLE PLOT SPS 4 Map Unit Name: Everett gravelly sandy loam Drainage Class: Somewhat excessive Taxonomy (Subgroup) Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type YES NO Profile Description: Depth Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, inches Munseli Moist Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Rhizos heres, etc. 0-3 10YR 3/2 None Gravelly sandy loam 3-18 10YR 3/3 None Gravelly sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Concretions Histic Eplpedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Solis List Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Soil appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events Prominent redoximor hic features NOT present Field indicators of h dric soil NOT present. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES NO Hydric Soils Present? YES NO Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? NO Remarks: WETLAND CRITERIA NOT MET Prior managed pasture area Area appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events No field evidence of wetland hydrology atterns SAMPLE PLOT SPB 6 Project Site Applicant/Owner: Investigator: DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COI~ WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Parcels 292104-90951-9107 Habitat Technologies Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO Is the area a potential Problem area? YES NO Date: 128 OCT 08 County: King State: Washington Community ID: Transect ID: VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an *) �_�:... 01-1 tratll.r, 1r,rifratnr Dominant Plant S ecie5 Stratum Indicator 1.+ Pseudotsu a menzlesii T -- FACU 2. Acer circlnatum S FAC- 3. C tisus sco arius S UPL 4. Rubus ursinus S FACU 5. Pteridium a uilium H FACU 6. A rostis tenuis H FAC 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC-). Include species noted (*) as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks: Adiacent to shallow depression HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph Other No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: None Depth to Saturated Soil: None 33% Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated Saturated in upper 12" Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " Water -Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Onsite assessment during fall 2008 Soil appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events Map Unit Name: Everett gravelly sandy loam Taxonomy (Subgroup) SAMPLE PLOT SPB 6 Drainage Class: Somewhat excessive Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type YES NO Profile Description: Depth Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, inches Munsell Moist Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Rhizoscheres, etc. O-4 4-18 Hydric Soil Indicators: IOYR 3/2 i OYR 3/3 Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors None None Sandy loam Gravelly sandy loam Concretions High Organic Content In Surface Layer Organic Streaking Listed on local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: : Soil appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events Prominent redoximor hic features NOT present Field indicators of h dric soil NOT present. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES NO Hydric Soils Present? YES NO Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Remarks: Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? NO WETLAND CRITERIA NOT MET Adjacent to shallow depression Area appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events No field evidence of wetland h drolo atterns SAMPLE PLOT SPB 7 Project Site ApplicantlOwner: Investigator: DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Parcels 292104-90951-9107 Habitat Tech Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO Is the area a potential Problem urea? YES NO Date: 128 OCT 08 County: King State: Washington Community ID: Transect ID: VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an') T. P rus spp. T ----- 9. 2. P rus fusca T FACW 10. 3. S iraea dou lasil S FACW 11. 4. Rubus Rrocera S FACU 12. 5. Rubus ursinus S FACU 13. 6. Pteridlum a uilium H FACU 14. 7. 15. $ 16. Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC-). Include species noted (') as showing mor holo ical adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks: Adjacent to shallow depression HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph Other No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: None Depth to Saturated Soil: �— None 40% Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated Saturated in upper 12" Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " Water -Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Onsite assessment during fall 2008 Soil appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events Map Unit Name: Everett gravelly sandy loam Taxonomy (Subgroup) SAMPLE PLOT SPB 7 Drainage Class: Somewhat excessive Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type YES NO Profile Description: Depth Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Rhizospheres, etc. 0-3 Sandy loam 10YR 3/2 None 3-18 1 OYR 4/3 None Gravel!y sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Suifidic Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gieyed or Low Chroma Colors Remarks: : Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer Organic Streaking Listed on Local Hydric Solis List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Soil appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events Prominent redoximorphic features NOT present Field indicators of hydric soil NOT present. _ WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES NO Hydric Soils Present? YES NO Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? NO Remarks: WETLAND CRITERIA NOT MET Adjacent to shallow depression Area appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events No field evidence of wetland hydrology patterns SAMPLE PLOT SPB 8 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project site Parcels 292104-9095 /-9107 Date: 28 OCT 08 Applicant/Owner: County: King Investigator: Habitat Technologies State: Washington Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YYES NO ES NO CommTransunity ID: Is the area a potential Problem area. VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have mornholoalcal adaptations to wetlands with an *) . ,�_ . �... :... Q1rnfi Em indinninr iJ V,,-,,,u„I 1. a Cratae us monogyna T FACU+ 2. Tus fusca Ty T FACW 3. P rus 6pp. T ----- 4. Rubus ursinus S FACU 5. 6. 7. 8. Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC-). Include species noted (*) as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks: Adiacent to shallow de ression HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph Other No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: None Depth to Saturated Soil: None 33% Weiland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated Saturated in upper 12" Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " Water -Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks' Onsite assessment during fall 2008 Soil appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events Evidence of ponding Map Unit Name: Everett gravelly sandy loam Taxonomy (Subgroup) SAMPLE PLOT SPB 8 Drainage Class: Somewhat excessive Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type YES NO Profile Description: Depth Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, inches Munsell Moist Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Rhizos heres, etc. 0-18 Hydric Soil Indicators: 10YR 4/2 Histosol Histic Epipedon Sultidic Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Remarks: : 10YR 4/6 Few/prominent Sandy loam Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer Organic Streaking Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Soil appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events Prominent redoximor hic features NOT present Field indicators of h dric soil NOT present. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES NO Hydric Soils Present? YES NO Weiland Hydrology Present? YES NO Remarks: WETLAND CRITERIA NOT MET Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? NO Adjacent to shallow depression Area appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events No field evidence of wetland hydrology atterns Wetland Edge SAMPLE PLOT SPB 10 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project Site Parcels 292104-9095 /-9107 Date: 28 OCT 08 Applicant/Owner: County: King Investigator: Habitat Technolo iles State: Washington Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO Community ID: Is the area a potential Problem area? YES NO Transect ID: VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an *) R.......:--- 4. 01--f Cn iae ' tTMJF itn Indicator Dominant nt S ecie tra Um ndic tar 1. P rus fusca T FACW 2. Rubus laciniatus S FACU- 3. Rubus ursinus S FACU 4, f= ilobium art ustifolium H FACU+ 5. Pteridium a uilium H FACU 6. 7. 8. Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC-). Include species noted (*) as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks: Western portion of project site HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph _ Other No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: None Depth to Saturated Soil: None 8. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 20% e of forest Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated Saturated in upper 12" Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " Water -Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Onsite assessment during fall 2008 Soil appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events SAMPLE PLOT SPB 10 Map Unit Name: Kitsap silt loam Drainage Class: Moderately well Taxonomy (Subgroup) Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type YES NO Profile Description: Depth Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, _(inches) (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Rhizospheres, etc. 0-18 Hydric Soil Indicators: 10YR 412 Histosol Histic Epipedon Suifidic Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Remarks: 10YR 4/6 Few/faint Silty loam _ Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer Organic Streaking Listed on Local Hydric Solis List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Soil appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events Prominent redoximorphic features NOT present Field Indicators of h dric soil NOT present. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES NO Hydric Soils Present? YES NO Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Remarks: Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? N O WETLAND CRITERIA NOT MET Western portion of project site along edge of forest Area appears to drain moderatel well following seasonal storm events No field evidence of wetland hydrology patterns SAMPLE PLOT SPB 13 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project Site Parcels 292104-90951-9107 Date: 28 OCT 08 Applicant/Owner: County: King Investigator: Habitat Technolo ies State: Washington Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO Community ID: Is the area a potential Problem area? YES NO Transect ID: VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an *) nl- -.f er. 1. 0 Rlraia im Inrlica#nr Qominant Pant 5 ecies, Stratum Indicator 1. Po ulus trichocar a T FAC 2. Acer circinatum S FAC- 3. Sambucus racemosa S FACU 4. Ath rium filix-femina H FAC 5. 6. 7. 8. Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC-). Include species noted (*) as showing _morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks: Western portion of project site HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph Other No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: None Depth to Saturated Soil: None 9. 10. 11. 12. 13, 14. 15. 16. 75% Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated Saturated in upper 12" _ Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands x Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " X. Water -Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Onsite assessment during fall 2008 Soil appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Area appears to seasonal) and SAMPLE PLOT SPB 13 Map Unit Name: Kitsap silt loam Drainage Class: Moderately well Taxonomy (Subgroup) Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type YES NO Profile Description: Depth Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, inches Munsell Molst Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Rhizos heres, etc. D-6 Duff 6-18 10YR 3/1 None Silty loam Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosof Histic Epipedon Suifidic Odor x Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions x Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Remarks: : Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer Organic Streaking Listed on Local Hydric Solis List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Soil appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events _ Prominent redoximorphic features present Field indicators of h dric soil present. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES NO Hydric Soils Present? YES NO Weiland Hydrology Present? YES NO Remarks: WETLAND CRITERIA MET Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? YES Western portion of pr9ject site Area appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Field evidence of wetland hydrology atterns SAMPLE PLOT SPB 14 Project Site ApplicantlOwner: Investigator: DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Parcels 292104-90951-9107 Habitat Technologies Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO Is the area a potential Problem area? YES NO Date: 128 OCT 08 County: King State: Washington Community ID: TransectlD: VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an *) n1--4 c.... '.— Zfrnt111Y5 Innirplor Dominant Plant S eCieS $tfatiJm IRd[CatU 1. Thula plicata T FAC 2. Alnus rubra T FAC 3. Acer circinatum S FAC- 4. L slchltum americanum H OBL 5. Ath rium filix-femina H FAC 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC-). Include species noted (*) as showing 1 00% mor holy tcal adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks: Western portion of project site within Wetland B HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph Other No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: �.— None Depth to Saturated Soil: None Remarks: Onsite assessment during fall 2008 Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated Saturated in upper 12" Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands x Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " x Water -Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Soil appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events SAMPLE PLOT SPB 14 Map Unit Name: Kitsap silt loam Drainage Class: Moderately well Taxonomy (Subgroup) Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type YES NO Profile Description: Depth Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Munsell Molst Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Rhizos heres, etc. 0-3 Duff 3-18 1OYR 4/2 10YR 4/6 Few/faint Course sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Concretions Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Solis List Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: : Soil appears to drain poorIX following seasonal storm events Prominent redoximor hic features present Field indicators of hvdric soil present. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES NO Hydric Solis Present? YES NO Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? YES Remarks: WETLAND CRITERIA MET Western Rortion of pro'ec# site within Wetland B Area appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Field evidence of wetland hydrology atterns SAMPLE PLOT SPB 15 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project Site Parcels 292104-90951-9107 Date: 28 OCT 08 Applicant/Owner: County: King Investigator: Habitat Technologies State: Washington Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO NO Community ommTransct IDID: Is the area a potential Problem area. VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an ") _ .. .... 1"ti,..,..:....nf Mi of Cnorrioe fitratum Ind 1. Tsu a hetero h lla I T FACU 9. 2. Thula plicata T FAC 10. 3. Alnus rubra T FAC 11. 4. Rubus s ectabilis S FAC+ 12. 5. Rubus ursinus S FACU 13. 6. Poi stichum munitum H FACU 14. 7. 15. 8 16. Percent of Dominant species that are 013L, FACW, or FAC (except FAC-). Include species noted (*) as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks: Western portion of pro' act site HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph Other No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: None Depth to Saturated Soil: None 50% Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated Saturated in upper 12" Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " Water -Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Onsite assessment during fall 2008 Soil appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events Map Unit Name: Kitsap silt loam Taxonomy (Subgroup) SAMPLE PLOT SPB 15 Drainage Class: Moderately well Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type YES NO Profile Description: Depth Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, inches Munsell Moist Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Rhizos heres, etc. 0-8 8-18 Hydric Soil Indicators: 10YR 4/2 Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Remarks: : 10YR 4/6 Few/faint Concretions Duff Silty loam High Organic Content in Surface Layer Organic Streaking Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils -List Other (Explain in Remarks) Soil appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events Prominent redoximor hic features NOT present Field indicators of h dric soil NOT present. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES NO Hydric Soils Present? YES NO Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Remarks: WETLAND CRITERIA NOT MET Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? N O Upland forest Area appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events No field evidence of wetland hydrology atterns SAMPLE PLOT SP6 16 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project Site Parcels 292104-90951-9107 Date: 28 OCT 08 ApplicantlOwner: County: King Investigator: Habitat Technologies State: Washington Have vegetation, sails, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO Community ID: Is the area a potential Problem ,area? YES NO Transect ID: VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an *) .�It _ ._. r.--- !__ 06-4� �m 1nr4ir•!%fnr 1. Alnus rubra T FAC 9. 2. Po ulus trichocar a T FAC 10. 3. Thula plicata FAC 11. 4. Ath rlum filix-femina ___Lap H FAC 12. 5. 13. ti. 1 14. 7. 1 15. 1 -�1111111111111&0 Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC-). Include species noted (*) as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks: Western portion of pro"ecl t site HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph Other No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: None Depth to Saturated Soil: None 100% Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated Saturated in upper 12" Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands x Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " x Water -Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Onsite assessment during fall 2008 Soil appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Area appears to seasonally pond SAMPLE PLOT SPB 16 Map Unit Name: Kitsap silt loam Drainage Class: Moderately well Taxonomy (Subgroup) Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type YES NO Profile Description: Depth Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, inches Munsell Moist) Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Rhizospheres, etc. 0-8 Duff 8-18 10YR 311 None Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Suifidic Odor x Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions x Gieyed or Low Chroma Colors Remarks: : Course sandy loam Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer Organic Streaking Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Soil appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Prominent redoximorphic features present Field indicators of hydric soil present. - WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES NO Hydric Soils Present? YES NO Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Remarks: WETLAND CRITERIA MET Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? YES Western portion of project site Area appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Field evidence of wetland_ hydrology patterns Wetland Edge SAMPLE PLOT SPB 17 Project Site Applicant/Owner: Investigator: DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Parcels 292104-90951-9107 Habitat T Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO Is the area a potential Problem area? YES NO Date: 128 OCT 08 County: King State: Washington Community ID: Transect ID: VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an *) 1. Pseudotsu a menziesii T FACU 9. 2. Acer circinatum S FAC- 10. 3. Rubus ursinus S FACU 11. 4. Po1 stichum munitum H FACU 12. 5. 13. 6. 14. 7. 16. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC-). Include species noted (*) as showing 0% morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks: Western portion of site upslope from wetland HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph Other No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: None Depth to Saturated Soil: None Weiland Hydrology indicators: Inundated Saturated In upper 12" Water Marks Drift lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " Water -Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Onsite assessment during fall 2008 Soil appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events Map Unit Name: Everett gravelly sandy loam Taxonomy (Subgroup) SAMPLE PLOT SPB 17 Drainage Class: Somewhat excessive Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type YES NO Profile Description: Depth Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Munsell Moist) Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Rhizos heres. etc. 0-18 10YR 312 10YR 4/6 Few/faint Gravelly sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gieyed or Low Chroma Colors Remarks: Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer Organic Streaking Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Soil appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events Prominent redoximorphic features NOT present Field indicators of h dric soil NOT present. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES NO Hydric Soils Present? YES NO Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? NO Remarks: WETLAND CRITERIA NOT MET Western portion of site u slope from wetland Area appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events No field evidence of wetland hydrology patterns SAMPLE PLOT SPB 18 Project Site Applicant/Owner: Investigator: DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Parcels 292104-9095 /-9107 Habitat Technologies Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO Is the area a potential Problem area? YES NO Date: 128 OCT 08 County: I King State: WasNington Community ID: TransectlD: VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an *) nI-6 e..,,:.,.. Zyrnhem Indw.ntnr Dominant Plant 5 an as Stratum Indicator 1. Alnus rubrav -- -- T FAC 2. Acer circinatum S. FAC- 3. Ath rium filix-femina H FAC 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC-). Include species noted (*) as showing 100% morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks, Western portion of project site within Wetland B HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph Other No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: None Depth to Saturated Soil: Norte Remarks: Onsite assessment during fall 2008 Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated Saturated in upper 12" Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands x Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " x Water -Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Soil appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Area appears to seasonal! and SAMPLE PLOT SPB 18 Map Unit Name: Kitsap slit loam Drainage Class: Moderately well Taxonomy (Subgroup) Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type YES NO Profile Description: Depth Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, inches Munsell Moist Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Rhizos heres, etc. 8-S Duff 6-18 1OYR 2/1 None Loose loam Hydric Soil indicators: Histosol - Concretions Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking x Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils Llst Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List x Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: : Soil appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Prominent redoximor hic features present Field indicators of hvdric soil present. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophylic Vegetation Present? YES NO Hydric Soils Present? YES NO Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? YES Remarks: WETLAND CRITERIA MET Western portion of project site within Wetland B Area appears to drainpoorly followinq seasonal storm events Field evidence of wetland hydrology atterns SAMPLE PLOT SPB 20 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project Site Parcels 292104-90951-9107 Date: 28 OCT oi3 Applicant/Owner: County: IKing Investigator: Habitat Technologies State: Washington Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO Community ID: Is the area a potential Problem area? YES . NO Transect ID: VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an ") D❑ Plant Species Stra um Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum WqdILgoator -inant 1. Pseudotsu a menziesli T FACU 9. 2. Acer circinatum S FAC- 14. 3. Gaultheria shallon S FACU 11. 4. Rubus ursinus S FACU 12. 6. Pterldium a uilium H FACU 13. 6. Poi stichum munitum H FACU 14. 7 15. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC-). Include species noted (*) as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks: Upland forest HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph Other No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: None Depth to Saturated Soil: None U% Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated Saturated in upper 12" Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " Water -Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Onsite assessment during fall 2008 Soil appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events Map Unit Name: Everett gravelly sandy loam Taxonomy (Subgroup) SAMPLE PLOT SPB 28 Drainage Class: Somewhat excessive Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type YES NO Profile Description: Depth Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Rhizospheres, etc. 0-18 1 OYR 3/2 Hydric Soli Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Remarks: : 10YR 4/6 Few/prominent Gravelly sandy loam Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer Organic Streaking Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Soil appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events Prominent redoximorphic features NOT present Field Indicators of hydric soil NOT present. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES NO Hydric Soils Present? YES NO Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Remarks: WETLAND CRITERIA NOT MET Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? NO Upland forest Area appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events No field evidence of wetland hydrology patterns SAMPLE PLOT SPTT 1 Project Site Applicant/Owner: Investigator: DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Parcels 292104-90951-9107 Habitat Technologies Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO YES NO Is the area a potential Problem area? Date: 128 OCT 08 County: I King State: Washington Community ID: Transect ID: VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an *) rt ......:.....,► 01--.+ Cnonina Stratilm Ind 1. C tisus sco arlus 2. S m horicar us albus 3. Rubus ursinus 4. Pteridlarn a ullium 5. Poa spp. 6. 7. 8. S UPL 9. S FACU 10. S FACU 11. H FACU 12. H --- 13. 14. 15. 16. Percent of Dominant species that are OBI., FACW, or FAC (except FAC-). Include species noted (*) as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks: Area dominated by Scots broom HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph Other No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: None Depth to Saturated Soil: None 0% Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated Saturated in upper 12" Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " Water -Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Onsite assessment during fall 2008 Soil apeears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events Map Unit Name: Everett gravelly sandy loam Taxonomy (Subgroup) SAMPLE PLOT SPTT 1 Drainage Class: Somewhat excessive Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type YES NO Profile Description: Depth Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, inches (Munsell Moist) _ _(Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Rhizospheres, etc 0-2 2-18 Hydric Soil Indicators: 10YR 3/2 1 OYR 3/3 Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors None None Gravelly sandy loam Gravelly sandy loam Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer Organic Streaking Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks• Soil appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events Prominent redoximor hic features NOT present Field Indicators of h dric soil NOT present. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES NO Hydric Soils Present? YES NO Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Remarks: Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? NO WETLAND CRITERIA NOT MET Area dominated by Scots broom Area appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events No field evidence of wetland hydrology patterns SAMPLE PLOT SPIT 2 Project Site Applicant/Owner: Investigator: DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Parcels 292104-90951-9107 Habitat Technologies Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO Is the area a potential Problem area? YES NO Date: 128 OCT 08 County: King State: Washington Community ID: TransectlD: VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have moroholonical adaptations to wetlands with an I n......t.n.-...i r3l-ni Cnnriae Atrgtt i "A IndIcator 1, Pyrus spp. T ---'- 2. Rubus procera S FACU 3. Rubus ursinus S FACU 4. C tisus sco arius S UPL 5. Cirsium arvensis H FACU+ 6. Agropyron cristatum H ---- 7. Pteridium a uilium H FACU 8. Poa spp. H --- Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC-). Include species noted (') as showing mor bolo icai adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks: Area dominated by Scots broom HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph _ Other No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: None Depth to Saturated Soil: None 0% Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated Saturated in upper 12" Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " Water -Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Onsite assessment during fall 2008 Soil appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events Map Unit Name: Everett gravelly sandy loam Taxonomy (Subgroup) SAMPLE PLOT SPTT 2 Drainage Class: Somewhat excessive Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type YES NO Profile Description: Depth Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, inches Munsell Moist) Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Rhizos heres, etc. 0-3 3-16 Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol None None Concretions Histic Epipedon Sulfldlc Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Remarks: 10YR 3/2 10YR 3/3 Gravelly sandy loam Gravelly sandy loam High Organic Content in Surface Layer Organic Streaking Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Soil appears to drain moderately well followin seasonal storm events Prominent redoximor hic features NOT present Field indicators of h dric soil NOT present. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES NO Hydric Soils Present? YES NO Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Remarks: WETLAND CRITERIA NOT MET Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? NO Area dominated by Scots broom Area appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events No field evidence of wetland hydrolqgy patterns SAMPLE PLOT SPTT 3 Project Site Applicant/Owner: Investigator: DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Parcels 292104-9095 /-9107 Habitat Technologies Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO Is the area a potential Problem area? YES NO Date: 28 OCT 08 County: King State: Washington Community ID: Transect ID: %11=rr1=TeTinm rN„+a +hnca nnanips observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an *) Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC-). Include species noted (*) as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks: Small depression in central project site HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph Other No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: None Depth to Saturated Soil: None 100% Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated Saturated in upper 12" x Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands x Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " x Water -Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Onsite assessment during fall 2008 Soil appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Area appears to seasonally and Excavated de resslon SAMPLE PLOT SPTT 3 Map Unit Name: Kitsap silt loam Drainage Class: Moderately well Taxonomy (Subgroup) Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type YES NO Profile Description: Depth Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, inches Munseli Moist (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Rhizos heres, etc. 0-1 10YR 3/1 Leaves/loam 1-16 10YR 4/1 10YR 4/6 Common/ rominent Silty loam Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfldic Odor x Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions x Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer Organic Streaking Listed on Local Hydric Solis List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: : Soil appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Prominent redoximorphic features present Field indicators of hydric soil present. _ WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES NO Hydric Soils Present? YES NO Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Remarks: WETLAND CRITERIA MET Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? YES Small depression in central _project site Area appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Field evidence of wetland hydrology patterns SAMPLE PLOT SPTT 4 Project Site Investigator: DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Parcels 292104-90951-9107 Habitat Technologies Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO is the area a potential Problem area? YES NO Date: 128 OCT 08 County: King State: Washington Community ID: Transect ID: VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an *) n,..v,:-, mf DFon} .Q arioe .^Symm Indicator Dominant Plant S sties Straturri Indicator 1. C tisus sco arius S UPL 2. Rubus ursinus S FACU 3. Pteridium a uillum H FACU 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC-). Include species noted (*) as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks: Area dominated by Scots broom HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph Other No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: None Depth to Saturated Soil: None 0% Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated Saturated in upper 12" Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " Water -Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks; Onsite assessment during fall 2008 Soil appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events SAMPLE PLOT SPTT 4 Map Unit Name: Everett gravelly sandy loam Taxonomy (Subgroup) Drainage Class: Somewhat excessive Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type YES NO Profile Description: Depth Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, inches Munsell Molst Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Rhizospheres, etc. 0-8 10YR 3/2 8-18 10YR 3/3 Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Eplpedon Sulfidic Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors None None Gravelly sandy loam Gravelly sandy loam Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer Organic Streaking Listed on Local Hydric Solis List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Soil appears to drain moderately well foilowing seasonal storm events Prominent redoximor hic features NOT present Field indicators of h dric soil NOT present. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES NO Hydric Soils Present? YES NO Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Remarks: WETLAND CRITERIA NOT MET Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? NO Area dominated by Scots broom Area appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events No field evidence of wetland hydrology atterns ATTACHMENT - SITE PLAN 25 08136 ST-FAB FEDERAL WAY SEC. 29/TWP. 21/RGE. 04 E., W.M. SITE PLAN 1 Lli[FPF3iC [CC] y - ` ♦ `-n ri{5' l•� eR4E ;9ro*m I ~i 'r ♦11 • Ltfi•1t79iF7R7.Ss'r' • - - - r w .. .. r . r r. ='k;arm Zw �s`4 w , wr�s . Tr< r �r w I , r ie V I j• 1 t, `r ' ; ,� - tiU'F,`; �` ��'�. J - �` ''; -`; *. + 1 ■ `t tt !t t1 tt / 1 atx t j 1 i 1 1 EE �`♦♦♦, � r+-♦`^ •-'•I 1 y+ l t `I ,< 1 � 1 1 ti♦ t 1 1 1 �I 1 t ■ l I . • � 1 I I l ■ \ � ��► ■ 1 r t s1 � ■ ■• �s.t4 �I. � ' , . ;. •[� . y 1 t 1 1 j� �♦^:r � �� 37' ■ t ., yt 7 t� 1 tli,' '�x . . �, 11 i � . x o \\ _ �♦ • •, � •y4 ta` ta'ir■t'It `,■, �i 1 ars,>nc scua �■Ee) t ra�rMF r. , 'ter ` 4•r.A L I 1 1 w FFAP*9w 81E ■ FlGC � � 1 ' I:r !� lu NJ . . . l / 5 , .♦ L •+ I yyyy [r ■ 1 1t 1 1 ■ ■ \ ♦ ♦, I • • ... • .�' • 5 / � �t • ♦ '1 I iJ +` R 1� � ♦ � t ' t 1 1 1 1 1 �1 • • • •' � • • • • . i . }a>, t-]�- 7•C a_��k �_ `ti4 � �I� � � ` 1' t " + f t t 1 1 t 1 ■ ♦ti `♦♦ ti♦ ♦ xt , . • . o t . � • � i� ! `f 1 II k^ + t � 1 tt'y t 1 �' �• `. ` {� �xj , .ut■�wnri . 1'y '/ tl t, �`t t■` ■S ! L Ix�ry L` {r+ I t+ j tYY �� }� 1 tt t. t�. �t � �v`s'r.-a-a 4`. ?.cam A. 1111t • Atss7■f! 7 • 1 5 , / L ■ / !Ii ♦510+1 1 } 1 It t 7 tlr1 �11. {�ot[.an] ',' 1 I } y 1 ., t {Iit rua j } 1 11' ti■Ii y eR �1`.' •. .1:` ~•J ; ! rl 1 rrL.. 7si •y t � I!L l I� li;, / �L IIY}ICI I AI41afG0{ iI r • • }1} r j r .`' ; i• FtS �IY�f��riir-. z+EW [+urn.+ r.4r- P ,�P , I 1 r t 1 t4 :I_ _ r' r !� f twr r&i: S cr trE ;fir �.• 1 t 1 1 r.:•y7ntf t .E Ficw-r, • . _ • ! I \ v lsss7cxrs �: •H r r +r' •r • `1 _ * f � III 1 {r Ir rl 1 1 r it yL 1 r 1) Inn) i I 11 I y ``I• • . l . ' • F r 1 ! �, '. is - •SY 1 � r • � - � �• ! I R + 15 y '� 5 11.' ,y • J I r f , r acwra 1 • •ytS2,i. r RE'F 'AT7 >r:t } } y ■ 1 lI• • I r I J r a7sa sr r ' tr t_'fi i�"k•• 1 t 1 � I .►' 1 r r r r. /' / `�` • I . �5 r! r f 7 l - / a�Lkgr�pl.; r - r r j� r i °'� • • 5 ■i, Ir 1 ) f r /-. -• 1 I I lIi I r I, '.' • I 1 77 7 ! f - •--.�s•Stnp�j - r -- � } it t y F f r !�. � .F 3r Ir it � r r ,� ++ .6a - EsY $ •$ �,i• �►� i sI'•' •�e r I 1 r r � � •` ^rr j' r �� II Intl Ys , mom 61 p 5 f1' i•n I sETK£ l�3 - � � tEAt,s 07 � � ao� � I I •. i I + V + t 1 -"1 . 2iS'.t . I� .�-,•, '� i j7 I' � I � � 1 1 jU r'• /r � '. Fl■tl1 •1 , , at moay&Ir r ■ 5; ■ �a:w ■R' .' . � � . � . f r r � . � ♦ � .. '` r' S7,ma7air r I 1 � . I • •= 1 r r �- It �i0s--.-1.. =�.t1 --�•- --- - �..-. -y. 1 .. r �.. � w ,� . _ �... r+r r ��r `:: � { `l, �t�•w •.�.: � � r ...ram• w rrl� w w rr:r w l� �rf':•' I ! •!w [ ` atgsr7trc Illxt.ar � -' �' ins r "no"m i ?ol loi sP7i r "Mond" I 7!llGli7! 1 20mo= 297to4NO73 E'er -IS I I f I i I M! tt �tf'n Knit 4 s �� .. antas�os i -- �■m■�maz 'j• ! � �I / CS•'.lJFFNL , �' 111 i .•1 , i = .r- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -f s (I`'icaf.7 s� t t--:-^ _ I , �. sea�•u�• x.as E6`�Knr�r/ � - � r ,- wrx�J 9F 7 _ t _ If I _I 71 ;1- � i. 'i . u•t �Wla _ s...rE- � _ . r—. r r �.r.- ..rr t= . a�.C= y r =:.� r w •rrr •i PMI r , a 6 J J (D R N w ST - FAB FEDERAL WAY SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 21 N., RANGE 04 E., W.M. _ ... - 414, ,',�; t.,• �- y �. ,. j" • . -1 ; . ti� a ae L ._ r,�, - ,1 r�i" t}. ;yam ` 'i •+�� l•i :'` � , ,� �,l ` T � r� • • "? } Ci , ` I '� � 'f'• . ii '. 9 �: 1 � r r .. , � • . it �' _ + t. ; �_ � e • .{ a . _ r 1 kFi4l1" �, f R 1 ' � ' 1 • Y\ iii - 7: .; � • Yl.,�if +.��•T. �• •. ' ' ' L'.. -, -•; .�!•y:f�,7• ;� .i �"r' ;: •, ,,j� ,. �.. - Syr � '�',,' 46 p. • _ .ij ;� I •�••�t y � • y r r • ?Y , �._r r •f ~ - II " =?#�9 ' `�'+1,�'+� � �� _fir ,• t r •f' �w�r • rya ��!., .r,....�i�,`_ • r' �'� "�^r� � � . lf'fi�� ! + �r' .;y�-� . ,cat atir;. �i �-,.--. _ �} � • r ij�# , �cft�+w' �� rE�} i �� #• ,+�I NNt. ^ �r.lr•'•�'• 1.Ef `i'�` jlt �� 'r;. ', •. ' � _ f,� �l • , 4 r' ..,fir '' r - � � ._ •:rcf �+'_.�. L�'a�; ^��' � s.''• le .'p t s,? :r :5 r t..74r.„aS CArtiGQfEat:1�['• , �- �•;�,': !'�— -J�.w : t'S5� _! 1.I ... • t' � . N' �.! .f - /! ,gip+•t I'• •'r�'- ��,,' . •' -- ,-ram �� '' �• k .. ,a'sf ,•'� s� ss n� 31 al 31 all 1 � ' 1 f�f�Caf�US�p L3UlLpf�}C1 6 CL?lilFF$�.�hr. � GJ.7I,G� I T� ?,S•i•3Q 4 n 0 Q U J rLo a Q ? N tia J - � cc) � ( (!% X L6 (ria OM m� to 04 n O. � O Z O 3 W >QOco � o N W W, 9 p a 6 O O N y