Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
12-105564
CITY OF CITY �.. ALL Federal Way3332 8t3325 h Avenue mouth Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-fi000 www.cr A ffedaralway. corn Mr. Tom Neubauer Park 16, LLC — DevCo, Inc. November 13, 2013 1 1 100 Main Street, Suite 301 Bellevue, WA 98004 Re: File #12-105564-00-UP; PERMIT STATUS Park 16 Multifamily; 35703 16`h Avenue South, Federal Way Dear Mr. Neubauer: This letter is written in response to your request for an update on the overall permitting status of the Park 16 project. The land use entitlement has been approved and the appeal period has expired. Application has been made for a site development pertnit or grading permit (we refer to this as an Engineering Approval [EN]). Building permit applications for each building have been submitted. We are in the process of reviewing the EN (most recent review comments provided last week). We are also in the midst of reviewing the building permit applications. Those will be reviewed in bunches. Building Division review comments for the first group of applications have been sent out (Planning Division comments to be sent this week). This first set of comments will apply generally to all the applications and specifically to the initial group. This will allow yoll to begin making general revisions to the entire suite of applications, while you await specific comments on the remaining applications. A lar e number of applications have been sent to our third party structural reviewer as well. g While we are making every effort to review the building ic expect it will take some time to get through the entire gropilp This ermit pslbecause ions in thetimely manner, we of applications associated with this project, high volume of unrelated applications under review at this time, and limited staff resources (one full time Building Plan Reviewer and some part time Delp) We are not aware of any significant unresolved issues that would prevent issuance of either the EN or the building permits. Do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. I can be reached at 253-835-264, or isaac.con1enCr gk'off'ederaiwav 3 Sincerely, Isaac Conlen Planning Manager c: Marty Gillis, Buildina Orlicial SCOR -Sproul, Assistant Building Official Janet Shull, Senior Planner Doc I D 64502 CITY OF A. Federal August 7, 2013 Mr. Matt Hough CPH Consultants 733 7" Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland, WA 98033 CITY HALL. �� W325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffed&!Mway.com FILE Re: Permit #12-105564-00-UP; PROCESS III APPROVAL Park 16 Multifamily; 35703 16"' Avenue South, Federal Way Dear Mr. Hough: The City of Federal Way has completed the administrative review of the proposed construction of 293 multifamily units in 26 separate three-story buildings, along with 470 parking stalls, a recreation building on -site open space, and landscaping. The site plan application submitted on December 13, 2012, and revisions submitted on April I9, 2013, May 24, 2013, July 24, 2013, and August 2, 2013, is hereby conditionally approved per the enclosed Exhibit A, Findings far Project Approval. The remainder of this letter outlines future review processes required, gives a brief summary of the process under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) to date, and outlines procedure relating to appeals and approval periods for this decision. Additional requirements will be provided as city departments review the engineering plans and building permit applications submitted for the improvements. REVIEW PROCESSES REQLURED The site is within the Residential Multi -Family (RM 2400) zoning district. Multifamily residential uses are permitted in this zone subject to the provisions of Federal Way Revised bode (FWRC) 1 residential 040 use "Detached or stacked dwelling units." The proposed uses are reviewed under the Process III, project Approval, review process. Project approval does not grant license to begin any type of site work. The applicant is proposing minor improvements within designated wetland buffer areas that are subject to review under FWRC 19.275.040(4), "Minor improvements," via the Process III review process. SEPA PROCESS The responsible official of the City of Federal Way issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsigniticance (MDNS) on May 3I, 2013, pursuant to SEPA (file #12-105565-00-SE). The comment and appeal period for this determination was completed on June 28, 2013, with no corrections to the city Is initial determination. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL I. Prior to issuance of any construction permits, the landscape plans (received July 24, 2013) shall be revised to provide additional detail indicating the species type, size, and location of all proposed planting materials for all landscaped areas throughout the site.. Mr. Matt Hough Page 2 of 4 August 7, 2013 Prior to issuance of any construction permits, the landscape plans (received July 24, 2013) shall be revised to indicate a minimum of three feet of Type III landscaping planted at the base of every retaining wall throughout the site. ` ' 1-its, the landscape plans (received July 24, 2013) ;. Prior to issuance of any coitstru�i� p s t thApplication of minimum required tree units per acre shall be revised to correctly r• p to the proposed site development per F"C 19.120.130. 4. Prior to issuance of any construction permits, the Wetland Buffer Mitigation plan (received July 24, 2013) shall be revised to provide detailed planting plans indicating the species type, size, and location of all proposed planting materials, and details for all other proposed installations such as habitat features within the wetland buffer area. 5. Prior to commencement of any work related to the minor improvements ("minor improvements" means any and all development activities) within the wetland buffer area, performance and maintenance bonding, and/or assignment of funds, for wetland buffer mitigation and monitoring for a minimum of five years, shall be submitted to the City in conformance with FWRC 19.25.020. 6. Prior to issuance of any construction permits, a Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) application is required to be approved by the city and recorded at King County at the expense of the applicant. fy the engineering 7. Prior to issuance of any construction pei atti r�is and design of securee applicant shall r bicycle parking for ae plans (file #13-102434-EN) to indicate minimum of 74 bicycles (minimum of one secure bicycle parking spot per every four units) at dispersed locations throughout the site. 8. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building on the subject site, all and b improvements related to the proposed development must be installed, inspected, and app Y the city. On -site improvements include, but are not limited to, storm drainage system; utilities; parking stalls and drive aisles; interior parking lot landscaping; bicycle Parking facilities; perimeter landscaping; pedestrian walkways; common recreational open space and tot lot play areas; minor improvements within wetland buffer area and associated buffer mitigation; garbage and recycling facilities; and parking lot and pedestrian area lighting. 9. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy forany a addresses how the ssidential buildings itmanagement the site, a Transportation Demand Management (TDb4) p team will encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation shall be submitted to the city for review and approval. 10. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for any residential building on the subject site, the applicant shall provide written evidence that a site inspection with the City of Federal Way's Crime Prevention Analyst has been done to ensure that site and building lighting, video surveillance, and security fencing limiting access to the wetland buffer area OPil TED) to daylight hours meets minimum Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design standards for personal safety. Doe. LD 63953 File N 12-105564-00-UP Mr. Matt Hough Page 3 of 4 August 7, 2013 I I . Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for any residential building on the subject site, the applicant shall record an affordable housing covenant, that has been approved by the city, that identifies a minimum of five percent of the residential units (minimum of 15 units) will be affordable for the life of the project to households earning no more than 50 percent of the median income in King County. 12. Prior to issuance of any construction permits, the applicant shall consult with representatives of Waste Management and provide written evidence that the project site design meets Waste Management's minimum standards to support garbage and recycling service for the future residents of the development. 13. For purposes of future right-of-way dedication, the applicant shall prepare `Pratt X Agreement documents for Tract X as depicted on the site plan received August 2, 2013. Tract X is designated in accordance with the Federal Wary Comprehensive Plan designated grid road network. In the event that this road is eliminated/removed from the comprehensive plan, Tract X wilI be reverted back to the underlying property at that time as determined by the Public Works Director. The above -referenced Tract X Agreement documents shall be submitted, reviewed, and, as a condition of project approval, finalized and recorded prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any building. 14. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for any residential building on the subject site, 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. Specifically, those requirements shall include installation of curb, gutter and a six-foot concrete sidewalk along the western frontage of 160' Avenue South from the project entrance to South 359t' Street. PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Unless modified or appealed, this project approval is valid for a period of five years from the effective date of the decision. The applicant must substantially complete construction for the development activity, use of land, or actions approved under this project approval, and complete the applicable conditions listed in this decision within five years of the effective date of the decision, or the decision becomes void. An extension may be granted, pursuant to FWRC 19.15.1 I 0, through a written request submitted to the city's Community and Economic Development Department prior to the expiration of the decision. This decision may be appealed by any person who received a copy of this decision. The appeal must be in the form of a letter delivered to the Department of Community and Economic Development (33325 8th Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003} and be accompanied by the established fee, within 14 calendar days after the effective date of the decision. The effective date of this decision is August 7, 2013. The appeal letter must contain a clear reference to the matter being appealed and a statement of the factual findings and conclusions of the Director of Community and Economic Development disputed by the person filing the appeal. File k 12-105564-00-UP Doc. I. D. 63953 Mr. Matt Hough Page 4 of 4 August 7, 2013 andards This decision shall not waive compliance with futuvar o o and main Way codes, policies, bonds tm y be relating to this development. Also, be advised that performance to required for the project. Any bonds or other agreements as required must be competed prior r ei s issuance of any related construction permits. A cash deposit is required to cover the city's p p to necessary, for obtaining and using the proceeds any erm tissuance. The cpash deposhall s b posted w 11 be reofunded five percent ($100 minimum) prior to construction p following satisfactory completion of all bond requirements. if you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact Senior Planner Janet Shull at 253-835- 2544, or'anet.shuil ci offedetalwa .corn. Sincerely, Isaac Conlen, Planning Manager, for Patrick Doherty, Director Community Development Services enc: exhibit A, Findings for Project Approval Exhibit B, Approved Site tan Exhibit C, Approved Landscape Plan Exhibit D, Approved Common Recreational Open Space Plan Exhibit E, Approved Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan c: Janet Shull, AICP, Senior Planner Scott Sproul, Assistant Building. Official Kevin Peterson, Engineering Plans Reviewer Sarady Long, Senior Transportation Engineer Rob Van Orsow, Solid Waste and Recycling Coordinator Lindsey Tiroux, Crime Prevention Analyst Chris Ingham South King Fire and Rescue Brian Asbury, Lakehaven Utility District Karen Walter, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Cindy Wendland, Federal Way School District Doc. LD 63953 File #12-105564-00-LJP 40k CITY OF Federal Way Exhibit A Findings for project Approval Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Chapter 19.65 `Process III — Project Approval' Park 16 Multifamily, rile #12-105564-00-UP The Planning Division hereby presents the following analysis to the Director of Community and Economic Development pursuant to content requirements of the Process III written decision as set forth in Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19.65.100(4). 1. Proposal — The applicant proposes the construction of 293 multifamily units in 26 separate three-story buildings. Four hundred and seventy (470) parking stalls will be provided with 87 stalls being located in garages and the remaining 383 parking stalls being located in surface parking lots. A recreation building is also proposed. Existing light industrial buildings will be demolished with the proposal. Comprehensive Plan & Zoning — Zoning for the subject site is Multifamily Residential, RM 2400. Multifamily residential uses are permitted in this zone subject to the provisions of FWRC 19.205.040, subject to Process III, Project Approval. The code requires a minimum of 2,400 square feet of area per dwelling unit. The application meets this requirement. The Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP) designation for the subject site is Multi -Family. Minor improvements within wetland buffers are subject to Process III Project Approval as provided in FWRC 19.175.040(4), while removal of non-native invasive vegetation within wetland buffer areas is also subject to Process III Project Approval under FWRC 19.120.030. Project Site — The 16.57-acre subject site consists of two separate tax parcels (#292104-9095 and #292104-9107). The applicant has submitted a boundary line adjustment (BLA) application to eliminate the existing interior lot lines to accommodate required building setbacks from property lines. The BLA shall be reviewed and approved by the city and recorded at King County at the expense of the applicant before the issuance of any building permits. There are two designated wetlands located on the western third of the site (existing parcel #292104-9095). Wetland A is a Category III wetland with a minimum 50-foot buffer and Wetland B is a Category 1 wetland with a minimum 200-foot buffer. The applicant proposes to develop minor improvements within portions of the wetland buffer area, including a soft -surface pedestrian path, benches, viewing areas, stormwater dispersion trenches, and temporary clearing and grading intrusions. In addition, the applicant proposes to upgrade existing degraded portions of the buffer area with mitigation and remove invasive non-native vegetation. 4. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) — The responsible official of the City of Federal Way issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) on May 31, 2013, pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The appeal period for this determination concluded on June 28, 2013, with no corrections to the city's initial determination. The final staff evaluation for environmental checklist, Federal Way application number 12-105565-00-SE, is hereby incorporated by reference as though set forth in full. Findings for Project Approval Page 1 of 6 Park 16 Multifamily File #12-105564-00-UP / Doe. I.D. 63567 5.040, 5. Required Yards & Height —Under FWRC 19.24 a 5-foot multi andily hOuar,ard setback. the RM 2400 zoning district have a 20-foot front yard setback and Building height does not exceed 30 feet above average building elevation. The proposed buildings meet all of these dimensional requirements. 6. Landscaping — The applicant proposes perimeter landscaping in compliance with FWRC 19.125.060(3)(a)-(c)_ Type JH perimeter landscaping 20 feet in width is provided along the property e I and II landscaping 20 feet in width is frontage along South 356 Street and line abutting an exis16" Avenue South. ting single family zoned area (Type I is provided along the southern property � e Type III perimeter provided adjacent to proposed parking areas, with remainder being Type Property U)s, with the exception of the landscaping er feet e width h is through the middle ofremaining a d g designated Category I wetland (Wetland B), western property line and will remain undisturbed. Twenty-two (22) square feet of interior parking lot landscaping, per parting space, is provided in accordance with FWRC 19.I25.070, "Parking Lot Landscaping." Landscaping is proposed for the perimeter and interior parking lot landscape areas. Of the 470 parking stalls provided, 383 are locate g tot within surface parking cats and require a minimum 8pers stall). The landscape planse feet of interior indicate landscaping (383 stalls x 22 square feet of landscaping ing is provided, which exceeds the approximately 14,545 square feet of interior parkinglls alot re provided in located a Buildings minimum requirement. The remaining and BB. parking C, F, G,1=1, N, Q, R, 5, TT U> permit lding Final review of proposed landscaping will occur in e conjunctionwith d coming nz �ypeland location review. Final landscape plans shall provide detailed planting p of all proposed landscape plantings. ly 7. Common Recreational Open Space — Under FWRC a 4a� square feet per dwelling.040 Special Note unitofcommon residential development must contact a minimum of this total recreational open space usable for many activities. equipment. min n addiof 10 tion, as the proposal al isefor 0 or be developed and maintained with children s playof more units, at least So percent of the total open space a ra t e i areas t square feet fet minimum f common feet in length and width. For the proposed 293 units, with a minimum of 1 t,720 square recreational open space must be provided (400 square feet x 293), feet in tot lot area, and a minimum of 58,600 square feet in areas with a minimum dimension of 40 feet in length and width. ac' exhibit The applicant submitted landscape plans and a orCeomm an Recreational anal open space, n Sp 0 square feet at tot indicate a total of 122,834 square feet of comet lot area and 66,046 square feet in areas meetingthtile ero'el ct will provide threetti lots with playground In order to achieve these minimum standards, project ortunities-, three additional active equipment, a recreation building -to provide. for indoor recreation opp. open space areas, and a pedestrian trail system through an enhanced wetland buffer area. 8. Clearing and Grading Standards —The project is subject to minimum clearing and grading standards of FWRC 19.120. of particular note for the pr20 ed development eg topography requirements for rockeries and retaining walls specified in FWRC 19 walls is and intensity of development in the developed erieslons of the site, and retaining walls shiall be a minimum of six feet in ve use of retaining proposed. Per FWRC 19.120.120(�), o Page 2 of 6 Findings for Project Approval File #12-105564-00-UP / Doe. I.D. 63567 Park 16 Multifamily height and a.minimum of three feet landscaped setback at the base of each rockery or retaining wall. In addition, there must be a minimum of five feet in width of landscaped terraced area between any two vertical retaining walls. As a condition of land use approval, prior to issuance of construction permits, the landscape plans must be revised to indicate that there is a minimum of three feet of landscaped setback at the base of all proposed rockery and retaining walls. 9. Tree and Vegetation Retention Standards — The project is subject to the requirements of FWRC 19.120.130. For multifamily development, there shall be a minimum of 30 tree units per acre provided for the subject site. For the 16.67 acre site, a minimum of 501 tree units is required. The landscape plans submitted indicate that 581 tree units will be retained in the undeveloped portion of the site, which is comprised of the designated wetlands and associated buffer areas. The landscape plans indicate that the tree retention requirement is 419 tree units as they subtracted the site acreage in wetland area from the total site area and then applied the minimum standard to the remaining acreage. While, this is allowable, as the applicant is proposing to assign credit to trees retained within the wetland area, then the wetland area must also be included in the overall calculation for required tree units for the site. While it appears from the information submitted the developed site will easily meet the mini inum tree retention standard, prior to issuance of construction permits for the proposed development, the applicant must correct the landscape plans to correctly represent the required tree units per acre. 10. Parldng — The proposed development includes 470 parking stalls for the 293-unit multifamily development. Of the total proposed parking stalls, 383 will be surface parking stalls and 87 will be in garages within the "carriage house" buildings. Per FWRC 19.205.040, a minimum of 1.7 parking stalls per multifamily unit, or 499 parking stalls, are required (293 units x 1.7 rounded up). The applicant submitted a parking analysis prepared by Transportation Engineering NW, LLC, showing that the proposed amount of parking will adequately serve the multifamily housing development based on analysis of utilization rates of parking provided in similar developments in suburban locations. The parking analysis document also indicates that the project management intends to implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan to provide incentives for alternative means of travel. Requests for modifications to minimum parking requirements are allowed per FWRC 19.130.080(2) and decisions related to such requests may be issued via the Process III land use decision. After review of the parking analysis document provided, staff has determined that the proposed parking ratio of 1.6 stalls per unit, or 470 stalls, is acceptable subject to the following conditions: a) The applicant shall submit a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan for review and approval by the city prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for any residential buildings; and b) The site plans shall be revised to provide for secure (long-term) bicycle parking/storage spaces for. a.minimum of 74 bicycles (minimum one for every 4 units} at.locations_ dispersed throughout the site so as to be convenient to all future residents. The application of the above conditions are deemed necessary in light of the site's location with limited nearby public transit service, proximity to bicycle facilities, and lack of available on -street parking adjacent to the site. These additional provisions should encourage use of alternative modes and reduce overall parking demand at the site. Findings for Project Approval Page 3 of 6 Park 16 Multifamily File # 12-105564-00-UP / Doc. 1. D. 63567 11. Community Design Guidelines — All buildings incorporate building forms, materials, and treatment methods consistent with the minimum guidelines, including structural modulation; varied roof heights; architectural emphasis at building entrances; variety of material and colors; foundation landscaping; and pedestrian amenities. Site and architectural design is consistent with the minimum requirements of FWRC Chapter 19.115, "Community Design Guidelines," 12. Crime Prevention through Environmental Design The Federal Way Public Safety Department reviewed the Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) checklist submitted by the applicant. The applicant has incorporated CPTED comments in project design and added building and site lighting, surveillance cameras, and fencing and gates to limit access to the wetland buffer area open space during non -daylight hours. To ensure that the site meets minimum CPTED standards, the applicant shall be required to provide written evidence that public safety staff have inspected the site and are satisfied that the building and site lighting, surveillance cameras, and fencing are adequate to address public safety concerns identified during site plan review. 13. Garbage & Recycling —The site and landscape plans were reviewed by representatives from Waste Management. While minimum standards for areas devoted to trash and recycling areas per FWRC 19.125.1 S0 have been addressed, given the large site size and number of units, Waste Management remains concerned that servicing the site will be difficult. Therefore, as a condition of approval, permits, the applicant shall consult with representatives of prior to issuance of any construction, Waste Management and provide written evidence that the project site design meets Waste Management's minimum standards to support garbage and recycling service for the future residents of the development. 14. Minor Improvements within Wetland Buffer Areas — Theproppproposed Park r 16 site hashat will remain wetlands n �n ar► located on site and associated buffer areas that represent approximately submitted a Wetland undeveloped state, except for the proposed minor improvements. The applicant Buffer Mitigation Plan on July 24, 2013, that describes proposed minor improvements, temporary buffer intrusions associated with the proposed minor improvements, and proposed wetland buffer restoration, enhancement, and mitiportion of the gation for the temporary intrusions within the outer meats include approximately 4,? 5 square feet of designated buffer area. The proposed minor improve buffer area to be developed with soft surface trail and viewpoints. Approximately 3,320 square feet of the outer portion of the wetland buffer area will also be temporarily disturbed during site grading activity. Approximately 58,970 square feet of the outer buffer area is proposed to be restored and enhanced by removing invasive/non-native species and debris, placement of topsoil and mulch, installation of habitat features, and planting of a variety of native trees, shrubs, and groundcovers. FWRC 19.175.040(4) allows for review and approval of proposed minor improvements within wetland buffer areas through process III. The proposed minor improvements, along with proposed buffer restoration, enhancement, and mitigation meet the criteria for approval of FWRC 19.175.040(4). As a condition of approval, prior to commencement of any work within the designated buffer areas, the applicant shall be required to provide performance and maintenance banding and/or assignment of funds for wetland buffer mitigation and monitorir4 for a minimum of five. years, in conformance with FWRC 19,25.020, in addition, prior to issuance of any construction permits, the Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan received on July 24, 2013, shall be revised to provide final detailed planting plans indicating the size, type, and location of all proposed plantings and details of proposed habitat features. 15. Affordable Housing Covenant — Multi -family Hau ningg proposed anst�As such6a ltminimubm of five ect to the requirements of FWRC 19.I 10.010"Affordable percent of the units within the development shall be maintained as affordable housing as defined in page of 6 Findings for Project Approval File # 12-105564-00-UP / Doc. I.D. 63567 Park 16 Multifamily FWRC 19.110.010(2) for the life of the project. An agreement in a form approved by the city must be recorded with the King County Department of Elections and Records at the applicant's expense. This agreement shall be a covenant running with the land, binding on the assigns, heirs, and successors of the applicant. 16. Stormwater — The project will result in approximately 7.12 acres of impervious surface in the form of building area, parking lots, and sidewalks, within the subject site. With the increase of impervious areas, there is an increase to the peak stormwater release rate leaving the project and stormwater flow control is required as well as water quality. Drainage components shall conform to the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) and city amendments. 17. Boundary Line Adjustment — The applicant submitted an application for a Boundary Line Adjustment, (BLA) to eliminate existing interior lot lines. Said BLA application was reviewed concurrently with the land use application and has been approved. The BLA must be recorded with King County at the applicant's expense prior to issuance of any building permits associated with the project. 18. School Mitigation Fee — The project is subject to school impact fees pursuant to Chapter 19.95 FWRC. Per FWRC 19.95.050(3) and (4), school impact fees for multifamily development shall be assessed and collected prior to building permit issuance, using the fee schedule then in effect. 19. Traffic Impact Fee — A traffic impact fee will be calculated at the time of building permit submittal and will be based on the fee in effect at the time a completed building permit application is filed. At such time, the impact fee will be adjusted to account for an existing use as determined appropriate by the director. 20. Tract X Dedication — For purposes of future right-of-way dedication, the applicant shall prepare Tract X Agreement documents for Tract X as depicted on the site plan received August 2, 2013. Tract X is designated in accordance with the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan designated grid road network. In the event that this road is eliminated/removed from the comprehensive plan, Tract X will be reverted back to the underlying property at that time as determined by the Public Works Director. 21. Street Frontage Improvements — The aplicant is required to provide street frontage improvements along the southern frontage of South 356 Street and the western frontage of 16'h Avenue South, including curb gutter and sidewalk improvements, street trees, street lighting, and dedication of right-of- way per the applicable City of Federal Way roadway design standards. The applicant has identified said improvements on submitted site and preliminary civil design plans. Final design shall be reviewed and approved with the EN application. 22. School District Safe Walldug Routes — The Federal Way School district reviewed the proposed development in light of school access requirements. In order to provide safe walking routes and bus access, the applicant shall be required to provide curb gutter and sidewalk improvements to the western frontage of 16`h Avenue South from the site entrance south to the intersection with South 359'h Street. 23. As conditioned, the proposed site plan application and application attachments have been determined to be consistent with the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan, all applicable provisions of the FWRC, and with the public health, safety, and welfare. The streets and utilities in the area of the subject property are adequate to serve the anticipated demand from the proposal, and the access to the subject property is at the optimal location and configuration for access. The proposed development is consistent with Process III, Project Approval, decisional criteria required under FWRC 19.65.100(2)(a) and (2)(b) and FWRC 19.175.040(4), "Minor Improvements." Findings for Project Approval Page 5 of 6 Park 16 Multifamily File#12-105564-00-UP / Doc. I.D. 63567 The proposed site plan and application attachments have been reviewed for compliance with the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan, pertinent zoning regulations and all other applicable city regulations. Final construction drawings will be reviewed for compliance with specific regulations, conditions of approval, and other applicable city requirements. This decision shall not waive compliance with future City of Federal Way codes, policies, and standards relating to this development. Prepared by: Janet Shull, AICP, Senior Planner Findings for Project Approval Park 16 Multifamily Date: August 6, 2013 Page 6 of 6 File #12-105564-00-UP / Doc. I.D. 63567 Stacey Welsh From: Stacey Welsh Sent- Wednesday, January 14, 2015 11:31 AM To: 'Steve Sullivan' Subject: RE: Park 16 / TDM plan Steve, We have reviewed the TDM Plan submitted on January 7, 2015. Consider this email verification that the building permit/Use Process approval condition to provide a TDM Plan has been satisfied. Stacey Welsh, AICP Senior Planner City of Federal Way 33325 8th Ave S. Federal Way, WA 98003 253-835-2634 stacey,weish@citVoffederglway.com From: Stacey Welsh Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 3:23 PM To: 'Steve Sullivan' Subject: RE: Park 16 / TDM plan Steve, Here is the language from the land use decision on Park 16 for some background: --------------- 1. Parking —The proposed development includes 470 parking stalls for the 293-unit multifamily development. Of the total proposed parking stalls, 383 will be surface parking stalls and 87 will be in garages within the "carriage house" buildings. Per FWRC 19.205.040, a minimum of 1.7 parking stalls per multifamily unit, or 499 parking stalls, are required (293 units x 1.7 rounded up). The applicant submitted a parking analysis prepared by Transportation Engineering NW, LLC, showing that the proposed amount of parking will adequately serve the multifamily housing development based on analysis of utilization rates of parking provided in similar developments in suburban locations. The parking analysis document also indicates that the project management intends to implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan to provide incentives for alternative means of travel. Requests for modifications to minimum parking requirements are allowed per FWRC 19.130.080(2) and decisions related to such requests may be issued via the Process III land use decision. After review of the parking analysis document provided, staff has determined that the proposed parking ratio of 1.6 stalls per unit, or 470 stalls, is acceptable subject to the following conditions: a) The applicant shall submit a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan for review and approval by the city prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for any residential buildings; and b) The site plans shall be revised to provide for secure (long-term) bicycle parking/storage spaces for a minimum of 74 bicycles (minimum one for every 4 units) at locations dispersed throughout the site so as to be convenient to all future residents. The application of the above conditions are deemed necessary in light of the site's location with limited nearby public transit service, proximity to bicycle facilities, and lack of available on -street parking adjacent to the site. These additional provisions should encourage use of alternative modes and reduce overall parking demand at the site. Park 16 Apartments Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan This document provides the proposed elements of a Transportation Demand Management (TDMj Plan for the proposed Park 16 Apartment project, located within the City of Federal Way. This TDM contains goals and a list of program elements. The applicant is expected to implement all program elements needed to meet the TDM Goals. TDM Goal The Applicant proposed a project that would of consist of constructing 293 residential units with an on -site parking supply of 474 stalls. Federal Way Revised Code (MRCI 19.220.010 and 19.250.040 identifies minimum off-street parking requirements for proposed multifamily residential uses. This include a minimum 1 .7 stalls per dwelling unit for multifamily residential. Strict application of these minimum parking requirements would result in 498 stalls for residential uses. FWRC 19.130 however, contains provisions for reductions in the requirement for off-street parking based upon demand studies, shared use potential, and site incentives or measures to reduce automobile utilization. One of the supporting features of this project is implementation of a Transportation Demand Management Plan to reduce the site's overall reliance on single -occupant vehicle use and demand for on -site parking. TDM Program Elements There are two types of program elements included in the Park 16 Apartments TDM; on -site design features and on -site management/programs that would be available to residents and employees. Bullcling and Frontage Features /Physical Improvements) 1 . Install commuter information center in appropriate location. The applicant would provide this commuter information center within the main building foyer of the recreational building that supports the residential apartment complex. This center would provide information on available transit services and facilities within walking distance of the site, transit route schedules, ridematching services (vanpool, carpool, etc.), on -site bicycle amenities, and contact information for the on -site Building Transportation Coordinator (BTC), 2 Construct infrastructure improvements that are consistent with the City's Design Guidelines related to the pedestrian environment. The applicant would construct an a network of public and private pedestrian walkways and crossing treatments within the site to support pedestrian access to vicinity retail/commercial uses and transit services along Enchanted Parkway S (SR 161 ) and for connections to recreational trails and on -site school bus stops. These facilities include direct pedestrian connections onto both 16'h Avenue S and SW 3561h project frontages. RXEDIM JAN 0 7 2015 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS Park 16 Apartments —Transportation Management Plan 3 The applicant is providing an on -site shower (for residents within the recreational facility building) and bicycle parking/location facilities for bicycle users throughout the site, 4 The project will provide 74 secured on -site parking for bicycles, 14 within the interior of the recreational building and another 60 outside stalls throughout the site. These bicycle facilities are in direct support of the applicants TDM Plan as there is no minimum code requirement under FWRC for bicycle parking. Management & Promotion 5 Appoint Building Transportation Coordinator (BTC). The applicant shall appoint a Building Transportation Coordinator that has a permanent staff position for the complex and that is assigned to administer the requirements of this agreement. The applicant shall provide the City of Federal Way with the name, phone/fax number, and email address of the BTC at the time of receipt of Certificate of Occupancy and update the contact information annually. The applicant shall see that the BTC receives support and direction from management and the training. 6 Produce and distribute a commuter information packet (CIP). A commuter information packet (CIP) that contains complete information about the applicant's TDM, including transportation benefits, transportation options, HOV programs, bicycling amenities, vicinity transit services, and other elements of the TDM would be distributed to new residents and employees. %ransit, Carpool & Vanpool Programs 8 Within the commuter information center, the applicant will provide information about ride -match opportunities available from public transportation agencies or any organized internally to the site by the BTC. This Agreement shall be valid only when signed and dated by all parties. Applicant: By: Park 16 Apartments, LLC I�- �{'Ar C �(� riA+►u�f � LLC �-I}S M4h1�rlAq �CiKb�( By: Date: / To Neubauer, Manager By Dare For City of Federal Way page 2 January 7, 2015 Park 16 35703 16th Ave S Federal Way, WA 98003 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan Park 16 has appointed Sabrin Kassem as the Building Transportation Coordinator (BTC). Her contact information is listed below. Sabrin Kassem Investment Manager Address: 35703 16th Ave S Federal Way, WA 98003 Phone: (253) 941 - 0123 Fax: (253) 941 — 0994 Email: manager@parkl6wa.com Return Address: J' �- w� �ao3 20141212000181 KING COUNTY, WA Please print or type information WAS>FIINGTON STATE RECORDER'S Cover Sheet (Rcw 65.04) Document Title(s) (or transactions contained therein): (all areas applicable to your document must be filled in) , 4. Reference Number(s) of Documents assigned or released: Additional reference #'s on page of document Grantor(s) Exactly as name(s) appear on document I. P" l & L—L G 2. Additional names on page of document. Grantee(s) Exactly as name(s) appear on document 1. a pFR�ac� W A 2. Additional names on page of document. L gal description (abbreviated: i.e. lot, block, plat or section, township, ran e) [Its- 47�-i"1�A �� e �O2a f-# I�cG,���.r 0m7r� q Uar44d iffa q L f N orb X— Additional legal is on page of document. Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Number ❑ Assessor Tax # not yet assigned .'�-) / O 0-7 The Auditor/Recorder will rely on the information provided on this form. The staff will not read the document to verify the accuracy or completeness of the indexin information provided herein. "I am signing below and paying an additional $50 recording fee (as provided in RCW 36.18.010 and referred to as an emergency nonstandard document), because this document does not meet margin and formatting requirements. Furthermore, I hereby understand that the recording process may cover up or otherwise obscure some part of the text of the original document as a result of this request." Signature of Requesting Party to submitter: Do not sign above nor pay additional 151 fee if the document meets E When Recorded, Return to: City of Federal Way Attention: Janet Shull 33325 8t' Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 AFFORDABLE HOUSING COVENANT PARK 16 FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON April 18, 2013 WHEREAS it is the policy of the City of Federal Way (the "City") to encourage the development and retention of suitable affordable housing within the City pursuant to FWRC Section 19.110.010; and WHEREAS Park 16, LLC (the "Owner") intends to develop Park 16, an apartment complex of approximately 293 units at 35703 16th Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98093 (the "Project"); and WHEREAS in consideration of the receipt of applicable permits to construct the Project from the City, the Owner is willing to commit to certain affordability criteria for the Project, as set forth below, for the life of the Project; NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: The Project is to be constructed in 2013 and 2014, and should be available for occupancy in 2014. There are expected to be a total of approximately 293 residential units available. Fifteen (15) of the units will be affordable for the life of the Project to Households earning no more than 50% of the median income from time to time in King County, adjusted for household size. Gross rents payable by the tenant (including a utility allowance) shall not exceed 30% of the 50% of median income, adjusted for household size. The Owner may from time to time designate different units within the Project as the affordable units so long as at least fifteen units are affordable as herein described. Upon request from time to time from the City, the Owner agrees to provide the City with evidence satisfactory to the City that the Owner is complying with the terms of this Agreement. The Owner agrees that this Agreement shall be recorded and shall run with the land and bind all successors, assigns and subsequent owners of the Project. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Agreement effective the date first above written. PARK 16, LLC Per: Park 16 Manager, LLC, Managing Member Per: _ lowwk, Q Evan J. Hunden, Managing Member CITY OF FEDERAL WAY Per: STATE OF WASHINGTON ss. COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Evan J. Hunden is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath state that he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the Managing Member of Park 16 Manager, LLC, Managing Member of Park 16, LLC, to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in said instrument. 6ay20/3Given under my hand and official seal this of ����rn r , STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING Printed Name -: e., m Ice NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at Pe d .o cry .4 My Commission Expires / x 2 f— ss. I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that C C is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath state that he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the 16 n,-.; nt M0J4 w o-4f of The City of Federal Way, State of Washington, o be the Aee and voluntaly act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in said instrument. Given under my hand and official seal this _&day of QE 20 Printed Nanle C NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at V--0f) Y=Aet— I k / t�►�r My Commission Expires CPIH CONSULTANTS July 23, 2013 Ms. Janet Shull Senior Planner City of Federal Way 33325 8'h Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 RE: Park 16 Multifamily— CPH Project No. 0024-1 1-010 35703 161h Avenue South, City of Federal Way File # 12-105564-00-UP Responses to Technical Comments jRequest for Additional Information Site Planning Civil Engineering Project Management Land Development Consulting RESUBMITTED JUL 2.4 2013 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS Ms. Shull, This letter and the following enclosed information comprise the re -submittals for the Process III Land Use Application for the Park 16 Multifamily project: 3 — Additional copies of this response letter 4 — Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan (Talasaea Consultants; July 19, 2013) 6 —Updated Plans (amended from previous submittal): ■ Site Plan, sheet A 1.0 (Ross Deckman+Associates; July 23, 2013) • Preliminary Landscape Plan sheets L 1.0, L2.0, L2.1, L3.0, L4.0 and L4.1 (Talasaea Consultants, July 23, 2013) * Critical Areas Mitigation Plan sheets W1.0, W1.1, W2.0, W2.1, W3.0, and W3.1 ■ CivillSite and Roadway Improvements: — Preliminary Right-of-way Plan — South 3561h Street, P5.1 (CPH Consultants; July 23, 2013) — Preliminary Site Cross Sections, P7.0 and P7.1 (CPH Consultants; July 23, 2013) 6 — Detailed Design Plans (new submittal items): ■ Lock -Load Wall Design plans, WI and W2 (Earth Solutions NW, LLC; May 23, 2013) ■ Architectural Building Elevations for Carriage Units, 6 plan sheets (Ross Deckman+Associates; June 27, 2013) ■ Common Recreational Open Space plan, half-size (CPH Consultants; July 23, 2013) 1— Detailed Design Plans (new submittal items): ■ Common Recreational Open Space plan, full-size (CPH Consultants; July 23, 2013) These documents have been updated or otherwise prepared in response to the comments provided with your June 24, 2013 letter with additional comments from city staff. Specific responses to each of the review comments are as follows: Technical Comments/Request for Additional Information: JANET SHULL, PLANNING DIVISION, 253-835-2644,lANET.SHULL@CITYOFFEDERALWAY.COM Planning staff has reviewed the resubmittals received April 1 81h and May 241h and have the following comments that must be addressed prior to issuance of the Process III land use decision. The resubmitted plans show that the number of units was reduced slightly from the original proposal and this appears to have helped some aspects of the site design, in particular the creation of improved tot lot play spaces. 733 7th Avenue, Suite 100 - Kirkland, WA 98033 - Phone: (425) 285-2390 - Fax: (425) 285-2389 www.cphcor,sultanis.com Park 16 Multifamily Response to Request for Additional Information CPH No. 0024-11-010 July 23, 2073 Page 2 of 12 However, many other minimum site design standards for multifamily development are still not being met. Most concerning are the close proximity of buildings to retaining walls, lack of common usable open space meeting the minimum requirement of 40 by 40-foot dimension, lack of private open space available to ground floor units on "carriage house" buildings, and lack of east -west connection for pedestrians through the site in -line with Open Space Area 3. Buildings Q, R, S, and T; and U, W, Y, and Z, in conjunction with retaining walls between these buildings, provide two approximate 450-foot walls running north -south through the site that physically and visually disconnect residential units from the common areas and site amenities. Response: The items you identified as outstanding design guideline issues could have been remedied with additional discussion during review and/or of a nature that they could have been conditions of approval. Complete responses to how the project meets or will conform with each of the items identified in this latest review are provided below. It remains our hope and expectation that the responses provided here and our continued efforts to coordinate and collaborate with the City will result in prompt approval of the Process 111 permit such that subsequent final design and construction permits can continue. I. Wetland Buffer Intrusions A wetland buffer mitigation plan and report by Talasaea was submitted on May 24, 2013. The applicant is proposing minor improvements within the wetland buffer area consisting of five-foot wide wood chip trail benches and split rail fencing to allow for passive recreation and viewing of the buffer area. Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19.175.040 allows for review of such improvements through Process III. In addition to the proposed minor improvements, the applicant is proposing the location of three disbursement trenches within the outer limits of the designated buffer area that will convey roof rainwater runoff to the wetland system. One of these trenches is located within an area that has been altered by past clearing and has also been taken over by invasive species. The applicant has prepared a buffer enhancement plan to address this large disturbed area that exists within the southern half of the buffer area associated with Wetland B (a Category I wetland) which is also coincident with the buffer area associated with Wetland A (a Category III wetland). The applicant proposes to enhance this area with native plantings to restore and enhance the wetland buffer function. Temporary intrusions into this altered portion of the wetland buffer area are also proposed for construction of retaining walls and site improvements on the upslope area beyond the wetland buffer. The remaining two proposed dispersion trenches and additional approximate 300 linear feet, of 10 to 20-foot wide temporary buffer intrusions associated with retaining wall construction are proposed along the outer edge of the buffer area associated with Wetland B. This northern half of the buffer area has not been identified as an area altered by previous actions/development. Proposed minor improvements within this area may be reviewed via a Process III application as long as the outcome of the proposed action is an improvement to the altered area, not simply a replacement of vegetation removed to construct the improvements. See also comments under Section II, `on -site usable open space.' Response: It is understood that the buffer intrusions and enhancements proposed with this project, as represented in the accompanying documents, have been reviewed and accepted with this Process III and SEPA application. Details of additional buffer enhancement plantings, pedestrian trail improvements, and other buffer enhancement measures such as habitat features are provided with the enclosed Mitigation Report and Critical Areas Plans. These additional buffer improvements are proposed in order to meet the criteria necessary to qualify the enhanced buffer areas as useable open space. �l Park 16 Multifamily July 23, 2073 Response to Request for Additional Information Page 3 of 12 CPH No. 0024-1 1-010 II. Site Plan On -Site Usable Open Space — Preliminary landscape plans were resubmitted on May 24, 2013. The plans adequately address the minimum requirement for tot lot space as noted in section b below. However, the plans still are deficient in overall common recreational open space and also quantity of open space that meets minimum size requirements, unless further revisions are made to enhance the areas being proposed to meet the minimum standard. The resubmitted plans continue to rely heavily on existing wetland buffer area to meet the minimum common recreational open space requirements. Further comments are provided in the following sections and must be addressed prior to issuance of the Process III land use decision. a. Per FWRC 19.205.040, special note 2, the minimum open space requirement for multifamily development is at least 400 square feet of common recreational open space usable for many activities per unit: 293 units (per resubmittal) proposed x 400 equals a minimum of 117,200 square feet of common recreational open space is required. Without the proposed "wetland viewing area," the site plan only provides for approximately 53,733 square feet of recreational open space (including indoor space proposed in the recreation center). Only the accessible and enhanced portions of the "wetland viewing area," may be counted toward usable open space. The applicant has identified a large, approximately 100-foot wide swath of wetland buffer area that is largely unaltered/unenhanced as being counted toward open space and this does not meet the intent of usable open space. In order to get credit for the entire wetland buffer area identified, the applicant must show how this entire area is providing for recreational use. Is it unique in appearance, natural vegetation, or will the vegetation be enhanced in some way to justify its credit as recreational open space and is the entire area visibly accessible to those walking on the path? On its face, the project still appears to be short of the minimum commonly accessible, recreational open space for a project with 293 units with a majority of these units being 3, 4, and 5-bedrooms. There will likely be a greater than average household size for this development than typical multifamily housing development in Federal Way. Meeting the minimum city standards for on -site recreation opportunities is extremely important. Response: Use of the outer portion of the existing wetland buffer in the western portion of the site remains a necessary element to the project's viability. The City reviewed this concept and acknowledged that the buffer area could be counted toward the project open space requirement if additional detail and "quality" improvements were provided in the programmed areas onsite. The pedestrian trail design in the buffer has been modified to enhance the user experience by re -aligning the trail and providing viewpoints with benches and interpretive signs. All areas of wetland buffer counting towards useable open space will be enhanced to varying degrees based on existing conditions. Enhancement measures will include removal of invasive species, planting additional native trees and shrubs, and installation of habitat features such as down logs, stumps, and snags with bird nest boxes. The buffer enhancements are described in the revised mitigation report and depicted on the revised mitigation plans prepared by Talasaea Consultants. These additional buffer improvements are proposed in order to meet the criteria necessary to qualify the enhanced buffer areas as useable open space. The enclosed Common Recreational Open Space exhibit and matrix (CPH Consultants; July 23 2013) has been prepared to illustrate the latest open space proposal, which includes revisions in response to your latest comments, and to summarize the accounting and compliance with FWRC requirements. b. The May 24, 2013, resubmitted plans and supplemental information submitted April 18, 2013, depict how the minimum requirement of 10 percent of open space area is proposed to be dedicated to children's play equipment. (For 293 units proposed, a minimum of 11,720 square Park 16 Multifamily Response to Request for Additional Information CPH No. 0024-11-010 July 23, 2013 Page 4 of 12 feet of area with children's play equipment must be provided.) Plan Sheet L3.1 indicates that 11,766 square feet are being provided, within three open space areas (open space areas 1-3). Supplemental information submitted April 18, 2013, details that play area 1 is 2,200 square feet, play area 2 is 4,526 square feet, and play area 3 is 5,040 square feet. Response: The enclosed Common Recreational Open Space exhibit, including accounting matrix, (CPH Consultants; July 23, 2013) has been prepared to illustrate the latest open space proposal, which includes revisions in response to your latest comments, and to summarize the accounting and compliance with FWRC requirements. This plan reflects the latest buffer mitigation and enhancement planslreport prepared by the project biologist (Talasaea) as described in other sections of this response. c. At least 50 percent of the open space must be in areas with a minimum dimension of 40 feet by 40 feet. A minimum of 58,600 square feet of usable open space must meet these minimum size requirements and must be provided on site. As shown on the site plan submitted, the recreation center and Open Spaces 1, 2, 3, and 6 can be counted toward the minimum requirement. The lower terrace of the area indicated as Open Space 6 must be detailed to identify its intended use as it is at a grade approximately 10 feet lower than the rest of Open Space 6 and currently reads as a separate unrelated open space area that is less than 40 by 40 feet in size. The applicant identifies a total of 103,800 square feet as meeting the minimum 40 x 40 foot minimum open space area requirement. However, this total is largely dependent on 69,200 square feet of wetland buffer area being counted toward the total. The trail area and areas being enhanced for the enjoyment of residents (specifically the area surrounding Wetland A that is being revegetated with native plants to restore its wetland buffer function) can be included. The area currently identified for credit is largely unaltered wetland buffer area and may only be counted as usable open space area if it is similarly enhanced for the enjoyment of users of the proposed path. The plans need to be revised to count only usable open space areas that are both usable and meet the minimum dimensions. Some portion of the wetland buffer area may be counted if it is clearly being enhanced for the use and enjoyment of residents, but the applicant should primarily be counting open space areas that are physically accessible and/or enhanced for use/enjoyment as that is the intent of the usable open space standard. Response: The site plan has been revised to remove accounting of open space areas between tiered retaining walls and the areas of 40'x40' minimum dimensions has been updated. Unimproved, native buffer areas remain in the accounting of recreational open space as these areas contribute to and are an integral part of the trail and viewing experience. In response to your comments and/or concerns, though, and as described in the response to comment Il.a above, all areas of buffer to be counted as useable open space are proposed to be enhanced for the benefit of trail users per the revised mitigation report and plans prepared by Talasaeo Consultants. The enclosed Common Recreational Open Space exhibit and matrix (CPH Consultants; July 23, 2013) has been prepared to illustrate the latest open space proposal, which includes revisions in response to your latest comments, and to summarize the accounting and compliance with FWRC requirements. III. Landscaping a. Parking Areas and Private Patio Areas are Shown in the Required Perimeter Landscape Areas — The resubmitted landscape plans received May 24, 2013, continue to show paved parking areas within the required perimeter landscape area along the southern property line in between buildings AA and P. Paved areas must be located outside of the required perimeter landscape areas. Notes in the response letter under Item lVa on page 7 state that, "...an emergency vehicle access being provided through the perimeter landscaping adjacent to carriage house BB between the on -site parking area and the property to the south." Upon review, it appears you mean the Park 16 Multifamily Response to Request for Additional Information CPH No. 0024-1 1-010 July 23, 2013 Page 5 of 12 paved area referred to above that is adjacent to Building AA. There is no requirement for an emergency vehicle access to the single family property to the south and therefore, this paved area should he removed and shown as perimeter landscape area. The resubmitted plans received May 24, 2013, also indicate what looks to be a patio located within the required perimeter landscape area along the northern property line at building BB. These site elements must be located outside of the required perimeter landscape area. Response: The site plan has been revised to remove the emergency access road, parking areas, and/or patios from the required perimeter buffer. Building BB has been relocated south to remove the at - grade entry area out of the perimeter buffer along the north property boundary. b. FWRC 19.125.070, Parking Lot Landscaping — The minimum size of interior parking lot landscape islands must be 64 square feet and the minimum width six feet. The maximum size that can be credited toward interior parking lot landscape island area is 305 square feet. The resubmitted plans do not provide dimensional information, only square footage. Based on the square footage information provided, and only allowing a maximum of 305square feet of credit for each interior parking lot landscape island, the resubmitted plans do meet the minimum required parking lot landscaping requirement. Response: It is understood that the parking lot landscaping as proposed complies with the necessary FWRC requirements. IV. Clearing Grading, and Tree and Vegetation Protection a. Rockeries and Retaining Walls — In response to the initial request for sections and details of rockeries and retaining walls, general site sections were provided with the April 18, 2013, resubmittl (sheet 8 of 8 of the preliminary civil plans). These do not provide adequate detail to evaluate the proposed walls and rockeries for compliance with FWRC 120.120(3) through (7). Specifically, have you allowed for a minimum of three feet of landscape area at the base of each wall? No landscaping is identified at the base of walls in back of Buildings K, J, and A. In addition, it appears that there is perhaps as little as three feet between retaining walls located behind Buildings J and A, and that with landscaping added to screen the four- to six-foot high walls, there will be no passable area for residents to walk behind the buildings. Some of the building areas within close proximity of retaining walls are actually building entries (Building K should be evaluated as well). If we are interpreting the plans correctly, it means that it will be impossible to enter the building once the required retaining wail landscape screening is in place. Even without required landscaping, a minimum of five feet of clear walking space must be provided —meaning in reality there should be a minimum of eight feet of clearance between the base of the wall and building facades to allow for minimum landscape width and a clear walking path. Additional areas where there does not appear to be adequate room for landscaping, includes but may not be limited to: a. Base of wall south of Building V. b. Base of foundation wall for storm draining vault between it and pedestrian path. c. Base of wall located south of Building M (between wall and sidewalk). d. Base of walls running north -south on the east side of Buildings Q, R, S, and T. e. Minimum area for terracing between walls is five feet —show how this is provided. Please provide sections and details of proposed rockeries and retaining walls that indicate material, overall height, and landscaping. Per FWRC 19.120.120(3), rockeries and retaining walls on multifamily residential lots shall be a maximum height of six feet, and there shall be a minimum of three feet of landscaped setback at the base of each rockery or retaining wall. Also, see FWRC ,-1 i Park 16 Multifamily Response to Request for Additional Information CPH No. 0024-1 1-010 July 23, 2013 Page 6 of 12 19.120.120(4) through (7) for additional requirements for terracing, landscaping, and material selection for rockeries and retaining walls. Response: All proposed retaining walls have been designed with a maximum height of 6 feet and two - tiered retaining walls have a minimum 5-foot horizontal separation. The site plan has been revised and additional details are enclosed with this re -submittal to illustrate compliance with these and other dimensional and landscape requirements specified in FWRC 19.120.120. Plan sheet P7.1 has been updated to include a typical Tiered Wall detail illustrating the dimensional limitations for the project. b. Tree Retention Standards — Sheet L1.1 submitted on May 24, 2013, provides tree retention information and calculations. The applicant correctly indicates that a total of 419 tree units are required for the subject site. The calculations also correctly remove the wetland area from the total land area for which tree units are required. However, the applicant then counts the existing tree units within this area toward credit for tree units retained. The tree unit credits are only allowable for tree units within the wetland area if the applicant opts to consider this area as part of the total area for which tree unit credit requirements are calculated. The calculations must be revised to either consider the wetland area for required and credited tree units, or consider only tree units retained and trees planted on the area outside of the designated wetland area. Please note that the applicant may also get tree unit credit for all trees proposed to be planted in the proposed landscape areas. Response: Plan sheet L 1.1 has been revised to correct the tree retention accounting as directed. V. Administrative Design Guidelines a. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) — A CPTED checklist was submitted on April 18, 2013, along with the resubmitted site and building plans, and was routed to the Police Department for public safety review. The Police Department commented that they find the revised children's play areas to be much improved from the initial submittal. The Police Department also provided the following comments that must be addressed prior to issuance of the Process III decision: 1. After reviewing the resubmission, we would still like to see additional lighting in the corridor/outdoor hallway as resident safety is of upmost importance and lighting in a top factor in deterring crime. We suggest preparing the lighting plan in accordance with lilumiinating Engineering Society of America Standards (IESA). We also suggest being mindful that landscaping does not inhibit or block any lighting illumination. Response: Additional lighting details for the building exterior hallways are included with the recently submitted building permit package. Detailed landscape plans have been provided for review and approval with the engineering (EN) permit. 2. We continue to be concerned about the proposed soft -surface pedestrian trail that runs behind the building, between the retaining wall and wetland. These areas are known to become frequented by drug users and people engaging in illegal activity. With the proposed "three points of connection" to this trail, it offers an easy escape route for burglars, car prowlers, and vandals to exit the property. Apartments that face a wetland buffer with adjacent trails are frequently burglarized due to this easy access in and out, as well as limited surveillance by residents. We suggest placing secure fencing with gates to access the wetland area for residents. We suggest these gates be locked from dusk until dawn to reduce illegal activity during the evening hours. We also suggest placing security cameras at each trail entry. This will further help to deter illegal activity in this area both day and night. Park 16 Multifamily Response to Request for Additional Information CPH No. 0024-1 1-010 July 23, 2013 Page 7 of 12 Response: Secure fencing with gates to access the wetland buffer recreational area is proposed with project. The gates will be locked and signage provided to note that this area is closed from dusk until dawn as suggested. b. Fagade Treatment — Resubmitted building elevations and plans meet the minimum standards of the FWRC. Response: It is understood that no additional revisions to the building elevations or plans are necessary for compliance with the fagade treatment requirements of the project. c. Building Articulation and Scale — Resubmitted building elevations and plans meet the minimum standards of the FWRC. Response: It is understood that no additional revisions to the building elevations or plans are necessary for compliance with the building articulation and scale requirements of the project. d. FWRC 19.1 15(1)(r) specifies that residential design features, including but not limited to, entry porches, projecting window bays, balconies or decks, individual windows (rather than strip windows), offsets, and cascading or stepped roof forms shall be incorporated into all buildings. Window openings shall have visible trim material or painted detailing that resembles trim. All buildings must incorporate at a minimum the above features. Staff still maintains that in order to meet minimum design guidelines the "carriage units" should be further modified to incorporate individual entry porches and add balconies, bay windows, and/or decks to all units in order to meet this standard, as well as the private outdoor space requirement of FWRC 19.1 15.090(1)(m). Response: Our understanding of FWRC 19115.090 (1) (r) is this is a list that gives examples of residential design features that can be used in the design. These features should be used throughout the project in some form on all buildings. And not all the design features together on each building. With this understanding, the Carriage building will incorporate this design feature: Decks (newly added into the design). New Comment: Detailed east/west site cross sections that show the relationship between the proposed buildings, parking lots, retaining walls, pedestrian -oriented sidewalk areas, and open spaces should be provided in order to communicate the site characteristics. From the plans submitted, we are unable to understand, and are concerned about, the character of the area between the row of Buildings Q, R, S, and T and Buildings L and M. In addition, as proposed, it appears there is no way for a resident to walk from buildings on the west portion of the site to the central open space area between Buildings L and M without circumventing an approximate 450- foot long `wall' of buildings and retaining walls. A central pedestrian connection through the site should be provided between Buildings Y and W, and R and S so residents can more easily reach these common recreation areas. Response: The site cross sections sheet(s) (P7.0 and P7.1) have been updated to show additional grade detail and building floor elevation relationships through the site --including an additional east/west cross section through the central region of the site. This centralized sections shows the grade differential that would require traversing from the lower residential area in the vicinity of Line A up to the recreation open space between buildings M and N. A centralized pedestrian route as suggested would require additional stairs and retaining walls, and would reduce the amount of available parking spaces. It is our opinion that these impacts are unnecessary for a perceived convenience/inconvenience when two alternative routes are already provided north and south of the central open space area. None of the proposed or contemplated routes would provide a new accessible route either. As such, it is our request that this site plan approval not require the central pedestrian connection. Park 16 Multifamily Response to Request for Additional Information CPH No. 0024-1 1-010 July 23, 2013 Page 8 of 12 1 am confident that the information provided with this re -submittal combined with the additional detail of the building permit and engineering permit (EN) packages that the City is currently reviewing is sufficient justification as to why a central access is not necessary or desirable. However, if additional detail, renderings, or discussion is still necessary, then I would request that the final land use decision (i.e., site plan approval) be provided with a condition stating that the requirement for and/or location of a central access through the site will he determined with the final engineering design and site development permit (EN) process. e. FWRC 19.1 15.090(1)(m) specifies that units on the ground floor shall have private outdoor spaces adjacent to them so those exterior portions of the site are controlled by individual households. The 13 "carriage unit" buildings should be re -designed so that each unit has an individual entrance and access to private outdoor space. As designed, and with few exceptions, these units are basically sitting in a sea of asphalt and concrete. Resubmitted plans do not adequately address this requirement. It is important to note that one of the primary purposes of the private outdoor spaces is to help ensure that exterior portions of the site are controlled by individual households. It is recommended that the applicant add individual porches to each unit with access to its own private outdoor space to meet this requirement. If it is impractical to provide separate entry porches due to topography, the applicant should at a minimum provide balconies, or other means of affording private usable outdoor space, for these units to better activate the ground level area surrounding these units. Response: The Carriage units are not ground floor units, and therefore do not require private outdoor spaces. However, as per item `d' above, the Carriage units will incorporate newly added decks as allowed per FWRC 19.1 15.090(1)(r). Building elevations for each of the proposed carriage units are included with this re -submittal. f. The city's Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan identifies South 356th Street as a corridor with existing and proposed future bike lanes. The applicant is proposing two bicycle racks for temporary parking at the recreation center and at Open Space 6, which will be convenient for daytime use of these areas by residents and their guests. Covered and secure bike storage on site is highly recommended for multifamily developments. If the reduced parking is approved, it will be a requirement that secure bicycle parking be provided on site so that residents can more easily take advantage of alternate travel modes. Response: It is understood from our subsequent communications that covered/secure bike parking will likely be a condition of site plan approval. VI. Parking Stall Count — Under FWRC 19.1 30.080(2), the city may grant a decrease in the required number of parking spaces if a thorough parking study documents that fewer parking spaces will be adequate to fully serve the uses. The resubmitted site plans and Parking Demand Analysis indicate that 472 parking stalls are proposed for 283 units. This equates to 1.61 parking stalls per unit, which is lower than the minimum standard in FWRC 19.205.040 of 1.7 stalls per unit. The applicant submitted an April 10, 2013, Parking Demand Analysis prepared by Transportation Engineering Northwest. The comparable projects presented in the study show a ratio of 1.67 stalls per unit being provided for the subject sites. Peak utilization is indicated to be 1.24 stalls per unit. The applicant bases their argument for a reduced parking ratio on the actual utilization rates rather than the parking actually provided, which is closer to the city's requirement. The applicant also highlights a proposed Transportation ❑emand Management TDM plan to reduce the reliance on vehicle use. 'l1 Park 16 Multifamily Response to Request for Additional Information CPH No. 0024-1 1-010 July 23, 2013 Page 9 of 12 Staff continues to have concerns about the adequacy of parking stalls proposed for the project given its specific location and the number of garage spaces that may potentially not be available for vehicles. The proposed TDM plan, guest parking, and secure bike parking to offset the reduced number of vehicle parking stalls will be required as part of the land use decision in order to support the proposed reduction. Stall Dimension and Vehicular Overhang — The site plan resubmitted May 24, 2013, indicates that vehicles will overhang two feet over the five-foot wide sidewalks. When vehicles overhang onto sidewalks, the sidewalk width must be adjusted to ensure that there is five feet of unobstructed clearance. Therefore, the sidewalk width must be increased to a minimum of 7 feet in order to accommodate the vehicle overhang or curb stops must be added to ensure vehicles do not overhang sidewalk area. The same is true for overhang into landscape strips. See enclosed Bulletin #042 "Parking Lot Design Criteria". Response: It remains our position, based on experience and on -going operations with the applicant's other communities that the parking ratio of 1.6 spaces per dwelling unit is sufficient and appropriate for a protect of this size and location. The 1.67 ratio cited in the Parking Demand Analysis (PDA) is an average available at the included sites; but the key value for comparison is the peak utilization of 1.24, which is much lower than the 1.6 proposed for this project. Where vehicle overhangs are proposed to achieve the minimum stall depth, the sidewalks are 7 feet wide. Sarady Long, Traffic Division (253-835-2743, sarady,lon9CCDcityoff edgralway.com) The Public Works Traffic Division has reviewed the submitted material. 1. Please provide detail for the right -in and right -out pork -chop island for the driveway on S. 356th Street. The island design must be review and approved by the Public Works Department. Please note, driveway width should be 30 feet for a two-lane two-way driveway and 40 feet for a three -lane two-way driveway (FWRC 19.135.270). Driveway widths may be increased in order to provide adequate width for vehicles that may be reasonably expected to use the driveway, as determined by the Public Works Director. Response: The Preliminary Right-of-way Plan — South 3561h Street (sheet P5.1) has been updated to include additional designfconstruction detail for the north entrance drive at South 356fh Street. 2. Please change the 80' wide road easement in the submitted plans and Note to a tract. The proposed 80' wide road (Tract "X") as depicted is adequate to accommodate future Comprehensive road, which is a Type "R" street. Please provide legal descriptions of the tract to the City for review and approval. Response: The corridor for the potential future roadway was shown as an easement with the provision that, if the roadway were completed, the easement would be converted to public right-of-way. If the roadway is not completed and the comprehensive plan is amended as expected, then the intent is for this corridor to be removed from the site. An easement is proposed in -lieu of a tract for this corridor for ease of extinguishment in the event the corridor is abandoned. Also, creation of a separate tract is expected to require subdivision of the property which is beyond the scope of the current application. As such, it remains the preference of the applicant to maintain this corridor within an easement with provisions for extinguishment or conversion to right-of-way that are readily executable. In other words, the separate easement allows for all of necessary recitals and legal descriptions. It is our intent to prepare and complete the necessary easement documents cooperatively with the City as part of the final engineering design and permit approvals. 3. Driveway on 16th Ave S should be 28' — 30' for a two-lane two-way driveway and 40' for a three - lane two-way driveway (FWRC 19.135.270). Driveway widths may be increased in order to provide adequate width for vehicles that may be reasonably expected to use the driveway, as determined by the Public Works Director. Park 16 Multifamily Response to Request for Additional Information CPH No. 0024-11-010 July 23, 2013 Page 10 of 12 Response: The site plan and frontage roadway plans have been updated to show the required driveway width as suggested. 4. New sidewalk along the frontage on S. 356'h Street should be designed to connect to the existing sidewalk. Response: The site plan and frontage roadway plans have been updated to show the required sidewalk connection as requested. 5. Provide street light plans to the City for review. The street light plans shall depict conduit runs, wire size, i-box, power source, wattage, mounting height, streetlight cabinet location, etc. Response: This level of'street lighting detail seems reasonable at the final engineering review and not at the Process 111 land use approval stage. Street lighting was specified in the engineering plans that were submitted several weeks ago, but it did not include the detail requested here. Updated plan sheets to amend that EN permit will be provided. However, it is expected that no additional response is necessary to satisfy this review comment. 6. Map III-6 in the Comprehensive Plan depicted a north -south commercial street along the west side of the property. Per code the applicant would be expected to dedicate right-of-way and construct this road to city standards. However, given that the road alignment has not been established and wetland constraints the applicant may fulfill this requirement by setting aside a 50' wide (minimum) modified with Tract for a future road along the west side of the property within the wetland buffer. In the event that this road is removed from the Comprehensive Plan, the tract would revert back to the property owner. Staff will work with the applicant to identify location and width of the tract. Response: See response to item 2 above. 7. The applicant may request for a credit for the value of system improvements (Right -of -Way dedication and improvements) along S. 3561s St. frontage to be applied toward the traffic impact fee. Such request shall include a legal description of the dedicated land, a detailed description of improvements or construction provided, and a legal description of the development to which the credit will be applied. Response: The applicant will prepare the request for credit with the required accompanying legal description documentation separate from and subsequent to approval of this Process III permit. 8. On -street parking will not be available within this area, please verify with Planning Department that the proposed parking will be adequate to serve the development. Response: No on -street parking is proposed or required at either the South 3561h Street or 16th Avenue South right-of-ways to support the project. Rob Van Orsow, Solid Waste/Recycling Coordinator (253-835-2770, rvb.vanorsow@cif voffederalway.co m) Revised site plans and recycling and garbage structure plans were routed for review and comments are provided below: 1. Enclosure Design Concerns Waste Management continues to recommend utilizing all the parking area in the immediate vicinity of the proposed trash enclosure, and designating it for maintenance equipment and storage of bulky waste materials. Appliances, mattresses, etc., will be dumped by tenants. You cannot police or prohibit this. Do not plan to store these items in the "Trash Enclosure" containing the compactor. That will lead to problems in servicing that unit. i Park 16 Multifamily Response to Request for Additional Information CPH No. 0024-1 1-010 July 23, 2013 Page 11 of 12 New Comment: If you plan on using a compactor —you can probably fit a 30 yard compactor (no larger due to weight) in the "Trash Enclosure" —it will have steel guide plates mounted on the pavement, so you should omit the proposed 'curb' that is in that enclosure. Also, there has to be a sufficient power source. The applicant should consult with a compactor sale and services vendor to ensure that the proposed "Trash Enclosure" depth is adequate. Also, show that there is no curb or sidewalk steps in front of the enclosures. Response: The detail of access, pavement design, drainage controls, etc. of the enclosures will be included in subsequent construction permits. The current structure space and enclosure design is based on the applicant's experience with compactors. The applicant has a specific onsite waste management program and is familiar with the compactor requirements as these are standard facilities in their other communities. It. Space Allocation for Recycling Recycle enclosures should have a wider gate. Make the front gate at least eight feet wide to allow a dumpster to be installed within and serviced directly by a front loader. The few carts that are being shown will not provide adequate recycling capacity for 293 units. If you can stage the enclosures so that the garbage company can access them straight on with a front -loader, you will not have to touch or move the recyclables; the hauler will do that and save maintenance labor. We still suggest using tow carts and a tipper for garbage. Put the front of Recycle #2 in line with the front of the "Trash Enclosure" (instead of staggered back). It is a bad idea to have `recycling only' enclosures that require rollout of carts. Sites 1 and 3 could easily become dumping grounds, since residents will use these sites to avoid visiting the compactor. Response: The detail of access, pavement design, drainage controls, etc. of the enclosures will be included in subsequent construction permits. The applicant has a specific onsite waste management program which includes carts that are operated by onsite maintenance staff. Combination of recycling and garbage areas as suggested will be considered, but similar facilities are used at other communities owned and operated by the applicant. It is understood from our subsequent communications that continued coordination with Waste Management will be a condition of approval for the final land use decision for this project. III. One Enclosure for Entire Property Having only one enclosure for the entire property is inefficient for resident and maintenance access. This site approaches 10 acres, and straight line distance to the enclosure is over 400 feet from housing in the corners of the property. That is a long way to go to "take out the trash." The applicant should consider going with two -carts for garbage; positioned in several enclosures near the resident structure clusters. Maintenance staff would then roll these carts to the compactor (equipped with a tipper). These enclosures should be sized large enough to include space for dedicated recycling dumpsters that Waste Management would service. This will cut down on what maintenance staff has to move to the compactor area. The applicant has indicated in the resubmittal that, 'onsite staff will use carts to manage/distribute refuse from remote areas. This makes no sense —there are no places designated where remote area garbage containers can be enclosed. The proposed design will build -in permanent inconveniences that impact many potential residents. By not creating a workable solid waste collection infrastructure on site, ongoing operating costs will be higher than necessary, since enclosure sizes provide for very limited capacity, which means increased service frequency at higher costs'volume. Response: This input is appreciated, but a centralized waste area as proposed is based on a proven onsite waste management program, which includes carts that are operated by onsite maintenance staff, at other established communities that are owned and operated by the applicant. It is understood from our Park 16 Multifamily Response to Request for Additional Information CPH No. 0024-11-010 July 23, 2013 Page 12 of 12 subsequent communications that continued coordination with Waste Management will be a condition of approval for the final land use decision for this project. In summary, the applicant is strongly encouraged to contact John Davis at Waste Management at 206- 804-6815 to develop a site design solution that will meet their minimum requirements and address the numerous concerns with servicing the proposed development as currently depicted on resubmitted plans. Response: The applicant will make contact with Mr. Davis at Waste Management as suggested. However, major revisions or re -submittal of items for further City review in response to ❑nsite waste management are not expected to be necessary to satisfy project approval. It also understood that coordination with Waste Management to develop a final waste management and recycling program may be a condition of project approval. Please contact me directly at (425) 285-2391 or by e-mail at matt@cnhconsuitants.com if you have questions or need any additional information to complete your review and approval of the project. Your prompt response is appreciated. Thank you. Sincerely, Cc: Mr. Tom Neubauer, Mr. Jack Hunden (DevCo, Inc.) copy to file ItT1:a1G CW`a%14A CE CoiWACHF-ti 111 PL>til Sr-JMATIOM,�U OPEN SPACE 5 4, M SF [ACnV ) S"W' 9'1: 767.65' - - T - ------- OPEN SW _ . h WEfEAND BUFFER: I - (OCII 6?.39Q 5F NAA4E AHC1:R . . . . . . - . . - -...- l - CA7FGORY 1 I _ f .t16.a76.29 SF . . . Y. _ - t TRAIL•- 4,775 5F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' R>4+UR 111 f}jI j ... •. ' X� I- - f OPEN SPACEKMO SF P ----------------- 'L921a<90�p 29210a9091 f ' C92104392j 2J2i01307Z I 2�B9071 I LEGEND - PROGRAMMED RECREATION AREA RECREATION BUILDING WEMND BUFFER AREA (NATIVE OR ENHANCED) ,Yi. 7` WETLAND BUFFER TRAIL PLAY AREA MIN. 40'x4O' OPEN SPACE AREA u1 Min. Project Requirement 45% I %Min. Project Requirement 60% 07 45% I� Total Project 122,934 11,770 66,1W6 % Min. Project Requirement !OSd l00,4 113% I� z921aa9ous t921045a92 Minimum ProjeRRequlrements-, iz Common Open Space 117,200 sf (293du x 400sf/du) Play Area 11,720 sf (10% of Total Open Space Req'd.) 40'x4O' Area 58.600 sf (50% of Total Open Space Req'd) I 1 . u sLLlnt: I ! 1 E��_:AcrIT P ono .H - 111 I'`L rk/P.EC ly ! %PEN SPACE 1 I r- lq ,- . ,1264 5F — - IXLw I 'I `• r I. ..� 7. I -------------- -- � � t I I I - - -- - .-.....f`."_ y ---- -.. 292.0a9062 �2ioa9a6a z9zi4+o I PARK 16 MULTIFAMILY C0RW6"MRlONAL OPEN SPACE JUL 24 7n;43 CpIf' CIT'; OF FaDERAL yy CONSULTANTS Cos Site Planning • CMI Fngneedng Land Ilse Waxitting • R*ct ManagiNnent 0 5l} 160 rarmx..d.gpa101 M404MAWW Ra,eW751 xafbea l nehµas121S7� PLAN IN FEET rrr.eaxeonroll wre.iear cmrW'ref45i pn ww4�•u ux uccy�w.�>r July z3, :Zu13 r 2LHuiJ SLA:3: UP AM } S_ � ['CM1PaI.'w[�sxE P: 3}X,Ck10.'i1'pE ra^ro:aa OPEN SA. ■ NUFFER' I&M SF WETLAND B• - • CATEGORY I . . 115.87629 SF TRAIL .(ON —SITE) - - 3.377 $F (ACBW) ENHANC® UFFER: • - - - (PASSM) r . .' 165LAN6 A . r NATIVE BUFFER- 39,047 5F 1r (PAS3IYE} A r _ Sea'31'22i 1291.ar I 767.65' LEGEND \ � . PROGRAMMED RECREATION AREA (AC71W) �.-�� `-- �Y . _ RECREATION BUILDMG ' • -- . - — . NAIIYf AND ENHANCED NETLAND BUFfEF AREA (PASSlW) NEZJWD BUFFER TRAri. - I i PLAY AREA OPEN SPACE 4 4 r — ® UM 40k40' OPEN SPACE AREA "Common Recreational Open Space Usable for Many Activities, FWRC 19.205.040 (af)- iota) PlayArea 40'x40' Open Space 1 3,264 2,210 1 3,264 Open Space 2 6.846 4,520 51846 Open Space 3 8,623 5.040 8.623 Open Space 4 4,338 1 1.900 Open Space 5 Open Space 6 4.255 3,888 14,890 14.890 Active Site - Outdoor 42,216 11,770 39,411 Recreation Building 10,778 R Min. Project Requirement a5: 1007 67% (A=W) Trail (Active) 3,377 . •-• _ { I •'( Butler (Native/Enhanced). 15,175 15,175 Buller (Enhanced)* 11,614 9,438 I IIII, Buller (Nolive). 39,047 69,213 , 24,613 IIIp . I � Min. Project Requirement 59r OR 422 � OPEN SPACE 31 Lis: °..-_ Total Project Z Mtn, Prcjeef Regairemenl 122,207 1 31,770 64,024 104x 100Z 1099 • _ - &623 SF l g + Malxnam pM*d Raquoe—fl! ff (ACTiW) Common open Space tt7,200 a1 (293du x 4MIVouJ I Ploy Area 17.720 of (10,fi of Torot Open Specs Req'd) 40'x40' Area 5A600 sl (AZ of 7alpl [psn Spflce R4Q4.} Y. 1 7 .� -. .. •TI .� ci ��1 ' H, _. :RE Btut Tatra SF I Y I t «-•T� r J >ls 6 (ACTH£] J I � � F Ak l -6 ,3xr OP N SPACES t4,a90 S< (ACTIVE} Ij A; yil r !' 1 I ..�� i e-. I I- I:, f/7 PARK 16 MULTIFAMILY COMMON RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE ob 0 50 100 PLAN IN FEET CP1H CONSULTANTS Sae P6nring • CNI En®rleedng Land Use Lbrsddng L POW Maaagelnera 7337MA.n., eInn IIril3eq WA9a Rsms:142512a5239nl FA'02512aS2369 w«n. [OACans idle nl s.fom 111111 9 901 i Park 16 Multifamily Recreational Open Space Accounting Common Recreational Open Space Usable for Many Activities, FWRC 19.205.040 (sf) Total Play Area 40'x40' Open Space 1 3,264 2,210 3,264 Open Space 2 6,846 4,520 6,846 Open Space 3 8,623 5,040 8,623 Open Space 4 4,338 1,900 Open Space 5 4,255 3,988 Open Space 6 14,890 14,890 Active Site - Outdoor 42,216 11,770 39,411 Recreation Building 10,778 °° Min. Project Requirement 45% 100% 6796 Trail (Active) 3,377 Buffer (Native/Enhanced)* 15,175 15,175 Buffer (Enhanced)* 11,614 9,438 Buffer (Native)* 1 39,047 t I °o Min. Project Requirement 59% 0% 42% Total Project 122,207 11,770 64,024 °o Min. Project Requirement 104% 100% 109% Minimum Project Requirements: Common Open Space 117,200 sf (293du x 400sf/du) Play Area 11,720 sf (10% of Total Open Space Req'd.) 40'x40' Area 58,600 sf (50% of Total Open Space Req'd.) City of Federal Way #12-105564-00-UP Page 1 of 1 7/2/2013 PARK 16 BUFFER MITIGATION SUMMARY Prepared 12 July 2013 by Talasaea Consultants Buffer Mitigation Area A: Temporary Buffer Impacts from Construction (3,320 sf) Mitigation Area A consists of a narrow strip at the extreme outer perimeter of the Wetland A and B buffers. Area A is approximately 14 feet wide at the widest point. From Wetland A south, this area is currently disturbed with rubble and debris and vegetated primarily with invasive species such as Scots broom, morning glory, thistle, etc. North of Wetland A this area is primarily native conifer forest with a very sparse native shrub mid -story. Mitigation Area A will be temporarily impacted by construction, including grading for the adjacent retaining walls (located outside the buffer), installation of dispersion trenches for clean rooftop runoff, and installation of an outfall for the stormwater vault. Area A will be fully restored to better than existing conditions as follows: From Wetland A south: o The invasive species and debris will be removed, o Disturbed soil will be restored with imported or stockpiled topsoil and/or compost, o Disturbed soil will be stabilized with mulch, and o The area will be revegetated with a mix of native evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs. This will also add to the viewing interest from the wetland buffer overlook in Open Space 6. From Wetland A north: o Disturbed soil will be restored with imported or stockpiled topsoil and/or compost, o Disturbed soil will be stabilized with mulch, and o The area will be revegetated with a mix of native evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs. The post -mitigation buffer condition north of Wetland A will have more species diversity and more structural diversity (i.e., low, mid -height, and tall shrub and understory tree species) than existing conditions. This will add to the viewing interest from the adjacent apartments and for pedestrians utilizing the northern portion of the trail. Buffer Mitigation Area B: Full Buffer Restoration (26,400 sf) -0,5 hrg � Mitigation Area B consists of both Wetland A and B buffer that is almost exclusively vegetated with invasive species such as Scots broom, moming glory, thistle, reed canarygrass, and Himalayan blackberry (see attached photo). Area B is primarily open with little tree cover; only one native conifer and a small cluster of black cottonwoods exist within Area B. Mitigation Area B will be fully restored as follows: The entire area will be grubbed to remove all non-native and invasive species, Disturbed soil will be restored with imported or stockpiled topsoil and/or compost, Habitat features such as down logs, stumps, and snags with swallow nest boxes will be installed, Disturbed soil areas will be stabilized with mulch, and The area will be revegetated with a mix native evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs. In addition, as part of the woodchip pedestrian trail system within the buffer, a loop of the trail will be routed through Mitigation Area B. This portion of trail will have a viewpoint that will contain an interpretive sign and bench. This will allow trail users to more directly experience the buffer restoration plantings and habitat features. The interpretive sign will explain the buffer restoration work and will describe the important role of the upland forest buffer in protecting the adjacent wetland and the process of succession back to mature upland forest. TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Park 16 Buffer Mitigation Summary 12 July 2013 Buffer Mitigation Area C: Selective Enhancement of Existing Scrub -Shrub Buffer (8,360 so Mitigation Area C consists of both Wetland A and B buffer that is currently vegetated with a mix of native and invasive non-native species (see attached photo). Native species include several species of native willow, Douglas spirea, black cottonwood, and bracken fern. Non-native invasive species include Himalayan blackberry, Scots broom, reed canarygrass, and morning glory. Mitigation Area C will be selectively enhanced as follows: • Non-native invasive species will be selectively grubbed out by hand, ■ Habitat features such as down logs, stumps, and snags with swallow nest boxes will be installed in select locations to not disturb existing native species, • Disturbed soil areas will be stabilized with mulch, and • Areas grubbed of invasive vegetation will be revegetated with a mix of native evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs. The portion of pedestrian trail routed through Mitigation Area C will allow the trail users to directly experience both the existing native vegetation as well as the enhancement plantings and installed habitat features. Buffer Mitigation Area D: Selective Enhancement of Native Coniferous Forest Buffer (1,900 so Mitigation Area D consists of relatively mature Douglas fir forest with a low groundcover understory of native blackcap raspberry, with some salal near the forest edge (see attached photo). This area will be selectively enhanced to increase vegetation species and structural diversity as follows: r • A variety of shade -adapted native species will be installed which may include vine maple, red elderberry, and Indian plum. These tall shrub and small tree species will fill in the mid -story stratum in this area of forest. Pedestrians traveling along the northern portion of the trail will be able to directly experience the native coniferous forest environment. The enhancement plantings will increase the viewing experience of trail users. Buffer Mitigation Area E: Selective Enhancement of Native Coniferous Forest Buffer (4,220 so Mitigation Area E consists of relatively mature Douglas fir forest with virtually no understory vegetation (see attached photo). The area does contain a large amount of down logs and woody debris of various sizes. This area will be selectively enhanced to increase vegetation species and structural diversity as follows: • A variety of shade -adapted native species will be installed which may include vine maple, red elderberry, and Indian plum. These tall shrub and small tree species will fill in the mid -story stratum in this area of forest. In addition to planting enhancements, the portion of the woodchip pedestrian trail that passes through Area E will have a viewpoint that will contain an interpretive sign and bench. The interpretive sign will explain the role of large down woody debris (e.g., nurse logs, stumps) in the mature forest environment. TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Page 2 of 2 Park 16 Buffer Mitigation Summary 12 July 2013 Buffer Mitigation Area F: Selective Enhancement of Native Coniferous Forest Buffer (18,180 sf) Mitigation Area F consists of relatively mature Douglas fir forest with an understory of native low shrub and groundcover species such as blackcap raspberry, sword fern, and salal (see attached photo). There is little mid -story vegetation. This area will be selectively enhanced to increase vegetation species and structural diversity and habitat value as follows: ■ A variety of shade -adapted native species will be installed which may include vine maple, red elderberry, and Indian plum. These tall shrub and small tree species will fill in the mid -story stratum in this area of forest which will help to increase the habitat value of the forest for wildlife. Large woody debris such as down logs and stumps will be installed in select locations along the pedestrian trail. These habitat features will further increase the wildlife habitat value and functions of this area of forest. In addition to planting and habitat feature enhancements, a viewpoint containing an interpretive sign and bench will be located along the portion of woodchip pedestrian trail that passes through Area E. The enhancement plantings and habitat features will increase the viewing experience for trail users, and the interpretive sign will explain the role of vegetation structural diversity in the mature forest environment. TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Page 3 of 3 PA KY, I l0 WETLAMb 5LIFFEC. MITIOAT16H MIXES ACe BB lv� 1 I. l y W WETLAND B 1 .. C.ATEISORY I l 1159T6 SF ON -SITE � - v IV W W.W... •,. t,_ WCX. CdNIF �; s W • a v ,1 INFILTRATION �,FmNci+ (r T PJ •. PUBLIC ROAD I EASEMENr A 1 WETLAND A Z • rORY III w ' � , - in*s !WSF tlK-51TE ly �' � +5TOIihi^IATER I" W a; M1x1! f lOPEN fbic Ed, Ex. corn t� ; . T , L e(7 s N � ( IN FEET) 6RA(II SCALE ITN 1� •� 120 MlTI6AT1oN A? -EA A ° �� SCALE. I•�£K7' M IT1C7An0n A.e;---A 5 TAL4-sA E4 m iTu,RTlorl ,AeEA, C- CoNSLILTA MT_*5 E= 7-4-13 mmc-zxl-y)" AREA. L7 M 1T1 CUA.nU N P'P'�'4 1✓ M jT &A.T101-1 AeER 1= * SEE ATTAv_tkeV f5UFFM M1114FIN10" SUp111P,� 1 � OLr �� .• ' � 5 r t a =rt ` �+• �• l � �: 'III � r ri ]I � JlL �� i• 'A � 'a i F • JK: k _ i al alz C- � rr o m f f Ow Mal u . 'o -1k son 4 CITY OF Ak Federal June 11, 2013 Mr. Matt Hough CPH Consultants 733 7th Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland, WA 98033 CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Feder Way Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com Re: File #12-105564-00-UP; REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Park 16 Multifamily, 35703 16`h Avenue South, Federal Way Dear Mr. Hough: FILE The city's Development Review Committee (DRC) is currently reviewing the above -referenced Process III land use application resubmittais received April 18, 2413, and May 24, 2013. The proposed site. development includes 26 multifamily buildings with 293 residential units (per the latest resubmittais), one recreational building, parking accommodations, open space, and landscaping. A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignif cane (MDNS) was issued on May 31, 2013, with associated comment and appeal periods ending June 14, 2013, and June 28, 2013, respectively. The following comments pertain to the Land Use Process III application review. TECHNICAL COMMENTS/REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION If you have questions about an individual comment, please contact the appropriate department representative noted below. Janet Shull, Planning Division (253-835-2644, 'anet.shull(R-) i offederalway.eom Planning staff has reviewed the resubmittals received April 18 and May 24Lnand have the following comments that must be addressed prior to issuance of the Process III land use decision. The resubmitted plans show that the number of units was reduced slightly from the original proposal and this appears to have helped some aspects of the site design, in particular the creation of improved tot lot play spaces. However, many other minimum site design standards for multifamily development are still riot being met. Most concerning are the close proximity of buildings to retaining walls, lack of common usable open space meeting the minimum requirement of 40 by 40-foot dimension, lack of private open space available to ground floor units on "carriage house" buildings, and lack of east -west connection for pedestrians through the site in -line with Open Space Area 3. Buildings Q, R, S, and T; and U, W, Y, and Z, in conjunction with retaining walls between these buildings, provide two approximate 450-foot walls running north -south through the site that physically and visually disconnect residential units from the common areas and site amenities. Doc I.D. 63483 File 12-105564-00-UP Mr. Matt Hough Page 2 of 9 June 24, 2013 I. Wetland Buffer Intrusions A wetland buffer mitigation plan and report by Talasaea was submitted on May 24, 2013. The applicant is proposing'minor improvements within the wetland buffer area consisting of five-foot wide wood chip trail benches and split rail fencing to allow for passive recreation and viewing of the buffer area. Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19.175.040 allows for review of such improvements through Process III. In addition to the proposed minor improvements, the applicant is proposing the location of three disbursement trenches within the outer limits of the designated buffer area that will convey roof rainwater runoff to the wetland system. One of these trenches is located within an area that has been altered by past clearing and has also been taken over by invasive species. The applicant has prepared a buffer enhancement plan to address this large disturbed area that exists within the southern half of the buffer area associated with Wetland B (a Category 1 wetland) which is also coincident with the buffer area associated with Wetland A (a Category III wetland). The applicant proposes to enhance this area with native plantings to restore and enhance the wetland buffer function. Temporary intrusions into this altered portion of the wetland buffer area are also proposed for construction of retaining walls and site improvements on the upslope area beyond the wetland buffer. The remaining two proposed dispersion trenches and additional approximate 300 linear feet, of 10 to 20-foot wide temporary buffer intrusions associated with retaining wall construction are proposed along the outer edge of the buffer area associated with Wetland B. This northern half of the buffer area has not been identified as an area altered by previous actions/development. Proposed minor improvements within this area may be reviewed via a Process III application as long as the outcome of the proposed action is an improvement to the altered area, not simply a replacement of vegetation removed to construct the improvements. See also comments under Section 11, `on -site usable open space.' H. Site Plan On -Site Usable Open Space — Preliminary landscape plans were resubmitted on May 24, 2013. The plans adequately address the minimum requirement for tot lot space as noted in section b below. However, the plans still are deficient in overall common recreational open space and also quantity of open space that meets minimum size requirements, unless further revisions are made to enhance the areas being proposed to meet the minimum standard. The resubmitted plans continue to rely heavily on existing wetland buffer area to meet the minimum common recreational open space requirements. Further comments are provided in the following sections and must be addressed prior to issuance of the Process III land use decision. a. Per FWRC 19.205.040, special note 2, the minimum open space requirement for multifamily development is at least 400 square feet of common recreational open space usable for many activities per unit: 293 units (per resubmittal) proposed x 400 equals a minimum of 117,200 square feet of common recreational open space is required. Without the proposed "wetland viewing area," the site plan only provides for approximately 53,733 square feet of recreational open space (including indoor space proposed in the recreation center). Only the accessible and enhanced portions of the "wetland viewing area," may be counted toward usable open space. The applicant File 12-105564-00-UP Dot_ I.D. 63483 Mr. Matt Hough Page 3 of 9 June 24, 2013 has identified a large, approximately 100-foot wide swath of wetland buffer area that is largely unaltered/unenhanced as being counted toward open space and this does not meet the intent of usable open space. In order to get credit for the entire wetland buffer area identified, the applicant must show how this entire area is providing for recreational use. Is it unique in appearance, natural vegetation, or will the vegetation be enhanced in some way to justify its credit as recreational open space and is the entire area visibly accessible to those walking on the path? On its face, the project still appears to be short of the minimum commonly accessible, recreational open space for a project with 293 units with a majority of these units being 3, 4, and 5-bedrooms. There will likely be a greater than average household size for this development than typical multifamily housing development in Federal Way. Meeting the minimum city standards for on -site recreation opportunities is extremely important. b. The May 24, 2013, resubmitted plans and supplemental information submitted April 18, 2013, depict how the minimum requirement of 10 percent of open space area is proposed to be dedicated to children's play equipment. (For 293 units proposed, a minimum of 11,720 square feet of area with children's play equipment must be provided.) Plan Sheet L3.1 indicates that 11,766 square feet are being provided, within three open space areas (open space areas 1 3). Supplemental information submitted April 18, 2013, details that play area 1 is 2,200 square feet, play area 2 is 4,526 square feet, and play area 3 is 5,040 square feet. At least 50 percent of the open space must be in areas with a minimum dimension of 40 feet by 40 feet. A minimum of 58,600 square feet of usable open space must meet these minimum size requirements and must be provided on site. As shown on the site plan submitted, the recreation center and Open Spaces 1, 2, 3, and 6 can be counted toward the minimum requirement. The lower terrace of the area indicated as Open Space 6 must be detailed to identify its intended use as it is at a grade approximately 10 feet lower than the rest of Open Space 6 and currently reads as a separate unrelated open space area that is less than 40 by 40 feet in size. The applicant identifies a total of 103,800 square feet as meeting the minimum 40 x 40 foot minimum open space area requirement. However, this total is largely dependent on 69,200 square feet of wetland buffer area being counted toward the total. The trail area and areas being enhanced for the enjoyment of residents (specifically the area surrounding Wetland A that is being revegetated with native plants to restore its wetland buffer function) can be included. The area currently identified for credit is largely unaltered wetland buffer area and may only be counted as usable open space area if it is similarly enhanced for the enjoyment of users of the proposed path. The plans need to be revised to count only usable open space areas that are both usable and meet the minimum dimensions. Some portion of the wetland buffer area may be counted if it is clearly being enhanced for the use and enjoyment of residents, but the applicant should primarily be counting open space areas that are physically accessible and/or enhanced for use/enjoyment as that is the intent of the usable open space standard. Doc. LD.6,483 File 12-105564-00-UP Mr. Matt Hough Page 4 of 9 June 24, 2013 III. Landscaping a. Parking Areas and Private Patio Areas are Shown in the Required Perimeter Landscape Areas — The resubmitted landscape plans received May 24, 2013, continue to show paved parking areas within the required perimeter landscape area along the southern property line in between buildings AA and P. Paved areas must be located outside of the required perimeter landscape areas. Notes in the response letter under Item IVa on page 7 state that, "...an emergency vehicle access being provided through the perimeter landscaping adjacent to carriage house BB between the on -site parking area and the property to the south." Upon review, it appears you mean the paved area referred to above that is adjacent to Building AA. There is no requirement for an emergency vehicle access to the single family property to the south and therefore, this paved area should be removed and shown as perimeter landscape area. The resubmitted plans received May 24, 2013, also indicate what looks to be a patio located within the required perimeter landscape area along the northern property line at building BB. These site elements must be located outside of the required perimeter landscape area. b. FWRC 19.125.070, Parking Lot Landscaping — The minimum size of interior parking lot landscape islands must be 64 square feet and the minimum width six feet. The maximum size that can be credited toward interior parking lot landscape island area is 305 square feet. The resubmitted plans do not provide dimensional information, only square footage. Based on the square footage information provided, and only allowing a maximum of 305square feet of credit for each interior parking lot landscape island, the resubmitted plans do meet the minimum required parking lot landscaping requirement. IV. Clearing Grading, and Tree and Vegetation Protection a. Rockeries and Retaining Walls — In response to the initial request for sections and details of rockeries and retaining walls, general site sections were provided with the April 18, 2013, resubmittal (sheet 8 of 8 of the preliminary civil plans). These do not provide adequate detail to evaluate the proposed walls and rockeries for compliance with FWRC 120.120(3) through (7). Specifically, have you allowed for a minimum of three feet of landscape area at the base of each wall? No landscaping is identified at the base of walls in back of Buildings K, J, and A. In addition, it appears that there is perhaps as little as three feet between retaining walls located behind Buildings J and A, and that with landscaping added to screen the four- to six-foot high walls, there will be no passable area for residents to walk behind the buildings. Some of the building areas within close proximity of retaining walls are actually building entries (Building K should be evaluated as well). If we are interpreting the plans correctly, it means that it will be impossible to enter the building once the required retaining wall landscape screening is in place. Even without required landscaping, a minimum of five feet of clear walking space must be provided —meaning in reality there should be a minimum of eight feet of clearance between the base of the wall and building facades to allow for minimum landscape width and a clear walking path. Additional areas where there does not appear to be adequate room for landscaping, includes but may not be limited to: File 13-105564-00-UP Dm.1D 63483 Mr. Matt Hough Page 5 of 9 June 24, 2013 a. Base of wall south of Building V. b. Base of foundation wall for storm draining vault between it and pedestrian path. c. Base of wall located south of Building M (between wall and sidewalk). d. Base of walls running north -south on the east side of Buildings Q, R, S, and T. e. Minimum area for terracing between walls is five feet —show how this is provided. Please provide sections and details of proposed rockeries and retaining walls that indicate material, overall height, and landscaping. Per FWRC 19.120.120(3), rockeries and retaining walls on multifamily residential lots shall be a maximum height of six feet, and there shall be a minimum of three feet of landscaped setback at the base of each rockery or retaining wail. Also, see FWRC 19.120.120(4) through (7) for additional requirements for terracing, landscaping, and material selection for rockeries and retaining walls. Tree Retention Standards — Sheet L1.1 submitted on May 24, 2013, provides tree retention information and calculations. The applicant correctly indicates that a total of419 tree units are required for the subject site. The calculations also correctly remove the wetland area from the total land area for which tree units are required. However, the applicant then counts the existing tree units within this area toward credit for tree units retained. The tree unit credits are only allowable for tree units within the wetland area if the applicant opts to consider this area as part of the total area for which tree unit credit requirements are calculated. The calculations must be revised to either consider the wetland area for required and credited tree units, or consider only tree units retained and trees planted on the area outside of the designated wetland area. Please note that the applicant may also get tree unit credit for all trees proposed to be planted in the proposed landscape areas. V. Administrative Design Guidelines a. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design {OPTED} -- A CPTED checklist was submitted on April 18, 2013, along with the resubmitted site and building plans, and was routed to the Police Department for public safety review. The Police Department commented that they find the revised children's play areas to be much improved from the initial submittal. The Police Department also provided the following comments that must be addressed prior to issuance of the Process III decision: 1. After reviewing the resubmission, we would still like to see additional lighting in the corridor/outdoor hallway as resident safety is of upmost importance and lighting in a top factor in deterring crime. We suggest preparing the lighting plan in accordance with Illuminating Engineering Society of America Standards (IESA). We also suggest being mindful that landscaping does not inhibit or block any lighting illumination. 2. We continue to be concerned about the proposed soft -surface pedestrian trail that runs behind the building, between the retaining wall and wetland. These areas are known to become frequented by drug users and people engaging in illegal activity. With the proposed "three points of connection" to this trail, it offers an easy escape route for burglars, car prowlers, and vandals to exit the property. Apartments that face a wetland buffer with adjacent trails are frequently burglarized due to this easy access in and out, as well as limited surveillance by Doc ID 63483 File 12-105564-00-UP Mr. Matt Hough Page 6 of 9 June 24, 2013 residents. We suggest placing secure fencing with gates to access the wetland area for residents. We suggest these gates be locked from dusk until dawn to reduce illegal activity during the evening hours. We also suggest placing security cameras at each trail entry. This will further help to deter illegal activity in this area both day and night. b. Fagade Treatment— Resubmitted building elevations and plans meet the minimum standards of the FWRC. c. Building Articulation and Scale —Resubmitted building elevations and plans meet the minimum standards of the FWRC. d. FWRC 19.115(1)(r) specifies that residential design features, including but not limited to, entry porches, projecting window bays, balconies or decks, individual windows (rather than strip windows), offsets, and cascading or stepped roof forms shall be incorporated into all buildings. Window openings shall have visible trim material or painted detailing that resembles trim. All buildings must incorporate at a minimum the above features. Staff still maintains that in order to meet minimum design guidelines the "carriage units" should be further modified to incorporate individual entry porches and add balconies, bay windows, and/or decks to all units in order to meet this standard, as well as the private outdoor space requirement of FWRC 19.115.090(1)(m). New Comment: Detailed east/west site cross sections that show the relationship between the proposed buildings, parking lots, retaining walls, pedestrian -oriented sidewalk areas, and open spaces should be provided in order to communicate the site characteristics. From the plans submitted, we are unable to understand, and are concerned about, the character of the area between the row of Buildings Q, R, S, and T and Buildings L and M. In addition, as proposed, it appears there is no way for a resident to walk from buildings on the west portion of the site to the central open space area between Buildings L and M without circumventing an approximate 450- foot long `wall' of buildings and retaining walls. A central pedestrian connection through the site should be provided between Buildings Y and W, and R and S so residents can more easily reach these common recreation areas. e. FWRC 19.115.090(1)(m) specifies that units on the ground floor shall have private outdoor spaces adjacent to them so those exterior portions of the site are controlled by individual households. The 13 "carriage unit" buildings should be re -designed so that each unit has an individual entrance and access to private outdoor space. As designed, and with few exceptions, these units are basically sitting in a sea of asphalt and concrete. Resubmitted plans do not adequately address this requirement. It is important to note that one of the primary purposes of the private outdoor spaces is to help ensure that exterior portions of the site are controlled by individual households. It is recommended that the applicant add individual porches to each unit with access to its own private outdoor space. to meet this requirement. If it is impractical to provide separate entry porches due to topography, the applicant should at a minimum provide balconies, or other means of affording private usable outdoor space, for these units to better activate the ground level area surrounding these units. File I2-105564-00-UP Doc. 1. D. 63483 Mr. Matt Hough Page 7 of 9 June 24, 2013 f. The city's Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan identifies South 3561h Street as a corridor with existing and proposed future bike lanes. The applicant is proposing two bicycle racks for temporary parking at the recreation center and at Open Space 6, which will be convenient for daytime use of these areas by residents and their guests. Covered and secure bike storage on site is highly recommended for multifamily developments. If the reduced parking is approved, it will be a requirement that secure bicycle parking be provided on site so that residents can more easily take advantage of alternate travel modes. VI. Parking Stall Count — Under FWRC 19.130.080(2), the city may grant a decrease in the required number of parking spaces if a thorough parking study documents that fewer parking spaces will be adequate to fully serve the uses. The resubmitted site plans and Parking Demand Analysis indicate that 472 parking stalls are proposed for 283 units. This equates to 1.61 parking stalls per unit, which is lower than the minimum standard in FWRC 19.205.040 of 1.7 stalls per unit. The applicant submitted an April 10, 2013, Parking Demand Analysis prepared by Transportation Engineering Northwest. The comparable projects presented in the study show a ratio of 1.67 stalls per unit being provided for the subject sites. Peak utilization is indicated to be 1.24 stalls per unit. The applicant bases their argument for a reduced parking ratio on the actual utilization rates rattier than the parking actually provided, which is closer to the city's requirement. The applicant also highlights a proposed Transportation Demand Management TDM plan to reduce the reliance on vehicle use. Staff continues to have concerns about the adequacy of parking stalls proposed for the project given its specific location and the number of garage spaces that may potentially not be available for vehicles. The proposed TDM plan, guest parking, and secure bike parking to offset the reduced number of vehicle parking stalls will be required as part of the land use decision in order to support the proposed reduction. Stall Dimension and Vehicular Overhang— The site plan resubmitted May 24, 2013, indicates that vehicles will overhang two feet over the five-foot wide sidewalks. When vehicles overhang onto sidewalks, the sidewalk width must be adjusted to ensure that there is five feet of unobstructed clearance. Therefore, the sidewalk width must be increased to a minimum of 7 feet in order to accommodate the vehicle overhang or curb stops must be added to ensure vehicles do not overhang sidewalk area. The same is true for overhang into landscape strips. See enclosed Bulletin 4042 "Parking Lot Design Criteria". Sarady Long, Traffic Division (253-83572743, saradv.lon ci offederalway.com The Public Works Traffic Division has reviewed the submitted material. Please see the enclosed comments. Doc. I D 63483 Pile 12-105564-00-UP Mr. Matt Hough Page 8 of 9 June 24, 2013 Rob Van Orsow, Solid Waste/Recycling Coordinator (253-835-2770, rob.ya no rsowCa,c ityo ffedera lway. c o m ) Revised site plans and recycling and garbage structure plans were routed for review and comments are provided below: I. Enclosure Design Concerns Waste Management continues to recommend utilizing all the parking area in the immediate vicinity of the proposed trash enclosure, and designating it for maintenance equipment and storage of bulky waste materials. Appliances, mattresses, etc., will be dumped by tenants. You cannot police or prohibit this. Do not plan to store these items in the "Trash Enclosure" containing the compactor. That will lead to problems in servicing that unit. New Comment: If you plan on using a compactor —you can probably fit a 30 yard compactor (no larger due to weight) in the "Trash Enclosure" —it will have steel guide plates mounted on the pavement, so you should omit the proposed `curb' that is in that enclosure. Also, there has to be a sufficient power source. The applicant should consult with a compactor sale and services vendor to ensure that the proposed "Trash Enclosure" depth is adequate. Also, show that there is no curb or sidewalk steps in front of the enclosures. U. Space Allocation for Recycling Recycle enclosures should have a wider gate. Make the front gate at least eight feet wide to allow a dumpster to be installed within and serviced directly by a front loader. The few carts that are being shown will not provide adequate recycling capacity for 293 units. If you can stage the enclosures so that the garbage company can access them straight on with a front -loader, you will not have to touch or move the recyclables; the hauler will do that and save maintenance labor. We still suggest using tow carts and a tipper for garbage. Put the front of Recycle #2 in line with the front of the "Trash Enclosure" (instead of staggered back). It is a bad idea to have `recycling only' enclosures that require rollout of carts. Sites 1 and 3 could easily become dumping grounds, since residents will use these sites to avoid visiting the compactor. III.One Enclosure for Entire Property Having only one enclosure for the entire property is inefficient for resident and maintenance access. This site approaches 10 acres, and straight line distance to the enclosure is over 400 feet from housing in the corners of the property. That is a long way to go to "take out the trash." The applicant should consider going with two -carts for garbage; positioned in several enclosures near the resident structure clusters. Maintenance staff would then roll these carts to the compactor (equipped with a tipper). These enclosures should be sized large enough to include space for dedicated recycling dumpsters that Waste Management would service. This will cut down on what maintenance staff has to move to the compactor area. The applicant has indicated in the resubmittal that, "onsite staff will use carts to manage/distribute refuse from remote areas." This makes no sense —there are no places designated where remote area garbage containers can be enclosed. File 13-105564-00-UP Doc LD 63483 W. Matt Hough Page 9 of 9 June 24, 2013 The proposed design will build -in permanent inconveniences that impact many potential residents. By not creating a workable solid waste collection infrastructure on site, ongoing operating costs will be higher than necessary, since enclosure sizes provide for very limited capacity, which means increased service frequency at higher costs/volume. In summary, the applicant is strongly encouraged to contact John Davis at Waste Management at 206- 804-6815 to develop a site design solution that will meet their minimum requirements and address the numerous concerns with servicing the proposed development as currently depicted on resubmitted plans. CLOSING When resubmitting requested information, please provide four copies of any reports and six copies of any plans, in addition to the green resubmittal form (enclosed). Pursuant to FWRC 19.15.050, if an applicant fails to provide additional information to the city within 180 days of being notified that such information is requested, the application shall be deemed null and void and the city shall have no duty to process, review, or issue any decisions with respect to such an application. If you have any questions regarding this letter or your development project, please contact me at 253-835- 2644, or Janet sl>ull e.cityoffederalway.com. Sincerely, net Shull, AICP, CSBA, LEED Green Associate Senior Planner enc: June 18, 2013, Memorandum from Sarady Long Bulletin 042, Parking Lot Design Criteria Bulletin 129, Resubmittal Information c: Kevin Peterson, Engineering Plans Reviewer Sarady Long, Senior Transportation Planning Engineer Rob Van Orsow, Solid Waste/Recycling Coordinator Lindsey Tiroux, Crime Prevention Analyst Doc I D 63483 File 12-105564-00-UP RESUBMITTED TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. 13 May 2013 Ms. Janet Shull, AICP Senior Planner City of Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 MAY 2.4 2013 CM OF FEDERAL WAY CDS REFERENCE: Park 16 Multifamily (Federal Way file #12-105564-00-UP) SUBJECT: Wetland Buffer Intrusions Dear Ms. Shull: TAL-1379 The City of Federal Way staff provided CPH Consulting with a comment letter on 22 February 2013 regarding the proposed Park 16 Multifamily Project. Talasaea was retained as the project's professional wetland consultant by CPH to provide responses to Section II of the City's comment letter. Section Il of the comment letter pertains to proposed intrusions into the wetland buffer. The Park 16 property contains two wetlands: Wetland A (Category 3) with a 25-foot buffer and Wetland B (Category 1) with a 200-foot buffer. The buffer for Wetland B encompasses Wetland A. The buffer for Wetland A creates an approximately 25-foot bulge located in the southern 1/3`d of the Wetland B buffer. The buffer from Wetland A south to the property line appears to contain fill material and construction debris from previous site development. Talasaea visited the project site on 2 April 2013 to evaluate the existing conditions of the buffers in the location of the proposed intrusions and trail alignment. The buffer for Wetland B north of wetland A is well vegetated with relatively healthy and mature coniferous forest. This forested area contains a native low sh rub/g round cover understory (e.g., salal and sword fern), but is relatively open in the mid layer (few large shrubs, or small trees in the understory). From Wetland A south to the property boundary, the buffer is primarily open and vegetated with a mix of shrubs, grasses, and scattered small deciduous trees. The vegetation in this area of the buffer also includes relatively dense patches of non-native invasive species such as Scot's broom, Himalayan blackberry, and reed canarygrass. See Attachment 2 for existing conditions photos of the south portion of the buffer area. We mapped the proposed pedestrian trail alignment using a TopCon GMS-2 mapping -grade GPS receiver. We were able to route the proposed pedestrian trail to avoid significant trees and minimize impacts to native vegetation. The proposed trail route generally follows areas sparsely vegetated with native species. Trail construction will require some grubbing of small shrub and herbaceous vegetation and minor ground leveling. Other areas of buffer intrusion include grading at the base of the retaining walls and installation of three dispersion trenches and one stormwater outfall from the infiltration vault. These impacts will have a minimal affect on the buffer because they occur in a relatively narrow band along the buffer edge. These impact Resource '<_Q Environmental planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast • Woodinville, Washington 98077 • Bus: (425) 861-7550 • Fax: (425) 861-7549 Ms. Janet Shull 13 May 2013 Page 2 of 2 areas will be restored with topsoil and planted with native species once construction is complete. Figure B1, provided with the 16 April 2013 response letter, depicts these buffer intrusion areas as a solid grey hatch at the base of the retaining wall. In addition, the area of the buffer previously disturbed by fill and debris from Wetland A south will be enhanced. This enhancement area is depicted as the cross hatch on Figure B1. Garbage and debris will be removed and invasive species such as Scot's broom will be grubbed out. After removal of garbage, debris, and invasive species, native trees and shrubs will be planted throughout the enhancement area. Talasaea Consultants will prepare a report detailing the proposed buffer enhancementlrestoration measures that will be provided with the final engineering plan submittal. This report will include full-size drawings depicting the proposed work, including invasive species removal and a detailed planting plan, planting notes, and details. The report will also include mitigation goals and objectives, a monitoring plan, maintenance and contingency measures, and a bond estimate, per Federal Way requirements. We trust that the information contained herein will meet your current needs. If you have any questions, please contact Ann Olsen or me at 425-861-7550, or via email at aoisen@talasaea.com or dteesdale@talasaea.com. Sincerely, TA SAEA CONSULT David Teesdale Senior Ecologist Attachments: 1. Figure B1 with photo -point locations 2. Buffer existing conditions photos cc: Tom Neubauer, Devco Matt Hough, CPH Consultants file Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast • Woodinville, Washington 98077 • Bus: (425)861-7550 Fax: (425)861-7549 SEC. 29, TWP 21 N, R4E W.M. _ PARK 16 MULTIFAMILY S88'31'291E 76,7.85'.. i1 € ----�= �� � � — s � _ �"•• is REC. EN 1 — } f t \ �v 1 1 4 oi1G vhO G 1 � l } ► 1 t � t ` I� �w II. 1k ylll, S APPROC FIEI./GRADING OLArdD WFER (Trn) ��(�" �•�` y � � ALriE' AWING WALL. �♦ 4 � � �_ ;'�i WAIAX-HEIGHT (M) flLC ,To's REPLANTEO tl s BUFFER SPECIES [MITIGARON) 1 53 ` 1 ON,y7'RENCN �I r i} 1 `lO 441 SF) w 1 'our aAu 1 1 FE1U (T1P.) r 1 J r SURFAC� i p r f PEDESTRIAN ]RAIL rje SA li 1 f ri EEy. 247.0 .1• �� f `` ;;I i `� F.• € EX15f. AREAIOF DISTURBANCE 1 ;AND NON-NATIVE SPECIES TO 9E 1REPLACE WIVITIIACWN PLAHRW6 ! LA<ltry l mr ml.umt VpPROX. FG = 220.00 X ,mmI = 5.10•` ; it (Qu = 20 ,` 1 r r ► f r r r I r i r 1 M LF OISPERSfON TfiE7JCr1' rr� , BUILDING L ROOF [10.441; SF) ib 0 50 100 PLAN IN FEET IE (IN) - 215.0 j IE (OUT) = 212.7 A� fi SD ;• f ++ ', tit .. :, I r SE) ti i t r •� 1� MINOR IMPROVEMENTS AT WETLAND BUFFER f FIGURE B1 A+I o&me-im+ I : Pko+ - Poi+nr" 1�C1�"iidin S PHOTO -POINT 1: Looking south from north end of Wetland A PHOTO -POINT 2: Looking north from south end of Wetland A ATTACHMENT 2: PHOTO -POINTS CP H CONSULTANTS April 16, 2013 Site Planning Civil Engineering Project Management Land Development Consulting RESUBMITTED Ms. Janet Shull APR 18 2013 Senior Planner City of Federal Way OF FEDERAL WAY 33325 8'h Avenue South �� CDS Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 RE: Park 16 Multifamily— CPH Project No. 0024-11-010 35703 16fh Avenue South, City of Federal Way File # 12-105564-00-UP Responses to Technical Comments/Request for Additional Information Ms. Shull, This letter and the following enclosed information comprise the re -submittal for the Process III Land Use Application and corresponding SEPA checklist for the Park 16 Multifamily project: 4 — Additional copies of this response letter 8 — SEPA Checklist, revised (April 10, 2013) 2 — Traffic Impact Analysis (Transportation Engineering NW; April 10, 2013) 2 — Parking Demand Analysis (Transportation Engineering NW; April 10, 2013) 2 — CPTED Checklist (April 10, 20 7 3) 2 — Minor Improvements in Wetland Buffer, Figure B 1(CPH Consultants, April 16, 20 7 3) 2 — Draft Affordable Housing Covenant 8 —Updated Plans: ■ Site Plan, sheet A 1.0 (Ross Deckman+Associates; April 10, 2013) ■ Open Space Overview Plan and Calculations, sheets (Talasaea Consultants, April 16, 2013) ■ Preliminary Landscape Plans, sheets L 1.1, L2.1, L2.2, L3.1, L3.2, L4.1, and L4.2 (Talasaea Consultants, April 16, 2013) ■ CivillSite and Roadway Improvements: — Preliminary Clearing and TESC Plan, P 1.0 (CPH Consultants; April 16, 2013) — Preliminary Grading Plan, P2.0 (CPH Consultants; April 16, 2013) — Preliminary Drainage Plan, P3.0 (CPH Consultants; April 16, 2013) — Preliminary Utility Plan, P4.0 (CPH Consultants; April 16, 2013) — Preliminary Right-of-way Plan — 16'h Avenue South, P5.0 (CPH Consultants; April 16, 2013) — Preliminary Right-of-way Plan — South 356fh Street, P5.1 (CPH Consultants; April 16, 2013) — Preliminary Lighting Plan, P6.0 (CPH Consultants; April 16 2013) — Preliminary Site Cross Sections, P7.0 (CPH Consultants; April 16, 2013) 2 — Building Elevations, A3.0 through A3.24 (Ross Deckman+Associates; April 10, 2013) 2 — Building plans A2.0 through A2.26 Ross Deckman+Associates; April 10, 2013) 2 — Play Areas 1, 2, & 3 Supplemental Design Information (Talasaea Consultants; April 16, 2013) 2 — Preliminary Storm Drainage Infiltration Vault Details, C3.102 (CPH Consultants, April 16, 20 7 3) 733 7th Avenue, Suite 100 • Kirkland, WA 98033 • Phone: (425) 285-2390 - Fax: (425) 285-2389 www.cphconsultants.com Park 16 Multifamily April 16, 2013 Response to Request for Additional Information Page 2 of 20 CPH No. 0024- 11 -0 10 These documents have been updated or otherwise prepared in response to the comments provided with your February 22, 2013 letter with additional comments from city staff. Specific responses to each of the review comments are as follows: Technical Comments/Request for Additional Information: JANET SHULL, PLANNING DIVISION, 253-835-2644, JANET.SHULL Q@CITYOFFEDERALWAY.COM Planning staff has reviewed the proposed multifamily development i. SEPA Checklist Item A.10 — Please revise to remove reference to Clearing and Grading Permit — there is no separate permit for clearing and grading in Federal Way. Response: Item A.10 has been corrected to identify the required Engineering Permit for the project. Item A.1 1 — Please revise the parking stall count to be consistent with what is indicated on the site plan. Response: The parking count has been revised to reflect the current site plan. Item B.3.a.2) — Based on the submitted plans, clearing and grading work will occur within 200 feet of the wetlands. Please revise the response. Response: This item of the SEPA checklist has been updated to reflect the current site design. Item B.IO.c — Please add a reference to City of Federal Way Revised Code Landscaping development standards and Community Design Guidelines in place of the reference to Snohomish County development standards. Response: The correct City of Federal Way reference has been made as requested. Item B.12.a — Please complete first sentence that ends with "...which is located less than " Response: The response to this Item has been completed. II. Wetland Buffer Intrusions As mentioned in section I above, the submitted plans indicate that there will be intrusions into wetland buffer areas. It is recommended that the site plan be revised so that all development activity is located outside of the required buffer area and the applicant's environmental consultant should provide recommendations for appropriate construction standards to ensure development activity will not impact the required buffer areas. If the applicant determines they would like to proceed with proposed intrusions into the required buffer area then those intrusions can be reviewed subject to FWRC 19.175.040(6) Modification, which will likely require Process IV review and specified criteria for granting such intrusions. Minor improvements within the wetland buffer area — the proposed wood chip trail through the wetland buffer area may be reviewed and approved through Process III. The applicant's environmental consultant must respond as to HOW the proposal meets the following criteria found in FWRC 19.175.040(4): (a) It will not adversely affect water quality; Park 16 Multifamily Response to Request for Additional Information CPH No. 0024-1 1 -0 10 April 16, 2013 Page 3 of 20 Response: The proposed trail will be constructed using wood chips as a paving material. By using wood chips, the trail will not be an impervious surface that could leach out pollutants or other potentially toxic chemicals. The trail will be maintained using additional layers of wood chips, as needed, or simple hand - removal of weeds. Additionally, no trees or large shrubs will be removed. We expect to remove some groundcover plants in some areas to align the trail, but no grading, excavating, or compacting of native topsoil will occur during the trail construction. The water quality functions of the buffer will not be diminished as a result of the proposed wood chip trail. (b) It will not adversely affect the existing quality of the wetland's or buffer's wildlife habitat; Response: The proposed wood chip trail will not encroach upon or disturb any wetland habitat. Wildlife habitat associated with wetland areas is not likely to be adversely affected by the trail in any significant way. The proposed route of the trail avoids large frees and generally stays within areas currently sparsely vegetated with shrubs. Avoiding damage to large frees and shrubs helps preserve the quality of wildlife habitat within the buffer. Finally, a split -rail fence will be constructed along the west side of the trail (that portion of the trail facing the wetland) to prevent human intrusion into the more sensitive wetland habitat. The split -rail fence will not hinder movement of wildlife between upland buffer and wetland areas. (c) It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities; Response: The proposed trail will be constructed out of wood chips and will not entail any additional grading, excavating, or compacting of native topsoil. The proposed wood chip trail is not likely to adversely affect drainage or storm water retention capabilities of the buffer. (d) It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards; and Response: The trail construction will not involve any additional grading, excavating, or compacting of native topsoil. The preliminary trail alignment shown on the plans has been located using a hand-held GPS unit. The alignment has avoided large trees and steep slopes and will basically follow relatively level terrain, which will also help prevent unstable earth conditions or erosion hazards. The use of wood chips as the paving material will prevent stormwater from becoming concentrated and directed towards hydrologic low areas. Thus, the proposed wood chip trail is not anticipated to create any erosion hazards. (e) It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor to the city as a whole. Response: The proposed wood chip trail will be constructed entirely on property owned by the Client and will not directly affect any adjacent properties. As mentioned in our response to Item (d), no grading, excavation, or compaction of native topsoil will occur during construction of the trail. No existing native trees or large shrubs will be removed, which could increase the risk of soil erosion through loss of canopy coverage. The proposed wood chip trail will not alter the local hydrology or geologic stability of the immediate area, and therefore poses no real risk ❑f damage to other properties in the general area, or to the city as a whole. Additional minor improvements that the project proposes within the outer edges of the wetland buffer area include storm water dispersion trenches, limited grading to minimize wail heights outside of and adjacent to wetland buffers, and mitigation ❑f existing degraded buffer areas (see enclosed Figure 131). Review of these elements is requested with this Process III as discussed subsequently with Mr. Isaac Conlen, and the following summarizes compliance with the required criteria provided by FWRC 19.175.040(4): Park 16 Multifamily Response to Request for Additional Information CPH No. 0024-1 1-010 April 76, 2013 Page 4 of 20 Additional minor improvements are proposed within the eastern -most perimeter of the Wetland A and B buffers. These improvements include limited grading and the installation of three dispersion trenches and one overflow outfall for the infiltration vault, all located at the base of the retaining wall on the west edge of the proposed development. These additional minor improvements will be located within the extreme outer perimeter of the buffer and the affected area of buffer will be relatively small. All buffer areas disturbed by these improvements will be fully restored and revegetated after construction is complete. In addition, some additional areas of existing degraded buffer adjacent to Wetland A are proposed to be enhanced. Per recent correspondence between the City (Isaac Conten) and CPH Consultants (Matt Hough), the City may consider these additional minor improvements with this Process Ill. As such, sufficient detail is included with this response to address the criteria contained in FWRC 19.175.040(4). Details of the proposed buffer restoration and enhancements that wilt accompany all minor improvements within the wetland buffer will be provided with the final engineering permit submittal as agreed to in Mr. Conlen's and Mr. Hough's telephone discussions. The following responses from the project biologist and design team summarize how the proposed minor grading, dispersion trenches, and storm water outfall comply with the criteria contained in FWRC 19.175.040(4) for "minor improvements": a) It will not adversely affect water quality; The proposed grading and dispersion trenches are not likely to adversely affect water quality. These intrusions will be located within the extreme outer perimeter of the buffer, and will extend a maximum of approximately 15 feet into the buffer at the widest point. Thus, the affected area of buffer will be relatively small. No toxic materials will be placed in the buffer as part of this work. The proposed grading will consist of clean fill material, and the dispersion trenches will receive only clean runoff (i.e., only clean rooftop runoff or treated overflow from the infiltration vault) to be dispersed and infiltrated within the buffer. b) It will not adversely affect the existing quality of the wetland's or buffer's wildlife habitat; The proposed grading and dispersion trenches are not likely to adversely affect the existing quality of the wetland's or buffer's wildlife habitat, due primarily, to the fact that these intrusions will be located within the extreme outer perimeter of the buffer and will affect a refotivefy small area within the overall buffer. As mentioned above, these intrusions will extend a maximum of approximately 15 feet into the buffer at the widest point. Essentially the entire area disturbed by these intrusions will be fully restored with native trees and shrubs once construction is complete. All areas disturbed by grading will be fully restored; only the areas directly on top of the dispersion trenches (approximately 53 feet long x 3-4 feet wide each) will not be able to be planted as these areas will be surfaced with rip -rap. In addition, some areas of existing degraded buffer are proposed to be enhanced. These areas are mainly located within the 25-foot buffer east of Wetland A, between Wetland A and the proposed retaining wall. Some enhancement is also proposed for the outer perimeter of the Wetland B buffer south of Wetland A, between the proposed pedestrian trail and the buffer perimeter. These areas will be enhanced by removing existing trash, debris, and invasive species and planting with native frees and shrubs. The restoration of the disturbed areas and the proposed supplemental enhancement should of a minimum maintain the habitat functions of the buffer compared with existing conditions, and the supplemental enhancement will likely result in an improvement in habitat functions. Details of the proposed buffer restoration and enhancement work, including planting plans, will be provided with the final engineering permit submittal. c) It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities; The proposed grading and dispersion trenches are not likely to adversely affect the drainage or stormwater retention capabilities of the wetland or buffer. The grading and dispersion trenches Park 16 Multifamily Response to Request for Additional Information CPH No. 0024-1 1 -0 10 April 16, 2013 Page 5 of 20 will not result in any impediments or significant changes to the existing drainage patterns within the wetland or the buffer. The proposed grading within the buffer perimeter wilt maintain the general east-fo-west surface drainage patterns within the buffer (i.e., towards the wetland), and will not fill any areas that currently function as stormwater retention. The discharge from the dispersion trenches and stormwater outfall will generally mimic the existing drainage patterns on the project site (i.e., east to west). d) It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards; The proposed grading, dispersion trenches, and stormwater outfall are not likely to lead to unstable earth conditions or erosion hazards. Aft proposed grading of the base of the retaining wall will utilize clean structural fill material with slopes not to exceed 3.1. Ail disturbed soil areas will be temporarily stabilized per the civil plans and will be permanently revegetated with native trees and shrubs once construction is complete. The dispersion trenches are designed to generally disperse outflows over an area sufficient to not create any concentrated surface flows that night cause erosion, and are designed to directly infiltrate the majority of the discharge for all but the largest of flows. Larger flows may result in some surface sheet flow from the dispersion trenches if they completely fill with water, buf they are designed to be of sufficient length (approx. 53 If) to ensure that any surface sheet flows will be sufficiently dispersed. The overflow outfall for the infiltration vault will have a rip -rap energy dissipation pad to prevent erosion, and is only expected to flow intermittently (i.e., when inflow into the vault exceeds infiltration capacity during larger storm events). e) It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor to the city as a whole. The proposed grading, dispersion trenches, and stormwater outfall will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor to the City as a whole. There will be no impacts from these proposed improvements beyond the immediate area of the work. As discussed above, the impacts will primarily be temporary and disturbed buffer areas will be fully restored and revegetated. III. Site Plan On -Site Usable Open Space — The site plan needs to be revised to clearly indicate how the minimum open space standards are met as follows: a. The minimum open space requirement for multifamily development is at least 400 square feet per unit; 301 units proposed x 400 = 120,400 square feet total required. Without the proposed "wetland viewing area' the site plan only provides for approximately 33,793 square feet of recreational open space (including indoor space proposed in the recreation center). Only the accessible portion of the "wetland viewing area', if any, may be counted toward usable open space. The proposed community center space may be counted as "open space" as it provides for recreational opportunities (pool and gymnasium) similar to what can be found in outdoor recreational areas. Please note the site plan indicates the recreation center is 7,655 square feet in the building area table, but 9,100 square feet in the "proposed open space table" — please correct/clarify as necessary. Please revise the site plan as necessary to provide for the minimum required on -site open space and clearly identify how the minimum open space area standard is met. Response: New landscape plan sheet L3.1, Open Space Overview Plan and Calculations, is included in the enclosed updated re -submittal package. This plan summarizes compliance with the Park 16 Multifamily Response to Request for Additional Information CPH No. 0024-1 1-010 April 16, 2013 Page 6 of 20 required open space and tot lot standards. The locations of the tot lots have also been re- configured in the current, updated site plan to respond to the provided City of Federal Way police comments. b. Please clarify whether Tot lot 9 area has been included in the 7,327 square feet identified for "Play area". It appears that this may be the case and the Tot Lot 9 area can only be counted once. Response: None of the tot lot areas are being double counted with the open space areas. The new landscape plan sheet L3.1, Open Space Overview Plan and Calculations clarifies the project's compliance. C. Minimum 10% of open space area shall have children's play equipment. For the subject site with 301 units proposed, a minimum of 12,040 square feet of area with children's play equipment must be provided. Only 4,800 SF is identified as tot lots. If the area designated "play area" is intended to satisfy this requirement, then that should be clarified. Details of proposed play areas including play equipment, seating for adults, lighting and fencing need to be provided for review and approval with the land use application. Also see comment 5 below regarding location of children's play areas. Response: The total residential unit count has been reduced to 293 to provide the required on - site open space area and distribution of those facilities. The total minimum required tot lot area (10% of total) is 11,720 square feet. The new landscape plan sheet L3.1, Open Space Overview Plan and Calculations clarifies the project's compliance. d. At least 50% of open space must be in areas with a minimum dimension of 40 feet by 40 feet. A minimum of 60,200 square feet of usable open space must meet these minimum size requirements and must be provided on site. As shown on the site plan, only one open space area meets this minimum requirement for a total of 7,327 square feet. An additional 52,873 square feet of common usable open space that is a minimum dimension of 40 by 40 feet must be provided on site. Response: The new landscape plan sheet L3.1, Open Space Overview Plan and Calculations clarifies the project's compliance. e. Open space areas should be in view of units for supervision of children and for safety and security. As proposed, open space areas appear to be leftover bits of space adjacent to parking areas and it does not appear, in many cases, that they are directly accessible from residential units either physically or visually. Response: The tot lots have been consolidated to three primary active open space areas clearly visible from adjacent residential units and parking areas. All designated open space areas, passive and active, are in proximity of (if not immediately adjacent to) and visible from residential units. Overall, the open space concept for this project should be revised to provide larger, more centrally -located, easily accessible and observable spaces for use by residents. As proposed the open space concept does not meet minimum size, dimensional or usability standards specified in the FWRC. Details of the children's play areas including play equipment, seating for adults, lighting and fencing should be provided for each play area. Response: The new landscape plan sheet L3.1, Open Space Overview Plan and Calculations clarifies the project's compliance. Additional details of the typical children's play area equipment, lighting, and fencing is included in the updated materials enclosed with this re -submittal. Park 16 Multifamily April 16, 2013 Response to Request for Additional Information Page 7 of 20 CPH No. 0024-11-010 IV. Landscaping a. Parking and pedestrian paths are shown in the required perimeter landscape areas — The landscape plan must be revised to remove parking areas from the perimeter landscape area along the eastern property line. Where pedestrian paths are located in the perimeter landscaping area along the eastern property line, the landscaping must be modified to so that the overall function of the perimeter landscaping is maintained in this area. This usually entails more dense plantings in the remaining width. The proposed sidewalk adjacent to the southern property line needs to be re -located to the north and ideally north of the required landscape buffer area. The retaining wall proposed in the southern perimeter landscape area must be designed to be integrated with the landscaping. Please see additional comments about retaining wall design under section V below. Response: The site plan has been revised to remove all parking, pedestrian paths, and retaining walls from the southern and eastern (along 161h Ave. S) property lines. The full width of required perimeter landscaping is provided along these property lines (see landscape plan sheets L2.1 & L2.2). The only exception is an emergency vehicle access being provided through the perimeter landscaping adjacent to carriage house S8 between the on -site parking area and the property to the south. b. Perimeter Landscaping along S. 356th frontage — Revise landscape plan sheet L2.1 to correctly show perimeter landscaping running northwest along the entire ROW frontage and connecting with the perimeter landscaping provided along the northern property line to form a contiguous landscape buffer along the northern property boundary. Response: Landscape plan has been revised as requested. See Sheet L2.1. C. Landscaping of parking areas adjacent to single family zoned areas — Parking adjacent to residential zones shall reduce the visual impact of parking areas and buffer dweiting units from light, glare, and other environmental intrusions by providing Type I landscaping within required perimeter landscape areas. Where parking areas abut the southern perimeter of the site, the landscape type in these portions of the perimeter landscaping must be Type I. The landscape pion, Sheets L2.1 and L2.2 currently indicate Type 11 for the entire southern perimeter. Response: Perimeter landscaping on Sheets L2.1 and L2.2 has been revised to provide Type 1 perimeter landscaping where the on -site parking areas are directly adjacent to the single-family residential properties to the south. 19.125.070 Parking lot landscaping. 1. Please note, developments are encouraged to use parking lot landscaping as on -site LID (low impact development) stormwater infiltration facilities, unless such techniques are infeasible. LID stormwater infiltration facilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with FWRC Title 16, Surface Water Management. The applicant is encouraged to incorporate such techniques into the landscaping of the extensive surface parking lot area. Response: The potential for using parking lot landscaping will be evaluated with the final engineering design of the project. These areas, though, are relatively small individually and are not currently expected to be practical as functioning storm water treatment1flow control features. Park 16 Multifamily Response to Request for Additional Information CPH No. 0024-1 1-010 April 16, 2073 Page 8 of 20 2. The minimum size of interior parking lot landscape islands must be 64 square feet and the minimum width is 6 feet. Provide dimensional information for the parking lot landscaping and revise as necessary so that each landscape island is a minimum of 64 square feet in size and 6-feet wide. Response: All parking lot landscape islands are a minimum of 6 feet wide and 64 square feet in area. Dimensions are shown on sheets L2.1 and L2.2. 3. End of row landscape islands are required at the ends of all rows, even if the parking stall abuts a retaining wall or building wall. End of row landscaping is missing in between buildings T, S, R, Q, H, G and at the north end of D. In addition, end of row/base of retaining wall landscaping is required for the north end of the parking area between buildings J and A. Response: Landscaping has been provided in all areas requested above. See Sheets L2.1 and L2.2. e. Overall Proposed Plantings — Each of the required landscape planting areas must include trees, shrubs, and groundcover throughout the planting bed. Detailed planting plans must be submitted with the building permit application that show how each landscape area meets minimum planting requirements for Type I, Type II, Type III and Type IV landscaping standards as appropriate. Response: The building permit application will include detailed landscaping plans and planting designs for each type of required landscape area (Type 1, Type It, Type III, and Type IV). V. Clearing Grading and Tree and Vegetation Protection a. Rockeries and Retaining Walls — Please provide sections and details of proposed rockeries and retaining walls that indicate material, overall height and landscaping. Per 19.120.120 (3)- rockeries and retaining walls on multifamily residential lots shall be a maximum height of 6 feet and there shall be a minimum of 3-feet of landscaped setback at the base of each rockery or retaining wall. Also see 19.120.120 (4) through (7) for additional requirements for terracing, landscaping and material selection for rockeries and retaining walls. Response: Typical rockery and retaining wall sections are enclosed to illustrate the facilities proposed with the project. These sections detail the maximum heights and separation (i.e., terracing) required by COFW code. The general landscaping provisions are shown on the updated landscape plans (L 1.1, L2.1, and L2.2) included with this re -submittal package. b. Tree Retention Standards — The city requires each development/redevelopment to maintain specific tree canopy coverage depending on the lot size and zoning designation. This coverage is measured via tree credits that are assigned to existing and replacement trees. The minimum tree coverage requirements for Multi-Famiiy Residential zones are 30 tree units per acre; therefore, the subject property's density requirement would be 498 tree units (30 tree units x 16.57 acres). See the tree unit credit chart below for further details. Park 16 Multifamily Response to Request for Additional Information CPH No. 0024-1 1-010 Table 19.120.130-2 — Tree Unit Credits Existing Tree Category Existing Tree 1 " to 6" d.b.h. Existing Tree > 6" to 12" d.b.h. Existing Tree > 12" to 1811 d.b.h. Existing Tree > 18" to 24" d.b.h. Existing Tree > 24" d.b.h. Replacement Tree Category Small Canopy Species (Mature canopy area < 450 SF) Medium Canopy Species (Mature canopy area 450 to 1,250 SF) April 16, 2013 Page 9 of 20 Tree Unit Credit 1.0 tree units per tree retained 1.5 tree units per tree retained L2.5 e units per tree retained e unitsper tree retained 3.0 tree units per tree retained .50 tree units per tree planted 1.0 free units per tree planted Large Canopy Species (Mature canopy area > 1,250 SF) 1.5 tree units per tree planted The landscape plan Sheet L1.1 must be revised to show how retention and/or replacement of tree units on the subject property meet the minimum density requirement (498 tree units). (Please note that trees retained in the undeveloped portion of the property may be counted toward the required tree unit credits.) If the applicant is unable to provide the minimum required tree units per acre on site; off -site mitigation or a fee -in -lieu payment into the City's urban forestry account may be approved by the Director of Community and Economic Development. Please refer to FWRC 19.120.140 for off -site mitigation and fee -in -lieu options. Response: See Sheet L 1.1 for an existing significant tree summary and tree retention calculations. The total number of tree units proposed to be retained on the project site exceeds the minimum tree units required. VI. Administrative Design Guidelines a. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) — A CPTED checklist must be completed and submitted for the project buildings and site design. The site plans have been routed to our Police Department for public safety review and they will also review the CPTED checklist once completed and submitted. A copy of the CPTED checklist and instructions is enclosed. Response:.A completed CPTED checklist for the project is included with this re -submittal package. b. Fagode Treatment— The majority of building facades exceed 60 feet. The exception being some of the shorter facades of the "carriage unit" buildings and the shorter east and west facades of the recreation building. All other facades that exceed 60 feet in length and are visible from residential areas or public rights of way (all facades meet this standard and therefore must be treated) must meet the minimum requirements of FWRC 19.1 15.060(2)(a- d) by incorporating a minimum of two of four of the fa4ade treatments specified below. Please submit plans and elevations that clearly indicate how the minimum facade treatment standards are met. The plans and elevations must be revised to clearly indicate how the north and west facades meet minimum facade treatment standards. Park 16 Multifamily Response to Request for Additional Information CPH No. 0024-1 1-010 April 16, 2013 Page 10 of 20 1. Fagade Modulation — A minimum depth of two feet, minimum width of six feet, and maximum width of 60 feet. Alternative methods to shape a building such as angled or curved facade elements, offset planes, wing walls, and terracing will be considered, provided that the intent of the section is met. Response: The plans enclosed with this re -submittal have been updated to reflect the facade modulation standards andjor intent agreed to by City of Federal Way in previous email correspondence. 2. Land scaRe Screening — Eight -foot -wide Type II landscape screening along the base of the facade, except Type IV may be used in place of Type 11 for facades that are comprised of 50 percent or more window area, and around building entrances. Response: landscape screening of the onsite buildings is not proposed or believed to be required to comply with design modulation requirements. 3. Canopy or Arcade — As a modulation option, canopies or arcades may be used only along facades that are visible from a right-of-way. Minimum length is 50 percent of the length of the facade using this option. Response: Canopies or arcades are not proposed are believed to be required to comply with building modulation requirements. A. Pedestrian Plaza — Plaza square footage is equal to one percent of the gross floor area of the building, but it must be a minimum of 200 square feet. The plaza should be clearly visible and accessible from the adiocent right-of-way. In most cases for this project it would be adjacent sidewalk accessing parking area. Response: The proposed site design includes pedestrian plazas at each of the building entries. C. Building Articulation and Scale — 19.1 15.060(3) specifies that building walls that are visible from rights -of -way and other public areas should incorporate methods of articulation and accessory elements in the overall architectural design. This requirement is applied in a manner where no wall area shall be greater than 240 square feet in size and not have at least one element of articulation. The following buildings have blank wall areas greater than 240 square feet without articulatlon treatment and would be potentially visible from public rights of way or other public areas: Building B (portions of east and west elevations); Building C (south elevation); Building D (north elevation); Building F (portions of east and west elevations); Building K (portions of north and south elevations); Building L (portions of north and south elevations); Building P (portions of east and west elevations); Building V (portions of north and south elevations); Building X (north and south elevations); Building AA (north and south elevations and Recreation building (east elevation and east segment of south elevation). The following are the possible elements that may be applied to articulate blank walls, (some more applicable to residential development than others). (i) Showcase, display, recessed windows; 0i) Window openings with visible trim material, or painted detailing that resembles trim; (iii) Vertical trellis(es) in front of the wall with climbing vines or similar planting; (iv) Set the wall back and provide a landscaped or raised planter bed in front of the wall, with plant material that will obscure or screen the wall's surface; Park 16 Multifamily April 16, 2013 Response to Request for Additional Information Page 11 of 20 CPH No. 0024-1 1 -0 10 (v) Artwork such as mosaics, murals, decorative masonry or metal patterns or grillwork, sculptures, relief, etc., over a substantial portion of the blank wall surface. (The Federal Way arts commission may be used as an advisory body at the discretion of the planning staff); (vi) Architectural features such as setbacks, indentations, overhangs, projections, articulated cornices, bays, reveals, canopies, and awnings; (vii) Material variations such as colors, brick or metal banding, or textural changes; and (viii) Landscaped public plaza(s) with space for vendor carts, concerts and other pedestrian activities. Response: The enclosed revised elevation illustrates the proposed use of element (N) vertical trellises in front of the wall with climbing vines or similar planting for additional building articulation. The buildings that are in view of the public right of way are the east end of B, the east side of A, the north end of K, and the north end of L as shown on the enclosed updated site plan. No other buildings are in direct view of a public way or public areas. d. FWRC 19.1 15(1)(p) specifies that buildings that exceed 120 feet in length and are visible from an adjacent residential zone, right-of-way, public park, or recreation area shall incorporate a significant modulation (offset). The minimum depth of the modulation shall be approximately equal to 10 percent of the total length of the subject facade and the minimum width shall be approximately twice the minimum depth. The modulation shall be integral to the building structure from base to roofline. The requirement applies to The recreation building, and buildings A, J, K, L/M (considered one building per FWRC 19.1 10.040 as there is less than 20-foot separation between them, for a total of approximately 275' east and west facades), N, P, V, X, and AA. The plans and elevations must clearly indicate how the minimum modulation standards are met. Response: Buildings K, L, and AA have been narrowed in response to this comment and subsequent discussions with you and City staff. The building modulation proposed to comply with FWRC 19.115(1)(p) was reviewed previously with City approval provided in an email correspondence from Ms. Janet Shull on March 25, 2013. e. FWRC 19.1 15(1)(q) specifies that buildings should be designed to have a distinct base, middle and top. The base (typically the first floor) should contain the greatest number of architectural elements such as windows, materials, details, overhangs, cornice lines, and masonry belt courses. The midsection, by comparison, may be simple. (Note: single -story buildings have no middle.) The top should avoid the appearance of a flat roof and include distinctive roof shapes including but not limited to pitched, vaulted or terraced, etc. It appears that some of the elevations of "carriage units" do not have an identified "base" and must be revised to add distinguishing features such as those listed above. Response: Revised building elevations are included with this re -submittal. The carriage units will have a lower 8" tap siding and 4" tap on the next two floors. The lap change is separated by a belly band. The segments are also made with color change. On the end elevations the gable has single siding. FWRC 19.1 15(1)(r) specifies that residential design features, including but not limited, to entry porches, projecting window bays, balconies or decks, individual windows (rather than strip windows), offsets and cascading or stepped roof forms, shall be incorporated into all buildings. Window openings shall have visible trim material or painted detailing that resembles trim. All buildings must incorporate at a minimum the above features. The "carriage units" should be modified to incorporate individual entry porches and add balconies, bay windows and/or decks to all units. Park 16 Multifamily Response to Request for Additional Information CPH No. 0024-1 1-010 April 16, 2013 Page 12 of 20 Response: Revised building elevations are included with this re -submittal. The carriage units have window trims, projections, and trellises. The units have a shared second story entry and there are no living spaces are on the ground floor (i.e., garage). g. FWRC 19.1 15.090)(1)(9) specifies that parking lots should be beside or behind buildings that front upon streets with landscaped yards between buildings and streets. The parking stalls that are located along the 16'h Avenue South frontage should be relocated to be interior to the site. Response: The parking and driveway access configuration at 16« Avenue South have been revised in response to this and other City comments. h. FWRC 19.1 15.090(1)(k) specifies that principal entries shall be highlighted with plaza or garden areas containing planting, lighting, seating, trellises and other features and such areas shall be located and designed so that windows overlook them. This requirement has been addressed for some of the buildings, but these amenities are not evident for any of the 13 "carriage unit" buildings. It is strongly recommended that carriage units be given separate distinct entries to each unit along with accessible private open space at ground level. (See h below) Response: lighting, seating, and trellises are planned at the entry way of each of the residential unit as well as the onsite recreation building. These features are illustrated with the enclosed plans. FWRC 1 9.115.090(1)(1) specifies that recreational spaces shall be located and arranged so that windows overlook them. This has not been achieved and the location of recreational open spaces needs to be reconsidered to more centrally locate the open spaces for safety, security and usability by the future residents. Response: Windows from the adjacent residential buildings face the open space areas. FWRC 19.1 15.090(1)(m) specifies that units on the ground floor shall have private outdoor spaces adjacent to them so those exterior portions of the site are controlled by individual households. The 13 "carriage" unit buildings should be re -designed s❑ that each unit has an individual entrance (two entrances per building instead of the one proposed) and access to private outdoor space. As designed, and with few exceptions, these units are basically sitting in a sea of asphalt and concrete. The applicant is highly encouraged to address this issue along with reconsideration of open space placement on the property. Response: The carriage units are not ground floor units. Plaza/court spaces are provided at each entry with benches for outdoor enjoyment. k. FWRC 19.1 15.050(1)(b) and 19.1 15.050(4)(e) specify that pedestrian amenities should be incorporated into the site design. Please indicate proposed site furniture including, but not limited to: outdoor seating, trash receptacles, and lighting, -The City's Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan identifies South 3361h Street as a corridor with existing and proposed future bike cones. Staff suggests the placement of multiple bicycle racks throughout the site to encourage additional transportation options for residents. Covered and secure bike storage on site is highly recommended for multifamily developments. Response: The revised site plan shows benches at each of the entry ways. Trash receptacles are distributed across the site. Bike racks are located at the recreation building and the south end of building AA. The location of the planned site lighting is shown on the enclosed Preliminary Site Lighting plan. Manufacturer's data sheets for some of the site furnishings are also included with this resubmittal. VII. Parking Park 16 Multifamily Response to Request for Additional Information CPH No. 0024-1 1-010 April 16, 2013 Page 13 of 20 Stall Count — The Parking table on Sheet A1.0 indicates a total of 483 stalls, based on a proposed rate of 1.6 stalls per unit. This is lower than the minimum standard in FWRC 19.205.040 of 1.7 stalls per unit. The applicant submitted a Parking Demand Analysis prepared by Transportation Engineering Northwest, dated December 12, 2012. Table 1 in the analysis indicates that the average stalls/unit of the survey sites is 1.6. Upon review, it appears the ratio is actually closer to 1.67 stalls per unit being provided for the subject sites. Peak utilization is indicated to be 1.2 stalls per unit, when our calculations, based on information submitted, are closer to 1.26. Overall, given the location of the Park 16 site with no on -street parking opportunities nearby, and without convenient public transportation servicing the site, a parking reduction may be difficult to support, especially when it appears the comporobles in the parking analysis have parking ratios closer to the FWRC requirement than the proposed parking ratio. Furthermore, since approximately 78 percent of the units are 2 or more bedrooms, (48 percent are 3 or 4 bedrooms), a reduced parking ratio is difficult to support. Please review and correct the parking analysis findings as necessary. In addition, provide more detailed information on unit types for the comparables if available (what percentage are 3 and 4 units for example), and also provide information on availability of on -street parking and public transportation for each site if available. Response: The enclosed Parking Demand Analysis has been updated for the current parking count of 474 spaces and a reduced 293 dwelling units. This updated version provides additional discussion1basis for the peak utilization, including its convenient proximity to Pierce Transit service. Guest Parking — For residential uses, the city may require guest parking spaces in excess of the required parking spaces, if there is inadequate guest parking on the subject property. Given the location of the site with no option for on -street parking for guests, the Parking Demand Analysis should be revised to identify an appropriate number of guest parking stalls and those should be clearly designated on the site plan with signage provided. Response: A revised Parking Demand Analysis addressing guest parking and other requested items is included with this re -submittal. Vill. Affordable Housing Pursuant to FWRC Section 19.1 10.010, new multifamily projects involving 25 dwelling units or more are required to provide affordable dwelling units as part of the project. At least two dwelling units or five percent of the total number of proposed units, whichever is greater, shall be affordable. For the proposed 301 units a minimum of 15 units (301 x .05 = 15.05 rounded to 15) must be identified and maintained as affordable housing. "Rental affordable housing" means dwelling units that are offered for rent at a rate that is affordable to those individuals and families having incomes that are 50 percent or below the median county income. An agreement in a form approved by the city must be recorded with the King County department of elections and records requiring affordable dwelling units which are provided under the provisions of this section to remain as affordable housing for the life of the project. This agreement shall be a covenant running with the land, binding on the assigns, heirs and successors of the applicant. Please prepare a draft affordable housing covenant for our consideration. Response: A draft affordable housing covenant for the project is included with this re -submittal for your consideration. KEVIN PETERSON, ENGINEERING PLANS REVIEWER, 253-835-2734, KEVIN.PETERSON a@CITYOFFEDERALWAY.COM Public Works has reviewed the December 13, 2012 submittal. Prior to SEPA and Land Use Approval, the following Technical Review comments shall be addressed: Park 16 Multifamily Response to Request for Additional Information CPH No. 0024-1 1-010 I. SEPA Checklist: April 16, 2013 Page 14 of 20 Item B.3.a.2) — Based on the submitted plans, work will occur within 200 feet of the wetlands. Please revise the response. Response: This item of the SEPA checklist has been updated to reflect the current site design. Item B.1 O.c — Revise response to read City of Federal Way landscape standards. Response: The correct City of Federal Way reference has been made as requested. Item B.14.a. — Revise the response to indicate that 16th Ave S borders the eastern edge of the project Response: This Item has been revised to correct the easterly reference of 16th Avenue South. Item B.14.d. — Clarify the word `frontage' in this response. Without benefit of a drawing it would be difficult to understand whether the eastern and northern frontages of the property are being improved, or whether the eastern and northern edges of the streets are being improved. The response should be written such that it is clearly understood where the improvements will occur, if reading the response without benefit of a drawing to reference. Response: The narrative response to this Item has been revised to clarify the existing street frontage improvements proposed for the project. II. Land Use: a. Per Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Section 19.135.280(2) — Driveways may not be located closer than 150-feet to each other. As currently designed, the driveway access on 16th Ave S is approximately 60-fees (center -to -center) from the driveway serving the apartment complex on the east side of 16th Ave. Revise the project driveway location to meet the i 50-foot spacing requirement. Response: The primary access drive at 161h Avenue has been relocated south to accommodate the requested spacing from existing off -site driveways as well as to respond to other site comments provided by City staff. b. Provide 2 cross -sections of the detention vault. The east -west section shall show the western- most outside wall of Building AA as well as its finish floor grade. Response: A plan showing the details and requested two cross sections through the proposed infiltration facility are enclosed. SARADY LONG, TRAFFIC DIVISION, 253-835-2743, SARADY.LONG Q@CITYOFFEDERALWAY.COM The Public Works Traffic Division has reviewed the submitted material and provides the following technical comments: I. General Plan Review Comments a. Access onto S 356th Street will be restricted to right -in and right -out due to conflict with Lowes driveway. The applicant may submit queuing analysis along with proposed access layout. Park 16 Multifamily Response to Request for Additional Information CPH No. 0024- I 1-010 April 16, 2013 Page 15 of 20 Response: Currently, the north project site access to South 3561h Street is shown as right-in/right- out. It is understood that additional traffic study, including queuing analysis, will be required during final design with the Engineering Permit if full access (i.e., left turns in and out) are desired. b. Show street improvements along the property frontage on S 356th Street. The adopted 2013 — 2018 TIP identified roadway widening project on S 356th Street from SR 99 to SR 161 as TIP #16 (widening to 5-lane, bike lanes, sidewalk and illumination). The applicant would be required to construct half -street improvements consisting of 33' of pavement measure from street centerline, 6' planter with street trees, 8' sidewalks and street lights matching the existing improvements east of the property. Tapers and transitions beyond the project frontage would be required as deemed necessary for safety purposes. Response: The enclosed plan sheet C5.1, Preliminary Right -of -Way Plan — South 356th Street has been updated to show the current access proposal and widening improvements matching the existing roadway to the east. C. The proposed driveway on 16th Ave S should be relocated south so that it would create a straight travel path from the internal road. Response: The access drive at 16th Avenue South has been relocated south to create a straight alignment as suggested and in response to other City staff comments regarding parking and driveway separation. d. Map III-6 in the Comprehensive Plan depicted a north -south commercial street along the west side of the property. Per code the applicant would be expected to dedicate right-of-way and construct this road to city standards. However, given that the road alignment has not been established and there are wetland constraints, the applicant may fulfill this requirement by setting aside a 50' wide (minimum) modified width Tract for a future road along the west side of the property within the wetland buffer. In the event that this road is removed from the Comprehensive Plan, the tract would revert back to the property owner. Staff will work with the applicant to identify location and width of the tract. Response: It is understood that a minimum 50-foot wide corridor will need to be established and set aside in a separate tract for a potential future roadway corridor through the onsite 200-foot wetland buffer. The alignment of this future roadway tract will be established cooperatively between the applicant and City transportation staff during final engineering design. It is further understood that the future public roadway design would mitigate potential impacts to trails or storm water outfall facilities constructed by this project. In the event that the City modifies its comprehensive plan to no longer require this roadway corridor, the ownership of the tract would revert back to the applicant or then property owner. e. Driveway width should be 30 feet for a two-lane two-way driveway and 40 feet for a three- lane two-way driveway (FWRC 19.135.270). Driveway widths may be increased in order to provide adequate width for vehicles that may be reasonably expected to use the driveway, as determined by the Public Works Director. Response: The driveway widths have been updated as suggested. II. Transportation Impact Study a. Table 2, page 8. Please revise PM peak hour LOS for SR 161 / S 356th Street to LOS D and V/C 0.79 consistent with Synchro printout page 2. Response: Table 2 on page 8 has been updated. �I Park 16 Multifamily Response to Request for Additional Information CPH No. 0024-11-010 April 16, 2013 Page 16 of 20 b. Page 8, Planned Roadway Improvements. Use current TIP 2013 — 2018 and revise TIP cost accordingly. Response: The current TIP (2013-2018) reference and associated costs have been updated in the updated TIA enclosed with this re -submittal. C. Page 10, Trip Distribution and Assignment. It appears that trip distribution and assignment assumed full access onto S 356th Street. Due to potential conflict with Lowe's driveway just east of the site, access will likely be restricted to right -in and right -out. Please revise Figure 4 and 5 accordingly. Response: Trip distribution and associated traffic operational analysis has been revised to reflect the access restriction. This updated information is included in the enclosed TIA and plan documents. d. Page 13 — Left -Turn Warrants. Given the proximately to Lowe's driveway and potential conflicts, staff does not concur or support the recommendation to allow left -turn in or left - turn out from this driveway. Alternatively, left -turn into the site can be made at the S 356th Street and 1 61h Ave S intersection. If the applicant would like pursue full access, please provide queuing analysis for the Lowe's driveway during the peak usage period (Weekend during Spring or Summer) ensuring that the proposed 50' pocket is adequate to handle the expected traffic. Also, please provide driveway design with appropriate tapers. Response: The applicant accepts the restricted access and the study has been revised accordingly. e. Page 15 — Project Mitigation Measures. Please see Plan review comment #3 regarding required frontage improvements. The proposed 20-foot wide right-of-way dedication for future is correct. The applicant will be required to construct half -street improvements from street centerline. However, the applicant may submit a written request to the PW director requesting credit for the improvements and ROW dedication to be applied toward the impact fees. Response: Please, consider this response as the applicant's acknowledgement and initial request for credit toward impact fees for frontage road improvements and right-of-way dedication provided by the project. A formal letter from the applicant requesting the traffic impact credit is included with this re -submittal. Page 15 — Project Mitigation Measures. Please see comment #4 above regarding access onto S 356th Street. Must provide additional analysis to ensure no safety concern with Lowe's driveway. Response: Response: The applicant understands the City's desire for a restricted access and the study has been revised accordingly. Currently, the north project site access to South 3561h Street is shown as right-infright-out. It is also understood that additional traffic study, including queuing analysis, will be required during final design with the Engineering Permit if full access (i.e., left turns in and out) are desired. g. Traffic impact fee will be calculated at the time of building permit submittal and will be based on fee in affect at the time a completed building permit application is filed. At such time, the impact fee will be adjusted to account for an existing use as determine appropriate by the director. Response: Comment noted. ROB VAN ORSOW, SOLID WASTE/RECYCLING COORDINATOR, 253-835-2770, ROB.VANORSOW@CITYOF F E DERALW AY.COM '-1 Park 16 Multifamily April 16, 2013 Response to Request for Additional Information Page 17 of 20 CPH No. 0024-1 1-010 Enclosure Design Concerns Please consult with John Davis of Waste Management at 206-804-6815 for input on capacity needs and height clearance. The cover/roof is a nice touch, provided that adequate clearance exists for removal of the compactor/container. As indicated on the submitted plans, the clearance for the compactor area is too low. The bottom of the roof structure should have at a minimum 14 feet of clearance to the ground. Waste Management suggests utilizing all the parking area in the immediate vicinity of the proposed trash enclosure and designating it for maintenance equipment and storage of bulky waste materials mentioned below. The width is also too narrow —the gate opening should be at least 15 feet wide. Response: The trash enclosure cover provides 14 feet of ground clearance. The width of the enclosure has been modified to allow 15-foot wide clearance as suggested. the proposed structure design is based on and consistent with facilities constructed and operated by the applicant at other sites. The smaller area in the enclosure — presumably for recycling? — has no access for collection equipment. This means that larger meta! 'dumpsters' could not be positioned in the enclosure. In 150 sq. feet, a dozen or so recycling carts could be stored. These would all have to be rolled out through a gate prior to being serviced. But a dozen carts would not provide adequate weekly recycling capacity for 301 residential units. Response: The remote recycling operation will be managed by the onsite staff to deliver it to the centralized trash area. This program is consistent with what the applicant provides at other multifamily apartment sites. It is nice to have separate entrances for the garbage compactor and recycling — this will help reduce the potential for adding garbage to recycling and vice versa. The site will need distinct signage with graphics to reduce confusion for residents and their kids who take out much of the trash. Response: Separate entrances to the trash and recycling are proposed. II. Space Allocation for Recycling The FWRC specifies that 1.5 square feet of space per unit be allocated to allow dedicated space for recycling. This is in response to the common claim that structures have no space available to allow occupants to recycle. Ideally this space would be found within the units themselves, or in areas that are convenient to accumulate recyclables for collection. The designated recycling area of approximately 150 sq. feet, is a lot smaller than the minimum 452 sq. feet required by code. Response: Separate, individual recycling stations are provided onsite. These stations are maintained and collected by onsite staff to allow easy recycling. Space for garbage service is not specified in the FWRC, but it generally exceeds the space needed for recycling. Maintenance staff and equipment may also require enclosed areas for storing bulky items like old mattresses, furniture or appliances that residents leave at the site. Response: Large trash items such as mattresses, furniture, or appliances will be prohibited from being disposed of at onsite facilities. However, additional space will be available in the primary onsite trash enclosure (containing the compactor) in the event such larger items are dumped. III. One Enclosure for Entire Property Park 16 Multifamily April 16, 2013 Response to Request for Additional Information Page 18 of 20 CPH No. 0024-1 1-010 Having only one enclosure for the entire property is inefficient for resident and maintenance access. This site approaches 10 acres, and straight line distance to the enclosure is over 400' from housing in the corners of the property. That is a long way to go to 'take out the trash'. Proponent should consider going with tow -carts for garbage, positioned in several enclosures near the resident structure clusters. Maintenance staff would then roll these carts to the compactor (equipped with a tipper). These enclosures should be sized large enough to include space for dedicated recycling dumpsters that WM would service. Also, consider making these tow -cart enclosures large enough for recycling containers that the contracted hauler provides at no cost. This will cut down on what maintenance staff have to move to the compactor area. Response: The size, number, and distribution of waste facilities proposed for the site are consistent with other properties that are owned and operated by the applicant. The central waste facility will have a compactor. Onsite staff will use carts to manageldistribute refuse from remote areas to the central compactor. Additional details of the waste and recycling program for the site will be developed in accordance with Waste Management to ensure adequate capacity and sanitary conditions for the residents. BRIAN ASBURY, LAKEHAVEN UTILITY DISTRICT, BASBURY LAKEHAVEN.DRG I. SEPA Depending on the final approved design, new water main greater than 8-inch diameter may be required, and if so this construction should be identified in the SEPA checklist (e.g., 'Potential for new main greater than 811 diameter exists") prepared and submitted for the proposed land use action. If main greater than 8-inch diameter is ultimately required and is not sufficiently addressed in the initial SEPA checklist and approval, a separate SEPA process may be required prior to authorizing construction of any new water system facilities. NOTE: Lakehaven doesn't necessarily anticipate water main >8-inch diameter, but cannot rule it out entirely at this point. Response: The SEPA checklist has been updated to specify that the size and extent of new public main extensions will be determined during final engineering design. In the case of water and sanitary sewer, this effort will be completed with the pending Developer Extension Agreement. This response is expected to sufficiently address SEPA requirements related to utility items for the project such that no additional or separate SEPA process would be necessary. II. Completeness Applicant has completed and submitted to Lakehaven an application for water & sewer Certificates of Availability, and these Certificates were issued by Lakehaven on 1 1 /13/2012. However, an application for a Developer Extension Agreement has not been submitted to Lakehaven which is necessary to be able to more specifically determine the applicant's requirements for connection to Lakehaven's water and/or sewer systems to serve the subject property. As previously noted, applicant will need to submit an application for a Developer Extension Agreement for Lakehaven to formally commence the water and/or sewer plan review process. Lakehaven continues to encourage owners/developers/applicants to apply for Lakehaven processes (as appropriate) separately to Lakehaven, early in the pre-design/planning phase to avoid delays in overall project development. Park 16 Multifamily Response to Request for Additional Information CPH No. 0024-1 1-010 April 16, 2013 Page 19 of 20 Response: A number of communications have occurred between the Applicant and Lakehaven Utility District (LUD) staff regarding the water and sanitary sewer requirements for the project. As such, it the general configuration and proposed points of connection/extension of existing facilities shown in the enclosed Preliminary Utility Plan are believed to be accurate. A formal Developer Extension Agreement and final engineering design/construction package are being prepared for the project, and will be submitted prior to approval of this Process III permit. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT REVIEWER, FORWARDED BY JANET SHULL VIA E- MAIL ON 3/25/2013: Comments received from the Police Department reviewer: After reviewing the building plans for the Park 16 Multi Family project, the Federal Way Police Department would like to comment on a few concerns/questions: With courtyard style apartment homes, lighting in corridor/outdoor hallways become of upmost importance. We would like to see additional lighting in these areas, not just decorative lamp posts. Response: The common breezeway entry at each of the garden/courtyard style buildings will have wall mounted lighting at each individual unit entry. In addition, wall mounted exterior lighting is also proposed at each building at front yard, rear yard, and pedestrian routes in addition to the typical pole mounted parking lot lighting. The enclosed Preliminary Lighting Plan and accompanying lighting manufacturer's details provide more specific information on the lighting proposed for the project. Additional detail will be provided at the time of building permit application. There are major concerns with the proposed `TL' areas for children play. They are all placed right near parking spaces and main thoroughfares of the property. Also, they are not easily viewed by residents in buildings. We suggest these areas be placed between buildings, away from vehicle areas, or at minimurn in an area where natural surveillance by residents is possible. Response: The onsite tot lots (i.e., "TL areas") have been consolidated and relocated to larger, more centralized open space areas adjacent to the residential units. These areas are clearly visible from the windows in the residential units as well as the parking lots that border at least one edge. The tot lot areas will also be fenced for safety. The proposed soft -surface pedestrian trail that runs behind the building, between the retaining wall and wetland, is of concern. When areas are out of public view, not well lit and generally do not provide access between 2 major points, they often become frequented by drug users and people engaging in illegal activity. We would suggest placing this pedestrian trail within the property walls or removing it completely Response: The alignment shown for the proposed soft -surface trail in the wetland buffer has been field verified to minimize buffer impacts and optimize visibility —both from the trail as well as viewing towards it. The site recon confirmed that there is no significant existing view -obscuring vegetation between its location and the proposed residential units on the developed portion of the site to the east (the north portion of the buffer contains existing forest, but understory is sparse and the trail location is generally visible through the trees). The project is not proposing any vegetative screen adjacent to the trail. As such, this trail will be visible from the adjacent rear yard units, their rear yard areas, and the designated community open space areas adjacent to the buffer. The trail is a key element to the overall open space program for the project, and therefore cannot be omitted. Park 16 Multifamily Response to Request for Additional Information CPH No. 0024-1 1-010 April 16, 2013 Page 20 of 20 Due to the fact that we do not have a CPTED checklist completed at this time, we have concerns over general property landscaping and lighting as it applies to the safety of the residents on the property. Please turn in the appropriate CPTED checklist for further police review. Response: A completed CPTED checklist is included with this re -submittal application. Please contact me directly at (425) 285-2391 or by e-mail at matt(�DcRhconsultants.com if you have questions or need any additional information to complete your review and approval of the project. Your prompt response is appreciated. Thank you. Sincerely, Cc: Mr. Tom Neubauer (DevCo, Inc.) copy to file CITY OF . Federal Way February 22, 2013 Mr. Matt Hough CPH Consultants 733 7"' Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland, WA 98033 Re: File #12-105564-00-UP; PLANNING DIVISION COMMENTS Park 16 Multifamily; 35703 16`h Avenue South, Federal Way Dear Mr.. Hough: CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www.ch'yoffederalway.com FILE The City's Development Review Committee (DRC) is currently reviewing the above -referenced Process III land use application and corresponding State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) checklist. The propose&site development includes 26 multifamily buildings with 301 residential units, one recreational building, parking accommodations, open space, and landscaping. The application was deemed complete January 11, 2013, and a Notice of Application (NOA) was issued January 25, 2013. The NOA comment period ended on February 11, 2013, with no comments received. Members of the DRC have provided comments below. TECHNICAL COMMENTS/REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION If you have questions about an individual comment, please contact the appropriate department representative noted below. Janet Shull, Planning Division, 253-835-2644, janet.shull@cityoffederalway.com Planning staff has reviewed the proposed multifamily development. - I. SEPA Checklist Item A.10 — Please revise to remove the reference to clearing and grading permit —there is no separate permit for clearing and grading in Federal Way., Item A.I I — Please revise the parking stall count to be consistent with what is indicated on the site plan. Item B.3.a.2) — Based on the submitted plans, clearing and grading work will occur within 200 feet of the wetlands. Please revise the response. File 812-105564-00-UP Doc ID 462793 Mr. Matt Hough Page 2 of 13 February 22, 2013 Item 13.1 O.c —Please add a reference to the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) landscaping development standards and community design guidelines in place of the reference to Snohomish County development standards. Item B.12.a—Please complete the first sentence that ends with, "...which is to less than H. Wetland Buffer Intrusions As mentioned in section I above, the submitted plans indicate that there will be intrusions into wetland buffer areas. It is recommended that the. site plan be revised so that all development activity is located outside of the required buffer area and the applicant's environmental consultant should provide recommendations for appropriate construction standards to ensure development activity will not impact the required buffer areas. If the applicant determines they would like to proceed with proposed intrusions into the required buffer area, then those intrusions can be reviewed subject to FWRC 19.175.040(6), "Modification," which will likely require Process IV review and specified criteria for granting such intrusions. Minor improvements within the wetland buffer area (the proposed wood chip trail through the wetland buffer area) may be reviewed and approved through Process III:, The applicant's environmental consultant must respond as to HOW the proposal meets the following criteria found in FWRC 19.175.040(4): (a) It will not adversely affect water quality, (b) It will not adversely affect the existing quality of the wetland's,or buffer's wildlife habitat; (c) It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities; (d) It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards; and (e) It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor to the city as a whole. III. Site Plan On -Site Usable Open Space — The site plan needs to be revised to clearly indicate how the minimum open space standards are met as follows: a. The minimum open space requirement for multifamily development is at least 400 square feet per unit: 301 units proposed x 400=120,400 square feet total required. Without the proposed "wetland viewing area" the site plan only provides for approximately 33,793 square feet of recreational open space (including indoor space proposed in the recreation center). Only the accessible portion of the "wetland viewing area," if any, may be counted toward usable Open space. The proposed community center space may be counted as open space as it provides for recreational opportunities (pool and gymnasium) similar to what can be found in outdoor recreational areas. Please note the site plan indicates the recreation center is 7,655 square feet in the bui lding area table, but 9,100 square feet in the "proposed open space table" —please correct( clarify as necessary. Please revise the site plan as necessary to provide for the minimum required on -site open space and clearly identify how the minimum open space area standard is met. File #12-105564-00-UP Doc ID #62793 Mr. Matt Hough Page 3 of 13 February 22, 2013 b. Please clarify whether the Tot Lot 9 area has been included in the 7,327 square feet identified for "play area." It appears that this may be the case and the Tot Lot 9 area can only be counted once. c. A minimum of 10% of open space area shall have children's play equipment For the subject site with 301 units proposed; a minimum of 12,040 square feet,of area with children's play equipment must be provided. Only 4,800 square feet is identified as tot lots. If the area designated "play area" is intended to satisfy this requirement, then that should be clarified. Details of proposed play areas including play equipment, seating for adults, lighting, and fencing need to be provided for review and approval with the land use application. Also, see comment a below regarding location of children's play areas. d. At least 50% of the open space must be in areas with a minimum dimension of 40-feet by 40 feet. A minimum of 60,200 square feet of usable open space must meet these minimum size requirements and must be provided on site. As shown on the site plan, only one open space area meets this minimum requirement for a total of 7,327 square feet. An additional 52,873 square feet of common usable open space that is a minimum dimension of 40 by 40 feet must be provided on site. Open space areas should be in view of the units for the supervision of children and for safety and security. As proposed, the open space areas appear to be leftover bits of space adjacent to parking areas and it does not appear, in. many cases,'that they are directly accessible from residential units either physically or visually. f. Overall, the open space concept for this project should be revised to provide larger, more centrally -located, easily accessible, and observable spaces for use by the residents. As proposed, the open space concept does not meet minimum size, dimensional, or usability standards specified in the FWRC. Details of the children's play areas, including play equipment, seating for adults, lighting, and fencing should be provided for each play area. IV. Landscaping a. Parking and Pedestrian Paths are Shown in the Required Perimeter Landscape Areas — The - landscape plan must be revised to remove parking areas from the perimeter landscape area along the eastern property line. Where pedestrian paths are located in the perimeter landscaping area along the eastern property line, the -landscaping must be modified to so that the overall function of the perimeter landscaping is maintained in this area. This usually entails more dense plantings in the remaining width. The proposed sidewalk adjacent to the southern property line needs to be re -located to the north, and ideally north of the required landscape buffer area. The retaining wall proposed in the southern perimeter landscape area must be designed to be integrated with the landscaping. Please see additional comments about retaining wall design under section V below. b. Perimeter Landscaping Along South 3561" Frontage — Revise landscape plan sheet L2.1 to correctly show the perimeter landscaping running northwest along the entire right-of-way frontage and connecting with the perimeter landscaping provided along the northern property line to form a contiguous landscape buffer along the northern property boundary. File 912-105564-00-UP Doc ID #62793 Mr. Matt Hough Page 4of13 February 22, 2013 c. Landscaping of Parking Areas Adjacent to Single Family Zoned Areas — Parking adjacent to residential zones shall reduce the visual impact of parking areas and buffer dwelling units from light, glare, acid other environmental intrusions by providing Type I landscaping within required perimeter landscape areas. Where parking areas abut the. southern perimeter of the site, the landscape type in these portions of the perimeter landscaping must be Type I. The landscape plan, Sheets L2.1 and L2.2, currently indicate Type II for the entire southern- perimeter. d. FWRC 19.125.070, Parking Lot Landscaping — 1. Please note, developments are encouraged to use parking lot landscaping as on -site low impact development (LID) stormwater infiltration facilities, unless such techniques are infeasible. LID stormwater infiltration facilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with FWRC Title 16. "Surface Water Management." The applicant is encouraged to incorporate such techniques into the landscaping of the extensive surface parking lot area. 2. The minimum size of interior parking lot landscape islands must be.64 square feet and the minimum width is 6 feet. Provide dimensional information for the parking lot landscaping and revise as necessary so that each landscape island is a minimum of 64 square feet in size and 6 feet wide. I End of row landscape islands are required at the ends of all rows, even if the parking stall abuts a retaining wall or building wall: End of row landscaping is missing in between buildings T, S, R, Q, H, G, and at the north end of D. In addition, end of row/base of retaining wall landscaping is required for the north end of the parking area between buildings .l and A. e. Overall Proposed Plantings -- Each of the required landscape planting areas must include trees, shrubs, and groundcover throughout the planting bed. Detailed planting plans must be submitted with the building permit application that show -how each landscape area meets minimum planting requirements for Type I, Type 11, Type III, and Type IV landscaping standards as appropriate. V. Clearing Grading, and Tree and Vegetation Protection a. Rockeries and Retaining Walls — Please provide sections and details of proposed rockeries and retaining wails that indicate material, overall height, and landscaping. Per FWRC 19.120.120(3), rockeries and retaining walls on multifamily residential lots shall be a maximum height of 6 feet and there shall be a minimum of 3 feet of landscaped setback at the base of each rockery or retaining wall. Also see FWRC 19.120.120(4) through (7) for additional requirements for terracing, landscaping, and material selection for rockeries and retaining walls. b. Tree Retention Standards -- The city requires each development/redevelopment to maintain specific tree canopy coverage depending on the lot size and zoning designation. This coverage is measured via tree credits that are assigned to existing and replacement trees. The minimum tree coverage requirements for Multi -Family Residential (RM) zones are 30 tree units per acre; therefore, the subject property's density requirement would be 498 tree units (30 tree units x 16.57 acres). See the tree unit credit chart below for further details. File fl12-105564-00-UP Doc ID 062793 Mr. Matt Hough Page 5 of 13 February 22, 2013 Table 19.120.130-2 — Tree Unit Credits Existing Tree Category Tree Unit Credit Existing Tree 1" to 6" d.b.h. 1.0 tree units per tree retained Existing Tree > 6" to 12" d.b.h. 1.5 tree units per tree retained Existing Tree > 12" to 18" d.b.h. 2.0 tree units per, tree retained Existing Tree > 18" to 24" d.b.h. 2.5 tree units per tree retained Existing Tree > 24" d.b.h. 3.0 tree units per tree retained Replacement Tree Category Small Canopy Species (Mature canopy area < 4-50 SF) .50 tree units per tree planted Medium Canopy Species (Mature canopy area 450 to 1,250 SF) 1.0 tree units per tree planted Large Canopy Species (Mature canopy area > 11250 SF) 1.5 tree units per tree planted The landscape plan Sheet L1.1 must be revised to show how retention and/or replacement of tree units on the subject property meet the minimum density requirement (498 tree units). (Please note that trees retained in the undeveloped portion ofthe property may be counted toward the required tree unit credits.) If the applicant is unable to provide the minimum required tree units per acre on site; off -site mitigation or a fee -in -lieu payment into the city's urban forestry account may be approved by the Director of Community and Economic Development. Please refer to FWRC 19.120.140 for off site mitigation and fee -in -lieu options. V1. Administrative Design Guidelines a. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) = A CPTED checklist must be completed and submitted for the project buildings and site design. The site plans have been routed to our Police Department for public safety review and they will also review the CPTED checklist once completed and submitted. A copy of the CPTED checklist and instructions is enclosed. b. FaVade Treatment— The majority of building facades exceed 60 feet. The exception being some of the shorter facades of the "carriage unit" buildings .and the shorter east and west facades of the recreation building. All other facades that exceed 60 feet in length and are visible from residential areas or public rights of way (all facades meet this standard and therefore must be treated) must meet the minimum requirements of FWRC 19.115.060(2)(a-d) by incorporating a minimum of two of four of the fagade treatments specified below. Please submit plans and elevations that clearly indicate how the minimum fagade treatment standards are met. The plans and elevations must be revised to clearly indicate how the north and west facades meet minimum facade treatment standards. 1. Fagade Modulation — A minimum depth of 2 feet, minimum width of 6 feet, and maximum width of 60 feet. Alternative methods to shape a building such as angled or curved fagade File 912-105564-00-UP Doe ID #62793 Mr. Matt Hough Page 6 of 13 February 22, 2013 elements, offset planes, wing walls, and terracing will be considered, provided that the intent of the section is met. 2. Landscape Screening —Eight -foot -wide Type II landscape screening along the base of the fagade, except Type IV may be used in place of Type II for facades that are comprised of 50% or more window area; and around building entrances. 3. Canopy or Arcade — As a modulation option, canopies or arcades may be used only along facades that are visible from a right-of-way.'Minimum length is 50% of the length of the fagade using this option. 4. Pedestrian Plaza — Plaza square footage is equal to 1 % of the gross floor area of the building, but it must be a minimum of 200 square feet. The plaza should be clearly visible and accessible from the adjacent right-of-way. In most cases for this project, -it would be adjacent sidewalk accessing parking area. c. Building Articulation and Scale — FWRC 19.115.060(3) specifies that building walls that are visible from rights -of -way and other public areas should incorporate methods of articulation and accessory elements in the overall architectural design. This requirement is applied in a manner where no wall area shall be greater than 240 square feet in size and not have at least one element of articulation. The following buildings have blank wall areas greater than 240 square feet without articulation treatment and would be potentially visible from public rights of way or other public areas: Building B (portions of east and west elevations); Building C (south elevation); Building D (north elevation); Building F (portions of east and west elevations); Building K (portions of north and south elevations); Building L (portions of north and south elevations); Building P (portions of east and west elevations); Building V (portions of north and south elevations); Building X (north and south elevations); Building AA (north and south elevations and Recreation Building (east elevation and east segment of south elevation). The following are the possible elements that may be applied to articulate blank walls (some more applicable to residential development than others): (i) Showcase, display, and/or recessed windows; (ii) Window openings with visible trim material, or painted detailing that resembles trim; (iii) Vertical trellises) in front of the wall with climbing vines or similar planting; (iv) Set the wall back and provide a landscaped or raised planter bed in front of the wall, with plant material that will obscure or screen the wall's surface; (v) Artwork such as mosaics, murals, decorative masonry, or metal patterns or grillwork, sculptures, relief, etc., over a substantial portion of the blank wall surface. (The Federal Way Arts Commission may be used as an advisory body at the discretion of the planning staff); (vi) Architectural features such as setbacks, indentations, overhangs, projections, articulated cornices, bays, reveals, canopies, and awnings; (vii) Material variations such as colors, brick or metal banding, or textural changes; and (viii) Landscaped public plaza(s) with space for vendor carts, concerts, and other pedestrian activities. File #12-105564-00-UP Doc ID #62793 Mr. Matt Hough Page 7of13 February 22, 2013 d. FWRC 19.115(1)(p) specifies that buildings that exceed 120 feet in length and are visible from an adjacent residential zone, right-of-way, public park, or recreation area shall incorporate a significant modulation (offset). The minimum depth of the modulation shall be approximately equal to 10% of the total length of the subject facade and the minimum width shall be approximately twice the minimum depth. The modulation shall be integral to the building structure from base to roofline. The requirement applies to the recreation building, and buildings A, J, K, L/M (considered one building per FWRC 19.110.040 as there is less than a 20-foot separation between them, for a total of approximately 275 feet east and west facades), N, P, V, X, and AA. The plans and elevations must clearly indicate how the minimum modulation standards are met. e. FWRC 19.115(1)(q) specifies that buildings should be designed to have a distinct base, middle, and top. The base (typically the first floor) should contain the greatest number of architectural elements such as windows, materials, details, overhangs, cornice lines, and masonry belt courses. The midsection, by comparison, may be simple. (Note: single -story buildings have no middle.) The top should avoid the appearance of a.flat roof and include distinctive roof shapes including but not limited to pitched, vaulted or terraced, etc. It appears that some of the elevations of ".carriage units" do not have an identified. "base" and must be revised to add distinguishing features such as those listed above. f. FWRC 19.115(1)(r) specifies that residential design features, including but not limited, to entry porches, projecting window bays, balconies or decks, individual windows (rather than strip windows), offsets, and cascading or stepped roof forms, shall be incorporated into all buildings. Window openings shall have visible trim material or painted detailing that resembles trim. All buildings must incorporate at a minimum the above features. The "carriage units" should be modified to incorporate individual entry porches and add balconies, bay windows, and/or decks to all units. g. FWRC 19.115.090(1)(g) specifies that parking lots should be beside or behind buildings that . front upon streets, with landscaped yards between buildings and streets. The parking stalls that are located along the 16"' Avenue South frontage should be relocated to be interior to the site. h. FWRC 19-.115.090(1)(k) specifies that principal entries shall be highlighted with plaza or garden areas containi ng planting, lighting, seating, trellises, and other features, and such areas shall be located and designed so that windows overlook them. This requirement has been addressed for some of the buildings, but these amenities are not evident for any of the 13 "carriage unit" buildings. It is strongly recommended that carriage units be given separate distinct entries to each unit along with accessible private open space at ground level. (See h below.) i. FWRC 19.115.090(1)(1) specifies that recreational spaces shall be located and arranged so that windows overlook them. This has not been achieved and the location of recreational open spaces needs to be reconsidered to more centrally locate the open spaces for safety, security, and usability by the future residents. File 912-105564-00-UP Doc 1D 962793 Mr. Matt Hough Page 8 of 13 February 22, 2013 FWRC 19.115.090(1)(in) specifies that units on the ground floor shall have private outdoor spaces adjacent to them so those exterior portions of the site are controlled by individual households. The 13 "carriage unit" buildings should be re -designed so that each unit has an individual entrance (two entrances per building instead of the one proposed) and access to private outdoor space. As designed, and with few exceptions, these units are basically sitting in a sea of asphalt and concrete. The -applicant is highly encouraged to address this. issue along with reconsideration of open space placement on the property, k. FWRC 19.115.050(1)(b) and 19.115.050(4)(e) specify that pedestrian amenities should be incorporated into the site design. Please indicate proposed site furniture including, but not limited to: outdoor seating, trash receptacles, and lighting. The city's Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan identifies South 336`b Street as a corridor with existing and proposed future bike lanes. Staff suggests the placement of multiple bicycle racks throughout the site to encourage additional transportation options for residents. Covered and secure bike storage on site is higlily recommended for multifamily developments. VIL Parking Stall Count— The parking table on Sheet A1.0 indicates a total of483 stalls, based on a proposed rate of 1.6 stalls per unit. This is lower than the minimum standard in FWRC 19:205.040 of 1.7 stalls per unit. The applicant submitted a December 12, 2012, Parking Demand Analysis prepared by Transportation Engineering Northwest. -Table I in the analysis indicates that the average stalls/ unit of the survey sites is 1.6. Upon review, it appears the ratio is actually closer to 1.67 stalls per unit being provided for the subject sites_ Peak utilization is indicated to be 1.2 stalls per unit, when our calculations, based on information submitted, are closer to 1,26. Overall, given the location of the Park 16 site with no on -street parking opportunities nearby, and without convenient public transportation servicing the site, a parking reduction may be difficult to support, especially when it appears the comparables in the parking analysis have parking ratios closer to the FWRC requirement than the proposed parking ratio. Furthermore, since approximately 78% of the units are 2 or more bedrooms (48% are 3 or 4 bedrooms), a reduced parking ratio is difficult to support. Please review and correct the parking analysis findings as necessary. In addition, provide more detailed information on unit types for the comparables if available (what percentage are 3 and 4 units for example), and also provide information on availability of on -street parking and public transportation for each site, if available. Guest Parking — For residential uses, the city may require guest parking spaces in excess of the required parking spaces if there is inadequate guest parking on the subject property. Given the location of the site, with no option for on -street parking for guests, the Parking Demand Analysis should be revised to identify an appropriate number of guest parking stalls and those should be clearly designated on the site plan with signage provided. VIR Affordable Housing Pursuant to FWRC 19.110.010, new multifamily projects involving 25 dwelling units or more are required to provide affordable dwelling units as part of the project. At least two dwelling units or 5% of the total number of proposed units, whichever is greater, shall be affordable. For the proposed 301 units, a minimum of 15 units (301 x .05 = 15.05 rounded to 15) must be identified File F12-105564-00-UP Doc ID #62793 Mr. Matt Hough Page 9 of 13 February 22, 2013 and maintained as affordable housing. "Rental affordable housing" means dwelling units that are offered for rent at a rate that is affordable to those individuals and families having incomes. that are 50% or below the median county income. An agreement in a form approved by the city must be recorded with the King County Department of Elections and Records requiring affordable dwelling units that are provided under the provisions of this section to remain as affordable housing for the life of the project. This agreement shall be a covenant running with the land, binding on the assigns, heirs, and successors of the applicant. Please prepare a draft affordable housing covenant for'our consideration. Kevin Peterson, Engineering Plans Reviewer, 253-835-2734, kevin.peterson@cityoffederalway.com Public Works has reviewed the December 13, 2012, submittal. Prior to SEPA and Land Use Approval, the following Technical Review comments shall be addressed: I. SEPA Checklist Item B.3.a.2 — Based on the submitted plans, work will occur within 200 feet of the wetlands. Please revise the response. Item B.1 O.c — Revise response to read City of'Federal Way landscape standards. Item B.14.a. — Revise the response to indicate that 16"' Avenue South borders the eastern edge of the project. Item B.14.d. — Clarify the word `frontage' in this response. Without benefit of a drawing it would be difficult to understand whether the eastern and northern frontages of the property are being improved, or whether the eastern and northern edges of the streets are being improved. The response should be written such that it is clearly understood where the improvements will occur, if reading the response without benefit of a drawing to reference. II. Land Use a. Per FWRC 19.135.280(2), driveways may not be located closer than 150 feet to each other. As currently designed, the driveway access on I Vh Avenue South is approximately 60 feet (center - to -center) from the driveway serving the apartment complex on the east side of 10". Revise the project driveway location to meet the 150-foot spacing requirement. b. Provide two cross -sections of the detention vault. The east -west section shall show the western- most outside wall of Building AA as well as its finish floor grade. Sarady Long, Traffic Division, 253-835-2743, sarady.long@cityoffederalway.com The Public Works Traffic Division has reviewed the submitted material and provides the following technical comments: File #12-105564-00-UP Doc ID 962793 Mr. Matt Hough Page 10 of 13 February 22, 2013 I. General Plan Review Comments a. Access onto South 3561h Street will be restricted to right -in and right -out due to a conflict with the Lowes driveway. The applicant may submit queuing analysis along with the proposed access layout. b. Show street improvements along the property frontage on South 3560' Street. The adopted 2013 — 2018 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) identified roadway widening project on South 3561h Street from SR 99 to SR 161 as TIP # 16 (widening to 5-lane; bike lanes, sidewalk, and illumination). The applicant would be required to construct half -street improvements consisting of 33 feet of pavement measure from street centerline, a 6-foot planter with street trees, 8-foot sidewalks, and street lights matching the existing improvements east of the property. Tapers and transitions beyond the project frontage would be required as deemed necessary for safety purposes. c. The proposed driveway on 16`h Avenue South should be relocated south so that it would create a straight travel path from the internal road. d. Map III-6 in the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP) depicted a north -south commercial street along the west side of the property. Per code, the applicant would be expected to dedicate right-of-way and construct this road to city standards. However, given that the road alignment has not been established and there are wetland constraints, the applicant may fulfill this requirement by setting aside a 50-foot wide (minimum) modified width tract for a future road along the west side of the property within the wetland buffer. In the event that this road is removed from the FWCP, the tract would revert back to the property owner. Staff will work with the applicant to identify location and width of the tract. e. Driveway width should be 30 feet for a two-lane two-way driveway and 40 feet for a three -lane two-way driveway (FWRC 19.135.270). Driveway widths may be increased in order to provide adequate width for vehicles that may be reasonably expected to use the driveway, as determined by the Public Works Director. H. Transportation Impact Study a. Table 2, page 8. Please revise PM peak hour LOS for SR 161/South 3560' Street to LOS D and V/C 0.79, consistent with Synchro printout page 2. b. Page 8, Planned Roadway Improvements. Use the current 2013 — 2018 TIP and revise the TIP cost accordingly. c. Page 10, Trip Distribution and Assignment. It appears that trip distribution and assignment assumed full access onto South 356"' Street. Due to potential conflict with the Lowe's driveway just east of the site, access will likely be restricted to right -in and right -out. Please revise Figures 4 and 5 accordingly. Fi le H 12-105564-00-UP Doc ID M62793 Mr. Matt Hough Page 11 of 13 February 22, 2013 d. Page 13 — Left -Turn Warrants. Given the proximately to the Lowe's driveway and potential conflicts, staff does not concur or support the recommendation to allow left -turn in or left -tuna out from this driveway. Alternatively, left -turn into the site 'can be made at the South 356t' Street and 161h Avenue South. intersection. If the applicant would like to pursue fi►11 access, please provide a queuing analysis for. the Lowe's driveway during the peak usage period (weekend during spring or summer) ensuring that the proposed 50-foot pocket is adequate to handle the expected traffic: Also, please provide driveway design with appropriate tapers. e. Page 15 — Project Mitigation Measures. Please see planreview comment #3 regarding required frontage improvements. The proposed 20-foot wide right-of-way dedication for the future is correct. The applicant will be required to construct half -street improvements from the street centerline. However, the applicant may submit a written request to the Public Works Director requesting credit for the improvements and right-of-way dedication to be applied toward the, impact fees. f. Page 15 —Project Mitigation Measures. Please see comment #4 above regarding access onto South 3561h Street. Applicant must provide additional analysis to ensure no safety concerns with the Lowe's driveway. g. Traffic impact fee will be calculated at the time of the building permit submittal and will be based on fee in affect at the time a completed building permit application is filed. At such time, the impact fee will be adjusted to account for an existing use as determine appropriate by the director. Rob Van Orsow, Solid Waste/Recycling Coordinator, 253-835-2770, rob.vanorsow@cityoffederalway.com I. Enclosure Design Concerns Please consult with John Davis of Waste Management at 206-804-6815 for input on capacity needs and height clearance. The cover/roof is a nice touch, provided that adequate clearance exists for removal of the compactor/container. As indicated on the submitted plans, the clearance for the compactor area is too low. The bottom of the roof structure should have at a minimum 14 feet of clearance to the ground. Waste Management suggests utilizing all the parking area in the immediate vicinity of the proposed trash enclosure and designating it for maintenance equipment and storage of bulky waste materials mentioned below. The width is also too narrow —the gate opening should be at least 15 feet wide. The smaller area in the enclosure —presumably for recycling? —has no access for collection equipment. This means that larger metal `dumpsters' could not be positioned in the enclosure. In 150 square feet, a dozen or so recycling carts could be stored. These would all have to be rolled out through a gate prior to being serviced. But a dozen carts would not provide adequate weekly recycling capacity for 301 residential units. It is nice to have separate entrances for the garbage compactor and recycling —this will help reduce the potential for adding garbage to recycling and vice versa. The site will need distinct signage with graphics to reduce confusion for residents and their kids who take out much of the trash. File tl12-105564-00-UP Doc ID 962793 Mr. Matt Hough Page 12 of 13 February 22, 2013 H. Space Allocation for Recycling The FWRC specifies that 1.5 square feet of space per unit be allocated to allow dedicated space for recycling. This is in response to the common claim that structures have no space available to allow occupants to recycle. Ideally this space would be found within the units themselves, or in areas that are convenient to accumulate recyclables for collection. The designated recycling area of approximately 150 square feet is a lot smaller than the minimum 452 square feet required by code. Space for garbage service is not specified in the FWRC, but it -generally exceeds the space needed for recycling. Maintenance staff and equipment.may also require enclosed areas for storing bulky items like old mattresses, furniture, or appliances that residents leave at the site. III. One Enclosure for Entire Property Having only one enclosure for the entire property is inefficient for resident and maintenance access This site approaches 10 acres, and straight line distance to the enclosure is over 400 feet from housing in the corners of the property. That is a long way to go to "take out the trash." Proponent should consider going with tow -carts for garbage, positioned in several enclosures near the resident structure clusters. Maintenance staff would then roll these carts to the compactor (equipped with a tipper). These enclosures should. be sized large enough to include space for dedicated recycling dumpsters that WM would service. Also, consider making these tow -cart enclosures large enough for recycling containers that the contracted hauler provides at no cost. This will cut down on what maintenance staff has to move to the compactor area. Brian Asbury, Lakehaven Utility District, BAsbury@lakehaven.org I. SEPA Depending on the final approved design, a new water main greater than 8-inch diameter may be required, and if so, this construction should be identified in the SEPA.checklist (e.g., "Potential for new main greater than 8" diameter exists") prepared and submitted for the proposed land use action. If the main greater than 8-inch diameter is ultimately required and is not sufficiently addressed in the initial SEPA checklist and approval, a separate SEPA process may be required prior to authorizing construction of any new water system facilities. NOTE: Lakehaven doesn't necessarily anticipate water main greater than 8-inch diameter, but cannot rule it out entirely at this point. II. Completeness The applicant has completed and submitted to Lakehaven an application for water & sewer Certificates of Availability and these certificates were issued by Lakehaven on November 13, 2012. However, an application for a Developer Extension Agreement has not been submitted to Lakehaven, which is necessary to be able to more specifically determine the applicant's File #12-105564-00-UP Doe ID #62797 Mr. Matt Hough Page 13 of 13 February 22, 2013 requirements for connection to Lakehaven's water and/or sewer systems to serve the subject property. As previously noted, the applicant will need to submit an application for a Developer Extension Agreement for Lakehaven to formally commence the water and/or sewer plan review process. Lakehaven continues to encourage owners/developers/applicants to apply for Lakehaven processes (as appropriate) separately to Lakehaven, early in the pre-design/planning phase to avoid delays in overall project development. APPLICATION STATUS Pursuant to FWRC development regulations, city departments are allotted 120 days to review and endeavor a decision on the Process III application. Any period in which the applicant has been requested to correct plans or provide additional information is excluded from the 120-day period. As of today, the review period has stopped with 42 days used: The review period will commence within 14 days of a resubmittal of items requested/corrected. CLOSING When resubmitting requested information, please provide four copies of any reports and six copies of any plans, in addition to the green resubmittal form. Pursuant to FWRC 19.15.050, if an applicant fails to provide additional information to the city within 180 days of being notified that such information•is requested, the application shall be deemed null and void and the city shall have no duty to process, review, or issue any decisions with respect to such an application. If you have any questions regarding this letter or your development project, please contact me at 253-835- 2644, orjanet.shull@cityoffederalway.com. Sincerely, (� y Janet Shull, AICP, CSBA, LEED Green Associate Senior Planner enc: Bulletin 129 `Resubmittal Information' Bulletin 021 "CPTED Instructions" Bulletin 022 "CPTED Checklist" c: Kevin Peterson, Engineering Plans Reviewer ' Sarady Long, Senior Transportation Planning Engineer Rob Van Orsow, Solid Waste/Recycling Coordinator Brian Asbury, Lakehaven Utility District File #12-105564-00-UP Doe ID #62793 0411'_ �� CITY 40000k� OF Federal Way DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33325 8`' Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 253-835-2607%«; Fax 253-835-2609 ITTE® ww.cii� u ' a ' APR 18 2013 OF FEDERAL WAY Crime Prevention Through Environmental CDS Design (CPTED) Checklist Directions Please fill out the checklist to indicate which strategies have been used to implement CPTED principles in your proposed project. Please check all strategies that are applicable to your project for each of the numbered guidelines. You may check more than one strategy for each guideline. Your responses will be evaluated by City Staff, and will be integrated into the Site Plan and/or Building Permit review process. Section and ✓ Functional Area Evaluation for Performance Performance Standard Agency Use Only Standard Strategy n Applicable during Site Plan Review B Applicable during Building Permit Review Section 1.0 Natural Surveillance 1.1 Blind Corners _❑Conforms Avoid blind corners in pathways and parking lots. _❑Revise _❑NA Comments: Pathways should be direct. All barriers along pathways should ✓ be permeable (see through) including landscaping, fencing etc. ■ All parking lots, open space areas and Pathways are visible from the oro osed residential buildin s. Consider the installation of mirrors to allow users to see ahead of them and around corners. e Other strategy used: Propased landsca in in or ad'acent to 13aths and open sace areas is proposed to be low ✓ rovv ig or otherwise noin-obscur w for improved visibility from roadway,parking lot and adiacent residential buildings. 1.2 Site and Building Layout —[]Conforms Allow natural observation from the street to the use, from the _❑Revise use to the street, and between uses —DNA Park 16 Multifamily City File No. 12-105564-00-UP COFW Bulletin #022 / April 10, 2013 Page 1 of 9 Section and ✓ Functional Area Evaluation for Performance Performance Standard Agency Use Only Standard Strategy ■ Applicable during Site Plan Review e Applicable during Building Permit Review Comments: ✓ Orient the main entrance towards the street or both streets on corners. ■ For Non -Single Family Position habitable rooms with windows at the front of the Development dwelling. ■ Access to dwellings or other uses above commercial/ retail development should not be from the rear of the building. ■ ✓ Offset windows, doorways and balconies to allow for natural observation while protecting privacy. ■ ✓ Locate main entrances/exits at the front of the site and in view of the street. 0 For Commercial/ Retail/ Industrial If employee entrances must be separated from the main and Community El entrance, they should maximize opportunities for natural Facilities surveillance from the street. ■ ❑ In industrial developments, administration/offices should be located at the front of the building. ■ Avoid large expanses of parking. Where large expanses of ❑ parking are proposed, provide surveillance such as security For Surface cameras. N Parking and Parking Structures ✓ Access to elevators, stairwells and pedestrian pathways should be clearly visible from an adjacent parking area. i ✓ Avoid hidden recesses. ■ ✓ Locate parking areas in locations that can be observed by adjoining uses. ■ Open spaces shall be clearly designated and situated at For Common/ locations that are easily observed by people. Parks, plazas, Open Space ✓ common areas, and playgrounds should be placed in the front Areas of buildings. Shopping centers and other similar uses should face streets. ■ Other strategy used: The ro osed onsite trail in the wetland buffer in the western limits of the prodect will be ✓ visible and slightly downslo a of the adjacent residential buildings. In addition three points of connection are fanned for this trail with si na a to clarif that Park 16 Multifamily COFW Bulletin #022 / April 10, 2013 City File No. 12-105564-00-UP Page 2 of 9 Section and ✓ Functional Area Evaluation for Performance Performance Standard Agency Use Only Standard Strategy N Applicable during Site Plan Review e Applicable during Building Permit Review edestrians must remain on the trail trail hours of use, and that the trail is not lit or accessible by vehicle. 1.3 Common/Open Space Areas and Public On -Site Open ,❑Conforms Space f ❑Revise Provide natural surveillance for common/open space areas. ❑NA Comments: Position active uses or habitable rooms with windows adjacent ✓ to main common/open space areas, e.g. playgrounds, swimming pools, etc., and public on -site open space. A Design and locate dumpster enclosures in a manner which ✓ screens refuse containers but avoids providing opportunities to hide. ■ Locate waiting areas and external entries to elevators/stairwells ❑ close to areas of active uses to make them visible from the building entry. e ❑ Locate seating in areas of active uses. e Other strategy used: �__i_ Revise 1.4 Entrances —[]Conforms Provide entries that are clearly visible. ❑NA Comments: ✓ Design entrances to allow users to see into them before entering. ■ Entrances should be clearly identified (Signs must conform to ❑ FWRC 19.140.060. Exempt Signs. (Applicable during Cerli rcate o �ccre gncv Ins ction . Other strategy used: u Park 16 Multifamily COFW Bulletin #022 / April 10, 2013 City File No. 12-105564-00-UP Page 3 of 9 Section and ✓ Functional Area Evaluation for Performance Performance Standard Agency Use Only Standard Strategy ■ Applicable during Site Plan Review e Applicable during Building Permit Review 1.5 Fencing _❑ Conforms Fence design should maximize natural surveillance from the ❑ Revise street to the building andf om the building to the street, and —DNA minimize opportunities for intruders to hide. Comments: Front fences should be predominantly open in design, e.g. pickets or wrought iron, or low in height. e Design high solid front fences in a manner that incorporates ❑ open elements to allow visibility above the height of five feet. e If noise insulation is required, install double -glazing at the ❑ front of the building rather than solid fences higher than five feet. e Other strategy used: Recreation areas containing tot lots will have perimeter fencing with gate access. Split rail wood fences will also be installed at the ed es of the trail in the ✓ wetland buffer to contain vedestrian traffic out of critical areas. Finally, feneinE will be provided at the perimeter of the site for privacy as well as to provide screening in addition to the required landscaping at these same areas. 1.6 Landscaping Avoid landscaping which obstructs natural surveillance and allows intruders to hide. ✓ Trees with dense low growth foliage should be spaced or their crown should be raised to avoid a continuous barrier. ■ Use low groundcover, shrubs a minimum of 24 inches in height, or high -canopied trees (clean trimmed to a height of eight feet) around children's play areas, parking areas, and along pedestrian pathways. 0 ✓ Avoid vegetation that conceals the building entrance from the street. ■ Other strategy used; 0 ❑ Conforms ❑Revise —DNA Comments: Park 16 Multifamily COFW Bulletin #022 / April 10, 2013 City File No. 12-105564-00-UP Page 4 of 9 Section and ✓ Functional Area Evaluation for Performance Performance Standard Agency Use Only Standard Strategy ■ Applicable during Site Plan Review e Applicable during Building Permit Review 1.7 Exterior Lighting —[]Conforms Provide exterior lighting that enhances natural surveillance. _❑Revise (Refer to FWRC 19.115.050(7)(a) for specific lighting —DNA requirements.) Comments: Prepare a lighting plan in accordance with Illuminating Engineering Society of America (IESA) Standards, which ❑ addresses project lighting in a comprehensive manner. Select a lighting approach that is consistent with local conditions and crime problems. ■ Locate elevated light fixtures (poles, light standards, etc.) in a ve coordinated manner that provides the desired coverage. The useful ground coverage of an elevated light fixture is roughly twice its height. ■ For areas intended to be used at night, ensure that lighting ❑ supports visibility. Where lighting is placed at a lower height to support visibility for pedestrians, ensure that it is vandal - resistant. e ❑ Ensure inset or modulated spaces on a building facade, access/egress routes, and signage is well lit. e ❑ In areas used by pedestrians, ensure that lighting shines on pedestrian pathways and possible entrapment spaces. e Place lighting to take into account vegetation, in its current and ❑ mature form, as well as any other element that may have the potential for blocking light. e Avoid lighting of areas not intended for nighttime use to avoid ❑ giving a false impression of use or safety. If danger spots are usually vacant at night, avoid lighting them and close them off to pedestrians. e f Select and light "safe routes" so that these become the focus of legitimate pedestrian activity after dark. ■ ❑ Avoid climbing opportunities by locating light standards and electrical equipment away from walls or low buildings. e ❑ Use photoelectric rather than time switches for exterior lighting. e Park 16 Multifamily COFW Bulletin #022 / April 10, 2013 City File No. 12-105564-00-UP Page 5 of 9 Evaluation for Section and ✓ Functional Area Performance Performance Standard Agency Use Only Standard Strategy ■ Applicable during Site Plan Review e Applicable during Building Permit Review In projects that will be used primarily by older people (retirement homes, congregate care facilities, senior and/ or ❑ community centers, etc.) provide higher levels of brightness in public/common areas. Q Other strategy used: A preliminary ii htinplan has been orepared and is included with the Process III aDDlication ✓ for the proiect. This plan shows the Proposed Parking lot edestrian-level and buildin -mounted exterior li htin . 1.8 Mix of Uses _❑Conforms In mixed use buildings increase opportunities for natural _❑Revise surveillance, while protecting privacy. —DNA Comments: Where allowed by city code, locate shops and businesses on lower floors and residences on upper floors. In this way, ❑ residents can observe the businesses after hours while the residences can be observed by the businesses during business hours. ■ 13 Include food kiosks, restaurants, etc. within parks and parking structures. ■ Other strategy: used 1.9 Security Bars, Shutters, and Doors _❑Conforms When used and permitted by building and fire codes, security _❑Revise bars, shutters, and doors should allow observation of the street _❑NA and be consistent with the architectural style of the building. I Comments: ❑ Security bars and security doors should be visually permeable (see -through). B Other strategy used: Park 16 Multifamily COFW Bulletin #022 / April 10, 2013 City File No. 12-105564-00-UP Page 6 of 9 Section and ✓ Functional Area Evaluation for Performance Performance Standard Agency Use Only Standard Strategy ■ Applicable during Site Plan Review e Applicable during Building Permit Review Section 2.0 Access Control 2.1 Building Identification _❑Conforms Ensure buildings are clearly identified by street number to _❑Revise prevent unintended access and to assist persons trying to find _DNA the building. Identification signs must conform to FWRC Comments: 19.140.060. Exempt Signs. ❑ Street numbers should be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. e In residential uses, each individual unit should be clearly numbered. In multiple building complexes, each building entry ❑ should clearly state the unit numbers accessed ftom than entry. In addition, unit numbers should be provided on each level or floor. e Street numbers should be made of durable materials, ❑ preferably reflective or luminous, and unobstructed (e.g. by foliage). e For larger projects, provide location maps (fixed plaque ❑ format) and directional signage at public entry points and along internal public routes of travel. e Other strategy used: El 2.2 Entrances _ ❑ Conforms Avoid confusion in locating building entrances. —[]Revise —DNA Comments: Entrances should be easily recognizable through design ✓ features and directional signage. (Signs must conform to FWRC 19.140.060. Exempt Signs. ■ ✓ Minimize the number of entry points. ■ 1 ✓ Other strategy used: Building entries are )v way of common open, centralized_breezewstys- 2,3 Landscaping _Conforms Use vegetation as barriers to deter unauthorized access. ❑Revise —DNA Comments: Park 16 Multifamily COFW Bulletin #022 / April 10, 2013 City File No. 12-105564-00-UP Page 7 of 9 Section and ✓ Functional Area Evaluation for Performance Performance Standard Agency Use Only Standard Strategy x Applicable during Site Plan Review e Applicable during Building Permit Review ❑ Consider using thorny plants as an effective barrier. e Other strategy used: 2,4 Landscaping Location —[]Conforms Avoid placement of vegetation that would enable access to a ~❑ Revise building or to neighboring buildings. ❑NA Comments: Avoid placement of large trees, garages, utility structures, ✓ fences, and gutters next to second story windows or balconies that could provide a means of access. r Other strategy used: 2.5 Security —[]Conforms Reduce opportunities for unauthorized access Revise —DNA Comments: Consider the use of security hardware and/or human measures ❑ to reduce opportunities for unauthorized access. (Applicable during Certi scale o fnc 1ns ection . Other strategy used: 2,6 Signage _❑ Conforms Insure that signage is clearly visible, easy to read and simple —[]Revise to understand [Signs must conform to FWRC 19.140.060. —DNA Exempt Signs]. Comments: ❑ Use strong colors, standard symbols, and simple graphics for informational signs. e For Surface Upon entering the parking area, provide both pedestrians and Parking and ❑ drivers with a clear understanding of the direction to stairs, Parking elevators, and exits. e Park 16 Multifamily COFW Bulletin #022 / April 10, 2013 City File No. 12-105564-00-UP Page 8 of 9 Section and ✓ Functional Area Evaluation for Performance Performance Standard Agency Use Only Standard Strategy ■ Applicable during Site Plan Review e Applicable during Building Permit Review Structures 0 In multi -level parking areas, use creative signage to distinguish between floors to enable users to easily locate their cars. e ❑ Advise users of security measures that are in place and where to find them, i.e. security phone or intercom system. e ❑ Provide signage in the parking area advising users to lock their cars. e ❑ Where exits are closed after hours, ensure this information is indicated at the parking area entrance. e Other strategy used: Section 3.0 Ownership 3.1 Maintenance _❑ Conforms Create a "cared for" image _❑Revise —DNA Comments: Ensure that landscaping is well maintained, as per FWRC ✓ 19.125.090, in order to give an impression of ownership, care, and security. (Ongoing). Where possible, design multi -unit residential uses such that no ❑ more than six to eight units share a common building entrance. A Other strategy used: 3.2 Materials ❑ Conforms Use materials, which reduce the opportunity for vandalism. .—❑Revise DNA Comments: Consider using strong, wear resistant laminate, impervious glazed ceramics, treated masonry products, stainless steel ❑ materials, anti -graffiti paints, and clear over sprays to reduce opportunities for vandalism. Avoid flat or porous finishes in areas where graffiti is likely to be a problem. e Park 16 Multifamily COFW Bulletin #022 / April 10, 2013 City File No. 12-105564-00-UP Page 9 of 9 Section and Functional Area Performance Performance Standard Standard Strategy ■ Applicable during Site Plan Review E) Applicable during Building Permit Review ❑ Where large walls are unavoidable, refer to FWRC 19.125.040(21) regarding the use of vegetative screens. e Common area and/or street furniture shall be made of long ❑ wearing vandal resistant materials and secured by sturdy anchor points, or removed after hours. Other strategy I■J Evaluation for Agency Use Only Park 16 Multifamily COFW Bulletin #0221 April I0, 2013 City File No. 12-105564-40-UP Page io or9 19 Transportation Engineering NorthWkEWB IITTE®Memorandum APR 18 2013 DATE: April 10, 2013 erry OF FEDERAL WAY C D TO: Tom Neubauer, DevCo, Inc. ki FROM: Michael J. Read, P.E., TmnspoAdn' ngineerinLLC RE: Park 16 Multifamily Parking Demand Analysis of Proposed Residential Project This memorandum documents an evaluation of parking demand of the proposed residential apartment project known as Park 16 Multifami jl that is proposed on the southeast quadrant of the S 356" Street and 16"' Avenue S intersection in Federal Way, WA. The proposed project consists of constructing 293 residential units with an on -site parking supply of 472 stalls. This proposed parking supply results in a parking ratio of 1.61 stalls per dwelling unit. Federal Way Code Parking Requirements Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19.250.040 identifies minimum off-street parking requirements for the proposed multifamily residential type of 1.7 stalls per dwelling unit. However, FWRC 19.130 contains provisions for reductions in the requirement for off-street parking based upon demand studies, shared use potential, and site incentives or measures to reduce automobile utilization. The following paragraphs outline national and local peak parking demand rates and their applicability to the project. Estimated Demand for Parking Using the latest edition of Parking Generation, 0' Edition, 2010, as published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), observed peak parking generation rates for Low/Mid- Rise Apartments (Land Use Code: 221), were reviewed to estimated peak parking demand at the proposed Park 16 Apartiuent project. Parking demand rates documented by ITE represent the latest information on parking generation information, and are applied as standard practice in evaluating demand for many different types of land uses. Table 1 contains a summary of peak demand estimated using ITE rates, and compares total proposed supply. As shown, the proposed parking supply of 472 stalls is forecast to exceed peak demand (378 stalls) by 94 stalls. The peak demand is estimate at approximately 1.29 stalls per dwelling unit. As such, no parking deficit or impact would occur with the proposed on -site parking supply of 472 stalls or 1.61 stalls per dwelling unit. Table 1: Off -Street Parking Demand using ITE Rates Land Use Size ITE Parkin Rate' ITE LU 221 Low/Mid-Rise Apartment 1293 1 (1.42 * # of dwelling units) - 38 Total Off -Street Parkin (Surplus +-)/(-DeficitJ 1 — ITE p,,wlg Gr�isrslian, Fanb Lrrbtim, 2010. www.tenw.com PO Box 65254 ♦ Seattle, WA 98155 Office/Fax (206) 361-7333 ♦ Toll Free (888) 220-7333 kin_ g Demand 4 72 stalls 378 stalls +94 stalls Park 16 Multifamily Parking Demand Analysis April 10, 2013 Page 2 Local Parking Surveys In addition to national parking standards, parking generation rates of local apartment complexes were also included in this evaluation. In 2002, TENW conducted parking counts at five separate residential apartment complexes at five separate locations in south Snohomish County. These surveys are considered applicable to the proposed site as they contain representative suburban locations of similar apartment complexes. Surveys were collected on both weekday and weekend periods during typical peak residential demands during daytime and evening periods. As shown as Table 2, peak parking demand surveys at five established residential projects averaged 1.24 stalls per dwelling unit, while available supply averaged 1.67 stalls per dwelling unit. It should be noted that these surveys factored observed peak parking demand to account for unit occupancy and unknown occupancy of garage utilization during the survey days. As the proposed supply at Park 16 Apartments is 1.61 stalls per dwelling unit, this supply level is more than one-third percent higher than observed local rates. Attachment A contains the results of the parking surveys over three different survey days at each site. Table 1: 2002 Peak Parking Demand Surveys In boutn anonomisn Luount Apartment Complex Total Units 1-Bedroom Units Units with More than 1-Bedroom Actual Parking Provided Peak Utilization Peak Demand Rate Pacific Park 177 122 55 291 188 / 65% 1.06 Whispering Pine 240 76 164 (p 480 255 / 53% 1.06 On the Green 558 206 352 % 835 746 / 890/c 1.34 Mill Pointe 193 61 132 (0 309 258 / 83% 1.34 Parkwood 240 56 184 435 332 / 76% 1.38 1.67 average stalls/unit of all survey sites 1.24 average peak demand rate Source: TENW, HeatherwoodApartment Complex Parking Analysis, 2002.yarmr `�O� 1 When applying local parking demand rates of similar multiity residential uses to the peak parking demand analysis, total site demand for parking is estimated at approximately 363 stalls; slightly less than peak national ITE parking demand rates. This peak level however, remains less than the total proposed supply of 472 stalls. Transit Availability, Similar Properties, and Other Automobile Reduction Measures Although not required by Federal Way Code, the proposed Park 16 Multifamily Project proposes to implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan to reduce the reliance on vehicle use and provide incentives for alternative means of travel. These programs and site amenities have been constructed and implemented at many of DevCo, Inc., properties throughout Washington State. These measures would include on -site design features, an on -site trip reduction coordinator for vanpooling/carpooling services, reduced transit passes for residents, and an on -site commuter center. Other properties that have been developed, owned, and are managed by the applicant average parking supply of 1.63 stalls per dwelling unit (see Attachment B). These existing residential properties all have similar bedroom mixes, market characteristics, and do not generate off -site parking demand. Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC PO Box 65254 ♦ Seattle, WA 98155 Office/Fax (206) 361-7333 ♦ Toll Free (888) 220-7333 Park 16 Multifamily Parking Demand Analysis April 10, 2013 Page 3 The average parking supply ratios of similar residential complexes built and maintained by Vintage Housing Property (Attachment B) of 1.54 stalls per unit, also support the proposed project's supply of 1.61 stalls per unit: Furthermore, the availability of quality local and regional transit services within the site vicinity provides. an opportunity for residents and guests a wide variety of options without the use of vehicle travel. Daily, bi-directional fixed route transit service with 60-minute headways is provided along SR 161 (within 500 feet of walking distance from the site) at SE 356th Street via Route 402 (Pierce Transit). This route provides quality connections between the site and the Federal Way Transit Center (SE 320th Street), the Meridian Corridor (SR 161), South Hill. Shopping Mall, and Sounder Transit station in Puyallup. This route provides multiple local and regional connections to a wide variety of land uses and other public transportation services. Conclusion As shown in Table 1, under the proposed parking reductions allowed under FWRC, the applicant proposes to provide 1.61 stalls per dwelling unit. As both national and local parking generation rates for similar residential apartment uses in suburban areas, peak demand of no more than 1.38 stalls was observed. Therefore, the analysis of parking demand for the proposed Part 16 i itkifwni# project concluded that the proposed 1.61 stalls per unit would exceed forecasted demand, provide adequate surplus of on -site parking during peak periods, and a reduction of FWRC 19.130.080 (2) is justified. Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC PO Box 65254 ♦ Seattle, WA 98155 Office/Fax (206) 361-7333 ♦ Toll Free (888) 220-7333 Attachment A Local Parking Surveys of Multifamily Residential Sites in Snohomish County Attachment B 2002 Parking Surveys at Residential Sites in South Snohomish County Heatherwood Apartments, Parking Surveys at Comparable Sites in Vicinity Residential Market ,Apartment Parking Stalls' Parked Complex Units Parking Ratio Location Vehicles Pacific Park 177 291 23231 Highway 99, Edmonds 183 1.64 63% 'Whispering Pine 240 480 18201 52nd Ave W, Lynnwood 220 2.00 46% On the Green 558 835 12303 Harbour Pointe, Mukilteo 570 1.50 68% (Hill Pointe 193 309 2424 132nd Street SE, Mill Creek 185 1.60 60 % IParkwood 240 435 15520 Mill Creek Blvd, Mill Creek 233 1.8 54% Pacific Park 177 291 23231 Highway 99, Edmonds 118 1.64 40% Whispering Pine 240 480 15201 52nd Ave W, Lynnwood 158 2.00 33% on the Green 558 835 12303 Harbour Pointe, Mukilteo 466 1.50 56% IMill Pointe 193 309 2424 132nd Street SE, Mill Creek 172 1.60 56% IParkwood 240 435 15520 Mill Creek Blvd, Mill Creek 242 1.6 56 (Pacific Park 177 291 23231 Highway 99, Edmonds 177 1.64 61 % 'Whispering Pine 240 480 18201 52nd Ave W, Lynnwood 234 2.00 49% On the Green 558 835 12303 Harbour Pointe, Mukilteo 666 1.50 80% Mill Pointe 193 309 2424 132nd Street SE, Mill Creek 266 1.60 86% IParkwood 240 435 15520 Mill Creek Blvd, Mill Creek 332 1 6 76 % (Pacific Park 177 291 23231 Highway 99. Edmonds 188 1.64 65 % 'Whispering Pine 240 480 18201 52nd Ave W, Lynnwood 2355 2.00 On the Green 558 835 12303 Harbour Pointe, Mukilteo 746 1.50 89% (Mill Pointe 193 309 2424 132nd Street SE, Mill Creek 256 1.60 83 oo IParkwood 240 435 15520 Mill Creek Blvd, Mill Creek 324 1.8 1 74'k 1 - Includes surface stalls, carports, and garages. Average Occupancy 7:OOam - B:OOam Average Weekday 58% Average Occupancy 5:OOpm - 6:OOpm Average Weekday 48% Average Occupancy B:OOpm - 9:OOpm Average Weekday 70 % Average Occupancy 6:OOam - 7:OOam Weekend 73 % Attachment B Built Parking Supply Ratios of Similar Complexes r c d /0 V c 0 Q. = CL CL N O F 0 c R. 3 O N C a v :G 0 IL m m LU a) C 01 W M z z 0 2 a) cc as U) c 0 01 C L CO C () E d O (V CD 0 rn c O a1 co -a Q a) a) d O CL z z 2 c 0 v 0 J r CL a� a as v 0 as 0 0 N a) () a) C N a) a) N a) O a) a) O a) N N > `o `o `o o `o o `o 0 0 `o o `o M M M 0 M M M M M M M M M M m m 0 \ \ \ \ \ \o \ o \o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O 0000000000000000 r r r Oo T T T T T T r T T T T T f_ m (o M OON M M M O I*-N Ili N M CO O? a? n M a0 ti If) 0 't T T T r T T T T T r r T T r T r CO r O 00 ti LO 00 M00TC`700O00r N P- 00CCDDMO�ONO�OMII d�'NN r r 00 00 1- M N O N M (D N Cr) CN N N N OOOCf)OOOIt ) coNO (MN O O N M O O O O O O O M O N r CD M 00 0 r M r r T 00 N O (D 0 Ili ,t N N In 11') Cn ll� N M N O— E` Y Yj L a) CDC C L j a S 0 0 0 c E E .� (pi c aa)) U)) a) = aci > > �m m m (D o ILQW mOpYWaEfooQ>wm O co U) CO 0 C6 7 Y m 0) 0 `0 a)v QCL 0v 0 a) a) O C O Y � 0 N H p 0> ) O 3 0 CL C 0) (V 3 p 0 L L 0 a) C p N 'O N y C t'' ++ " 0) a) 000U0W=Y zOdcF-w(� V N a) a) O � d W O L O- H a) m L m m H 0 o a aa) d � L w O N p 0 C O 0 nCL d T a5 C a1 E i o 3 U a) U E N O C n > c C cc O a7 L E t7 o co N C N E CL 0 d a� v vi c �N 0 2 a� (6 0 Q z z 2 m N -a 0 CL a n CL w rn c Y lC C1 N Cn l6 a� Q v 0 N 21 l6 C f0 Eli a) m CL 0 a z z 2 U 0 CO Vintage Housing Property Parking Statistics - November 2012 Anchorage, AK 99501 Family, LIHTC 180 252 Yes Jim Collins 1.4 Anchorage, AK 99504 Family, LIHTC 100 141 Yes Jim Collins 1.4 Antioch, CA Family Tax Credit/Hud 122 183 es Jamie Veli uette 1.5 Avenal, CA Family -Tax Credit 81 155 YES Felicia Johnson 1. Avenal CA Family -Tax Credit 81 84 YES Felicia Johnson 1.0 Avenal, CA Family -Tax Credit 81 169 YES Felicia Johnson 2.1 Bellevue, WA Tax Credit Family 41 50 Yes Shean Parmalee 1.2 Bellevue, WA Tax Credit Family 24 32 Yes Shean Parmalee 1.3 Brawle CA Family - Tax Credit 72 112 Yes Daniel Hernandez 1.6 , Cameron Park, CA Family, LIHTC 40 60 Yes John Rus 1.5 Cameron Park, Ca Family 200 400 es Sandi Arstin stall 2.0 Carson City, NV Fam-T Cred-Sec. 8 100 147 Yes Gary Hau stad 1.5 Carson City, NV Family 316 415 Yes Shannon Diehl 1.3 CLEARLAKE, CALIFOR FAMILY TAX CREDIT/H 80 161 YES Denise Hufford 2•0 CLEARLAKE, CALIFOR FAMILY USDA-RD/HUD 72 99 YES Denise Hufford 1.4 Coachella CA Family - Tax Credit 81 163 Yes Daniel Hernandez 2.0 Coachella, CA Family - Tax Credit 60 125 Yes Daniel Hernandez 2.1 Coeur D'Alene, ID Family -Tax Credit 170 39 Yes Cathy Pe ram 0.2 Coeur D'Alene, ID Senior -Tax Credit 80 21 es Cathy Pe ram 0.3 Columbus, Ohio 43228 Famil /TC/Sec. 8 200 337 Yes Greg Ruff 1.7 Columbus, Ohio 43228 Famil rTC/Sec. 8 206 370 Yes Greg Ruff 1.8 Corcoran, Ca Famil ,Tax Credit 81 177 es Cand Navarro 2.2 CORNING, CALIFORNI USDA-RD/HUD SEC8/To 48 70 YES Denise Hufford 1.5 East Palo Alto, CA Rise w/parking garage 77 149 Yes Curtis Tumba a 1.9 Elk Grove, CA Tax Credit Family 188 385 Yes Monica Treat 2.0 F airfield, CA Family Tax Credit 51 59 yes Jamie Veli uette 1 1.2 Fort Bragg, CA Family, LIHTC 44 45 Yes John Rus 1.0 Fremont, CA 94538 Family, LIHTC 132 202 Yes Jim Collins 1.5 Fresno, CA Family, Tax Credit 142 272 Yes Cand Hopkins 1.9 Hanford, CA Family -Tax Credit 81 135 YES Felicia Johnson 1.7 Hermiston OR Family -Tax Credit 64 122 Yes Sherry Vincent 1.9 Issaquah, WA Tax Credit Family 14 16 Yes Shean Parmalee 1.1 Issaquah, WA Tax Credit Family 18 37 Yes Shean Parmalee 2.1 Issaquah, WA Tax Credit Family 51 93 yes Shean Parmalee 1.8 Issaquah, WA Tax Credit Family 38 43 es Shean Parmalee 1.1 Issaquah, WA HUD Family 28 32 Yes Shean Parmalee 1.1 Issa uah, WA 'Tax Credit Family 51 67 Yes Shean Parmalee 1.3 Issaquah, WA Tax Credit Family 51 67 Yes Shean Parmalee 1.3 Kennewick WA I Family -Tax Credit 232 118 Yes Sherry Vincent 0.5 Kirkland, WA Tax Credit Family 61 51 Yes Shean Parmalee o•a Klamath Falls, OR Tax Credit Family 64 112 Yes Sherri Kittle 1.8 Lancaster, California Tax Credit Family 77 116 Yes Michelle Scoullar 1.5 Laughlin NV Family- Tax Credit 300 593 Yes Sher Vincent 2.0 Lincoln, CA Tax Credit Family 88 112 Yes Monica Treat 1.3 Lincoln, CA Tax Credit Famil 120 154 Yes Monica Treat 1.3 Lincoln, Ca Family 120 181 es Sandi Arstin stall 1.5 Lindsay, Ca family, tax credit 61 144 es Cand Navarro 2.4 los an eles Famil - Tax Credit 85 113 es Valli Sears -Jones 1.3 Pagel FPI LIHTC Portfolio Vintage Housing Property Parking Statistics - November 2012 LOS ANGELES CA Family /'Tax Credit 49 50 Yes Daniel Huerta 1.0 , los an eles, CA Family- Tax Credit 102 171 es Valli Sears -Jones 1.7 Los Angeles, CA FAMILY -TAX CREDIT 56 81 YES Daniel Huerta 1.4 Los Angeles, CA Family 32 32 yes Shannon Osar 1.0 Los Angeles, CA Famil 6g 76 Yes Shannon Osar 1.1 McMinnville, OR Famil -Tax Credit 64 122 Yes Sosena Kifle 1. Moreno Valley, Califom Tax Credit Family241 241 Yes Michelle Scoullar 1.00 Moses Lake, WA Family - Tax Credit 96 29 Yes Cathv Pe ram 0.3 Natomas, CA Tax Credit Family 180 288 Yes Monica Treat 1.6 North Highlands CA 95 Family, LIHTC 116 164 Yes Jim Collins 1.4 North Highlands. CA 95 Family, LIHTC 64 83 Yes Jim Collins 1.3 Oakland, CA Rise 53 69 Yes Curtis Tumba a 1.3 Orange Cove, CA Family, Tax Credit 81 123 Yes Candy Hopkins 1.5 Orange Cove, CA Famil , Tax Credit 73 166 Yes Cand Hopkins 2.3 Oran a Cove, CA Family, Tax Credit 81 157 Yes Candy Hopkins 1.9 ORLAND, CALIFORNIA 44 FAMILY 38 SENIOR, 82 156 YES Denise Hufford 1.9 ❑ROVILLE, CALIFORNI FAMILY USDA-RD/HUD 62 136 YES Denise Hufford 2.2 Pasco WA Family -Tax Credit 242 1 484 Yes Sherry Vincent 2.0 Perris, CA Family - Tax Credit 60 115 Yes Daniel Hernandez 1.9 Perris. California Tax Credit Family 70 70 Yes Michelle Scoullar 1.0 Placerville, CA Family, LIHTC 48 96 Yes John Rus 2.0 Redmond, WA Tax Credit Family 18 32 Yes Shean Parmelee 1.8 Reno, NV Family, Sec8. Tax 40 66 Yes Shannon Diehl 1.7 Reno, NV Family 288 630 Yes Shannon Diehl 2.2 Reno, NV Family, Sec8. Tax 126 167 Yes Shannon Diehl 1.3 Reno, NV Family 300 512 Yes Shannon Diehl 1.7 Richmond, VA. 23227 Family/Tax Credit 266 551 es Greo Ruff 2.1 Richmond, VA. 23231 Famil /TC/Sec. 8 125 234 Yes Greg Ruff 1.9 Rocklin, CA Family, LIHTC 32 43 Yes John Rus 1.3 Rocklin CA Tax Credit Family 112 215 yes Monica Treat 1.9 Roseville, CA Mixed Family 80 172 Yes Monica Treat 2.2 Sacramento, CA Family Tax Credit 61 136 yes Jamie Veli uette 2.2 Sacramento, CA Family -Tax Credit 188 329 Yes Tami Pittman 1.8 Sacramento, CA 95820 Family, LIHTC 106 131 Yes Jim Collins 1.2 Sacramento, CA 95824 Family, LIHTC 150 222 Yes Jim Collins 1.5 Sacramento, CA 95841 Family, LIHTC 96 140 Yes Jim Collins 1.5 Sacramento, California Family, Tax Credit 176 162 Yes Christine Emerick 0•9 Sacramento California Famil - Tax Credit 119 128 yes Christine Emerick 1.1 San Diego, CA Family - Tax Credit 65 71 Yes Daniel Hernandez 1.1 San Diego, CA Family - Tax Credit 89 161 Yes Daniel Hernandez 1.8 San Diego, CA Family - Tax Credit 85 1551 Yes Daniel Hernandez 1.8 San Francisco, CA 9412 Family, LIHTC 82 100 Yes Jim Collins 1.2 San Jose, CA rise and garden style 112 224 Yes Curtis Tumba a 2.0 San Jose, CA townhomes with 155 199 Yes Curtis Tumba a 1.3 San Jose, CA PBS8: Garden style 72 146 Yes Curtis Tumba a 2.0 San Jose, CA mid rise 102 80 Yes Curtis Tumba a 0.8 San Jose, CA Tax Credit 88 132 Yes ei h Ann Caraball 1.5 San Jose, CA Tax Credit 84 149 Yes ei h Ann Cara ball 1.77 Page 2 FPI LIHTC Portfolio Vintage Housing Property Parking Statistics - November 2012 300 484 Yes .ei h Ann Caraball 1.61 San Jose, CA Tax Credit San Jose, CA Tax Credit 144 202 Yes .ei h Ann Caraball 1.40 San Jose, CA Tax Credit 92 113 Yes .ei h Ann Caraball 1.23 San Jose, CA Tax Credit 160 247 Yes .ei h Ann Caraball 1.54 SAN JOSE. CALIFORNI TAX CREDIT 130 154 YES I Valli Sears -Jones 1.18 San Luis Obispo, CA Tax Credit 42 53 Yes ei h Ann Caraball 1.26 San Rafael, CA Family,Tax Credit 39 58 Yes Kerry Bentz 1.49 Santa Clara, CA mid rise and garden 72 79 Yes Curtis Tumba a 1.10 Santa Clara, CA PBS8: Garden style 17 34 es Curtis Tumba a 2.00 Seattle, WA 98133 Family, LIHTC 474 473 Yes Jennifer Belew 1.00 Selma, Ca Family, Tax Credit 81 215 Yes Candy Navarro 2.65 Se uim, WA Family - Tax Credit 138 254 Yes Sosena Kifle 1.84 Sonora, CA Family ,LIHTC 48 68 Yes John Rus 1.42 South Sacramento, CA Family Tax Credit 96 169 yes Jamie Veli uette 1.76 S arks, NV Family 250 722 Yes Shannon Diehl 2.89 Spokane, WA Tax Credit 232 100 Yes Dan Hinton 0.43 Suisun, CA Family Tax Credit 81 170 yes Jamie Veli uette 2.10 Tulare, CA Family -Tax Credit 61 92 YES Felicia Johnson 1.51 Vallejo, CA 94589 Family, LIHTC 76 109 Yes Jim Collins 1.43 Victorville, Cairfomia Tax Credit Family 116 116 Yes Michelle Scoullar 1.00 Weed, CA Tax Credit Family 50 97 Yes Sherri Kittle 1.94 West Sacramento Tax Credit 51 48 yes Christine Emerick 0.94 Westminster, CA family, tax credit 36 72 yes Valli Sears -Jones 2.00 WILLOWS, CALIFORNI FAMILY USDA-RD/HUD 60 121 YES Denise Hufford 2.02 Average Parking Ratio (All Sites)l 1.54 Page 3 FPI LIHTC Portfolio Park 16, LLC April 10, 2013 Cary Roe, P.E. Public Works Director City of Federal Way 33325 8th Ave S. Federal Way, WA 98063 16 Aoartments, Federal Wa Dear Mr. Roe, 3 RESUBMITTED APR 18 2013 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS I understand that the City has a project in their current capital improvement program (CIP) to widen South 356th Street west of the 16th Avenue South intersection. As a condition for the Site Plan Approval of our project (Federal Way File #12-105564-00-UP) we propose to construct site driveways and half -street improvements from the South 356th Street roadway centerline. These improvements would consist of constructing curb, gutter, sidewalk, and pavement along the full parcel frontage of South 356th Street. I am writing to request an equitable credit for the costs associated with these improvements against the project's required mitigation fees. I appreciate your consideration, Evan J. Hunden, Member 11100 Main Street, Suite 301 Bellevue, WA 98004 Phone (425) 453-9551 Fax (425) 453-9566 jhunden@,devcoapts.com Ross Deckman + Associates Inc. Architecture • Planning • Design March 8, 2013 City of Federal Way Planning and Development Services 33325 8th Avenue S Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 Re: Park 16 Apartments 35703 16th Ave S Permit No: #12-105564-00-UP RDA Project No: 1124 Plans Reviewer: Isaac Conlen / Senior Planner; Janet Shull / Senior Planner Per our agreement established after our meeting of February 28, 2013, we hereby provide for your precursor review a revised project site plan (attached) addressing interpretive issues brought forth by our project team. These issues are as follows: A. On -site usable open -space Taking your advisement of the provision of additional and larger Open Rec Space, we propose 121, 252 sf for the project (117,200 sf required). These active and passive areas distributed as follows: - Upland area (52,687 sf) • (5) Open Play Areas (OPR) • (5) Tot Lots * A Causeway for Wetland viewing - Wetland area (68,565 sf) * An accessible nature trail * An eastward and westward viewing area from the nature trail. B. Building articulation and scale For those buildings longer than 124ft tagged as questionable modulation, we propose an accumulated modulation as shown on the attached Modulation Illustration sketch provided (building K & L) to satisfy the 10% of total fagade length modulation being required. C. Carriage buildings Entry Porches and open space amenities have been added to each Carriage building. In addition, outdoor spaces have been allotted immediately adjacent to the buildings. Sincerely, j Mondonedo Ross Deckman + Associates cc: Parkl 6 Project Team 207 4th Avenue SE • Puy alluP, WA 98372 . P. 25 3 .840 .9405 • F. 253.840.9503 Ross Deckman + Associates Inc. Architecture - Planning - Design February 26, 2013 City of Federal Way Planning and Development Services 33325 8th Avenue S Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 Re: Park 16 Apartments 35703 16th Ave S Permit No: #12-105564-00-UP RDA Project No: 1124 Plans Reviewer: Janet Shull / Senior Planner Prior to the project meeting scheduled for Thursday, we would like to request a clarification of the major items brought out in your recent site plan review. The following numbered items correspond to your Plan Review Letter of February 20, 2013: III. Site Plan a. On -site usable open -space • Per FWRC 19.05.150 the definition of "Open Space" means an area of land that is valued for natural processes and wildlife, for agricultural production, for active and passive recreation, and/or for providing other public benefits. In addition, "Common recreational open space usable for many activities" denotes the availability "...of a variety of active and passive recreational activites". These are the definitions that was relied upon and that we believe is applicable for including the onsite wetland and buffer area along the west edge of the property in the project's overall open space. Please, confirm that this is correct. VI. Administrative Design Guidelines d. FWRC 19.115(1)(p) — (assuming cited section of 19.115.090(1)(p)) ■ Is the visibility from an adjacent residential zone, right-of-way, public park, or recreation area a full viewor a partial viewof a 120 feet building? • Are existing and proposed grades; existing or proposed landscape; views thru adjacent parcels not taken into consideration as sharp and filtered viewing angles to the those buildings in question? Sincerely, j Mondonedo Ross Deckman + Associates cc: Tom Neubauer / Devco 207 4th Avenue SE - Puy ailLIP, WA 98372 • P. 253.840.9405 • F. 253.840,9503 K [241 January 25, 2013 LEGAL r Federal Way NOTICE OF LAND 418E APPLICAUDN Project Name: Park 16 Multifamily Development Project Description:Construction of 26 new resi- riFillIM tt�lifiinrjC- ;vllll :i;11 ul.lits :,'ila s'te improve- ments requiring Process lil, Project Approval. Applicant: Matt Hough, CPH Consultants 1'raj;ct1_ncici irl: "570a� 1G:i1 ,Av_-tu10 `oulh, Feder - id i ty, WA LlataApplil 11:unII [i':_'1: Dufceinbr;r1-3.21r.-112 Du , J-t;:rnline.J !',t11p1!ac,:JiIr1u,:Iry' 1i.2,[,1_, Date of Notice of Application: January 25, 2013 Permits Required by this Application: 1. Project Approval (File #12-105564.00•UP) - 2. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (File #12-105565-00-SE) Pal Ili i RelE+;a1'll En:,il" nlrµrrl9l %: ii1nr:V; aIFAvailable fit tiro ?,Ad{e^ prll_ v Y: YE ; NFr Da'vArnpill anI rPegiil::l lr.; 11-1 rl lls.ed 'ui Project %1,itirlltinn, 1, 11o:vIi;tl Tim: Tuts Federal Way Revised Code tFWRC) Title 14 , 'Envi- ronmental Policy'; FWRC Title 19, "Zoning and De- vetapment code" �*n_i •al,r.� Willi Al l.1iiE:l1't; Cilr PI,I[r: anr,f Regu- lat;rnl:+' T{,e fuojecl be ruVi--r:,uJ for t;r,lr s atettcy with ^II aprl;cahlr �uEde; ;iiid regulatiuus including the 5%,Rc: ,!iilf; SIlliace'VVA1Jr Desig;l Manual; lhF 111tsrnrii[:I :+I btlildino Lvdt, Fire, grid Mechani- TTP officirtl proprt:1 fI!u is avail. blo for pii,d;c revlaw at the Departme;t of Community and Economic Development (add,�ss below). Any person may submit written comt*ents on the environmental anrd land usa OPPRsrtinrr, Vthe Diractor of Com- munity and Economic Ile%�lopnnent by February 11, 2013. Only persons who submit written docu- ment t+:i the diler.iot, rtr :uauesi a copy of th :rti;dinri[ dfCl::ardr, t rrl,•i�,l,ul ulr direc- iGr's deci�iun. C0111NA: SCt10 MM111er ,1,9111 '• III r, tj(;F ?58- Slh r',vanurL, sl)illll Published in the Federal Waxy M1;ro1: January 25, 2013 ,i FWM 1973 -R,� 1 y 13 (/2,61 13 MIL_ W �uzC 31919 Is' Ave S, Suite 10 1 1 Federal, Way, WA 98003 1253.925.5565 1 253.925.5750 (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 25th day of January 2013, and ending on the 25th day of January 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 fm 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 1 st day of February 2013. �\��►lt3�ilt��� •g DEC *� 18 " 201;s �0iy(] 'L► OF �lljile: Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, Residing at Federal Way CITY OF Federal Way DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way WA 98003 253-835-7000; Fax 253-835-2609 www.dt offederalwa .com DECLARATION OF DISTRIBUTION l hereby declare, under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington, that a: A7 Notice of Land Use Application/Action ❑ Notice of Determination of Significarce (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 Pemit ❑ 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; Date Signature K:\CD Administration Files\Declaration of Distribution.doc/Last printed 1 /10/2013 10:35:00 AM . A�k CITY OF Federal Way NnTicF OF LAND USE APPLICATION Project Name: Park 16 Multifamily Development Project Description: Construction of 26 new residential buildings with 301 units with site improvements requiring Process III, Project Approval. Applicant: Matt Hough, CPH Consultants Project Location: 35703 16th Avenue South, Federal Way, WA Date Application Received: December 13, 2012 Date Determined Complete: January 11, 2013 Date of Notice of Application: January 25, 2013 Permits Required by this Application: 1. Project Approval (File #12-105564-00-UP) 2. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (File #12-105565-00-SE) Related Permits: None Relevant Environmental Documents are Available at the Address Below: X YES _NO Development Regulations to be Used for Project Mitigation, Known at This Time: Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 14, "Environmental Policy"; FWRC Title 19, "Zoning and Development code" Consistency With Applicable City Plans and Regulations: The project will be reviewed for consistency with all applicable codes and regulations including the FWRC; King County Surface Water Design Manual; the International Building Code, Fire, and Mechanical Codes. The official project file is available for public review at the Department of Community and Economic Development (address below). Any person may submit written comments on the environmental and land use applications to the Director of Community and Economic Development by Februa 111,2013. Only persons who submit written documents to the director, or specifically request a copy of the original decision, may appeal the director's decision. Contact: Senior Planner Janet Shull, AICP, 253-835-2644 33325 81h Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 Published in the Federal Way Mirror. January 25, 2013 Doc I D. 62955 File #12-105564-00-UP Park 16 Multifarniq 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 1133 0 405 810 1,620 Feet 2921049001 2921049005 2821049070 LOWES HOME CENTERS MORGAN CROSSPONTE KITTS CORNER APT 35433 16 AVE S TH 1505 S 356T" ST 35810 16T" AVE S FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 2921049036 2921049002 2921049006 MOSIER FAMILY TRUST MURPHY DONALD B CITY OF FEDERAL WAY TH CONTRACTORS 3580 PACIFIC HWY S 1215 S 356 ST 1200 S 356T" ST FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 2921049054 2921049060 2921049062 BENJAMIN HEIDGERKEN JOHN & MARY VERMUELEN GENE CAUDLE 1514 S 359TH ST 1500 S 359T" ST FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 2921049063 2921049066 2921049070 SHEILA & ROBERT RUDD MYONGHUI TURNER IAN A JOHNSON 1414 S 359T" ST 35817 16T" AVE S 1420 S 359T" ST FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 2921049071 2921049072 2921049077 JESSE CHERIAN DENNIS & BRIGITTE LINKE LOWES HOME CENTERS 1320 S 359T" ST 1308 S 359T" ST 35425 ENCHANTED PKWY S FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 2921049079 2921049089 2921049090 JOHN M & DEE A SCHWEITZER JOHN A & MARY E VERMEULEN CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 1400 S 359T" ST 1300 S 359T" ST FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 2921049091 2921049092 2921049095 JOHN & MARY VERMEULEN MORGAN DOMINION HOLDINGS LLC 35615 16T" AVE S 1405 S 356T" ST FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 2921049107 2921049132 2921049105 SAMUEL JR & KATHERINE JAMES DANIEL LESSE DOMINION HOLDINGS LLC BILLINGS 35805 16T" AVE S 35703 16T" AVE S 1506 S 359T" ST FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 Print Map Page Page 1 of 2 Address Labels - 300 ft Buffer volo a 9128 991T8 1 Q� 9JOS. 9f190 9J99 , 9052 ` 9rJ7a 4PL�6 r 908£S 9 (G)2010 King County 9049 I Y908 9uo2 � 9071 _ RM 9112 �9036 ' � �'• I 9125 9146 /��JJ01 5356TH ST Federal lil-ay �i``'•" 9112 9173 9505 a 1. ''Al. y�nu5. � it y yo�y ?or ny Y yo, �.i 9U91i St0f2 99G'i y;152 i 91'r�� f I I j I' `9'737 SCGS `�w� ?jr76Li 9110 •, 9140 9134 9136 9131 0050 903•T 9111 911 9138 6 9135 00yr1 0940 9009 9925 916VJ 9013 Parcel Number 2821049070 Site Address 35810 16TH AVE S Zip code 98003 CROSSPOINTE KITTS CORNER Taxpayer APARTMENTS information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a ety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no resentalions or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, Aness, or rights to the use of such information. King County shall not be liable for any feral, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information stained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited kept by written permission of King County." Parcel Number 2921049002 Parcel Number 2921049001 Site Address 1200 S 356TH ST Site Address 35433 16TH AVE S Zip code 98003 Zip code 98003 MURPHY DONALD B Taxpayer LOWE'S HOME CENTERS Taxpayer CONTRACTORS Parcel Number 2921049006 Parcel Number 2921049005 Site Address 1505 S 356TH ST 71 Site Address 3580 PACIFIC HWY S Zip code 98003 Zip code 98003 Taxpayer MORGAN Taxpayer Parcel Number FEDERAL WAY CITY OF 2921049054 Parcel Number 2921049036 Site Address 1215 S 356TH ST Site Address 1514 S 359TH ST Zip code 98003 Zip code 98003 Taxpayer MOSIER FAMILY TRUST Taxpayer HEIDGERKEN BENJAMIN http://www5.kingcounty.gov/pareelviewer/Print_Process.asp 12/ 11 /2012 Print Map Page Page 2 0-f 2 Parcel Number 2921049060 Parcel Number 2921049062 Site Address Site Address 1500 S 359TH ST Zip code Zip code 98003 Taxpayer VERMUELEN JOHN+MARY Taxpayer CAUDLE GENE Parcel Number 2921049063 Parcel Number 2921049066 Site Address 1414 S 359TH ST Site Address 35817 16TH AVE S Zip code 98003 Zip code 98003 Taxpayer RUDD ROBERT N+SHEILA E Taxpayer TURNER MYONGHUI Parcel Number 2921049070 Parcel Number 2921049071 Site Address 1420 S 359TH ST Site Address 1320 S 359TH ST Zip code 98003 Zip code 98003 Taxpayer JOHNSON IAN A Taxpayer CHERIAN JESSE Parcel Number 2921049072 Parcel Number 2921049077 Site Address 1308 S 359TH ST Site Address 35425 ENCHANTED PKWY S Zip code 98003 Zip code Taxpayer LINKE DENNIS & BRIGITTE Taxpayer LOWE'S HOME CENTERS Parcel Number 2921049079 Parcel Number 2921049089 Site Address 1400 S 359TH ST Site Address 1300 S 359TH ST Zip code 98003 Zip code 98003 Taxpayer SCHWEITZER JOHN M & Taxpayer VERMEULEN JOHN A+MARY DEE AE Parcel Number 2921049090 Parcel Number 2921049091 Site Address Site Address Zip code Zip code Taxpayer FEDERAL WAY CITY OF Taxpayer VERMUELEN JOHN+MARY Parcel Number 2921049092 Parcel Number 2921049095 Site Address 35615 16TH AVE S Site Address 1405 S 356TH ST Zip code 98003 Zip code 98003 Taxpayer MORGAN Taxpayer DOMINION HOLDINGS LLC Parcel Number 2921049105 Parcel Number 2921049107 Site Address 35805 16TH AVE S Site Address 35703 16TH AVE S Zip code 98003 Zip code 98003 Taxpayer LESSE JAMES DANIEL Taxpayer DOMINION HOLDINGS LLC Parcel Number 2921049132 Site Address 1506 S 359TH ST Zip code 98003 Taxpayer BILLINGS SAMUEL JR+KATHERINE King County I GIS Center I News I Services I Comments I Search By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site The details. hftp://www5.kingcounty.gov/parcelviewer/Print—Process.asp 12/11/2012 I DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way WA 98003 253-835-7000; Fax 253-835-2609 ww v.c1f offedera1wa .Cam DECLARATION OF DISTRIBUTION 1, L 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 Significarce (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 Pemit ❑ Adoption of Existing Environmental Document was ❑ mailed ❑ faxed Ae-mailed and/or ❑ posted to or at each of the attached addresses on 2013. Project Name File Numbers; Signature �' Date K:\CD Administration riles\Declaration of Distribution.doc/Last printed 1 /10/2013 10:35:00 AM Tina Piety From: Rudi Alcott <ralcott@fedwaymirror.com> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:47 AM To: Tina Piety Subject: Re: Legal Notice Tina, No problem. We will get this done 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 0 Sound Publishing, Inc. Map Print Rates Online Rates Media Kit Sound lnfa On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Tina Piety CTina.Piety e� cityoffederalway.com> wrote: Hello, Please publish the attached legal notice (Park 16 Multifamily Development NOA, 12-105564-00-UP) in Friday's (01-25-2013) 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 Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 253-835-2601; Fax 253-835-2609 % A�k CITY OF Federal Way NOTICE OF LAND USE APPLICATION Project Name: Park 16 Multifamily Development Project Description: Construction of 26 new residential buildings with 301 units with site improvements requiring Process III, Project Approval. Applicant: Matt Hough, CPH Consultants Project Location: 35703 16th Avenue South, Federal Way, WA Date Application Received: December 13, 2012 Date Determined Complete: January 11, 2013 Date of Notice of Application: January 25, 2013 Permits Required by this Application: 1. Project Approval (File #12-105564-00-UP) 2. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (File #12-105565-00-SE) Related Permits: None Relevant Environmental Documents are Available at the Address Belowr. X YES _NO Development Regulations to be Used for Project Mitigation, Known at This Time: Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 14, "Environmental Policy"; FWRC Title 19, "Zoning and Development code" Consistency With Applicable City Plans and Regulations: The project will be reviewed for consistency with all applicable codes and regulations including the FWRC; King County Surface Water Design Manual; the International - Building Code, Fire, and Mechanical -Codes. The official project file is available for public review at the Department of Community and Economic Development (address below). Any person may submit written comments on the environmental and land use applications to the Director of Community and Economic Development by February 11, 2013. Only persons who submit written documents to the director, or specifically request a copy of the original decision, may appeal the director's decision. Contact: Senior Planner Janet Shull, AICP, 253-835-2644 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 Published in the Federal Way Mirror. January 25, 2013 File #12-105564-00-UP Doc. I D. 62955 CITY OF Federal Way DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33325 8th Avenue South PO Box 9718 Federal Way WA 98063-9718 253-835-7000; Fax 253-835-2609 www.cityoffederolwaY.Corn DECLARATION OF DISTRIBUTION I, Kennith George 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 January24 2013. Project Name Park 16 Multifamily Develo ment File Number(s) 1 Signature l Date K:\Intern\Declaration of Distribution notices\Declaration of Distribution with Posting Sites.doc Posting Sites. Federal Way City Hall- 33325 8th Avenue Federal Way Regional Library-34200 lst Way South Subject Site- 35703 161H Avenue South, Federal Way (1) along 16th Ave S & (1) along SW 356h ST K:\Intem\Declaration of Distribution notices\Declaration of Distribution with Posting Sites.doc CITY OF `. Federal Way NOTICE OF LAND USE APPLICATION Project Name: Park 16 Multifamily Development Project Description: Construction of 26 new residential buildings with 301 units with site improvements requiring Process I II, Project Approval. Applicant: Matt Hough, CPH Consultants Project Location: 35703 16th Avenue South, Federal Way, WA Date Application Received: December 13, 2012 Date Determined Complete: January 11, 2013 Date of Notice of Application: January 25, 2013 Permits Required by this Application: 1. Project Approval (File #12-105564-00-UP) 2. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (File #12-105565-00-SE) Related Permits: None Relevant Environmental Documents are Available at the Address Below. X YES _NO Development Regulations to be Used for Project Mitigation, Known at This Time: Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 14, "Environmental Policy"; FWRC Title 19, "Zoning and Development code" Consistency With Applicable City Plans and Regulations: The project will be reviewed for consistency with all applicable codes and regulations including the FWRC; King County Surface Water Design Manual; the International Building Code, Fire, and Mechanical Codes. The official project file is available for public review at the Department of Community and Economic Development (address below). Any person may submit written comments on the environmental and land use applications to the Director of Community and Economic Development by, February 11, 2013. Only persons who submit written documents to the director, or specifically request a copy of the original decision, may appeal the director's decision. Contact: Senior Planner Janet Shull, AICP, 253-835-2644 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 Published in the Federal Way Mirror. January 26, 2013 Doc I D 62955 File 912-105564-00-UP CITY HALL CITY of 33325 8th Avenue South Ak Federal Way Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com January 10, 2013 Mr. Matt Hough CPH Consultants 733 7t" Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland, WA 98033 Re: File #12-105564-00-UP; NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION Park 16 Multifamily; 35703 161h Avenue South, Federal Way Dear Mr. Hough: The Community and Economic Development Department is in receipt of your Process III Master Land Use (MLU) application and environmental checklist. The applicant proposes to construct 26 new multifamily structures with a total of 301 residential units. Associated site improvements include parking, landscaping, open space areas, and stormwater improvements. Pursuant to Federal Way Revised Code (F%RC) 19.15.045, within 28 days of receiving an MLU application, the city shall determine whether all information and documentation required for a complete application has been submitted. NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION Please consider this letter a Notice of Complete Appl ication. The Process III MLU application is deemed complete as of January 10, 2013. This determination of completeness is based on a review of your submittal relative to applicable requirements referenced within FWRC 19.15.040, "Development application submittal requirements." Submittal requirements are not intended to determine if an application conforms to city codes, they are used only to determine if all required materials have been submitted. A 120-day time line for reviewing this environmental checklist and Process III application has started as of this date. The city's development regulations allow the department 120 days from the date that an application is deemed complete to take action on the application. However, the 120-day time line will be stopped at any time the city requires corrections and/or additional information. You will be informed of the status of the 120-day time line when you are notified in writing that corrections and/or additional information are needed. The Development Review Committee (DRC) staff is preparing initial technical review comments that will be forwarded to you in separate correspondence. PUBLIC NOTICE The combined Notice of Application (NOA) and optional Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) will be distributed within 14 days of this letter as follows: 1) at least one notice will be posted at the subject property; 2) one copy will be posted at each of the official notification boards; 3) one copy will be Doc. I.D. 62792 File 912-105564-00-UP Mr. Matt Hough Page 2 of 3 January 10, 2013 published in the Federal Way Mirror; and 4) a copy will be mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. The department also has the responsibility to notify other agencies that may have jurisdiction over your development project or an interest in it. CLOSING If you have any questions regarding this letter or your development project, please contact me at 253-835- 2644, or 'anet.shulI .ci offederalwa .com. Sincerely, �a r Janet Shull, AICP, CSBA, LEED Green Associate Senior Planner c: Scott Sproul, Assistant Building Official Kari Cimmer, Permit Center Supervisor Ann Dower, Senior Engineering Plans Reviewer Sarady Long, Senior Transportation Planning Engineer Chris Ingham, South King Fire and Rescue Brian Asbury, Lakehaven Utility District File #12-105564-00-UP Doc.1.D. 62792 HABITAT TECHNOLOGIES December 13, 2012 Park 16 Multifamily (fka, Enchanted Village Apartments) ARG Project Number 07-179-3 PO Box 1224 Puyallup, Washington 98371 RE: Re -Assessment UPDATE — Critical Areas Assessment Study Park 16 Multifamily (fka, Enchanted Village Apartments) City of Federal Way, King County, Washington Dear Mr. Hulsmann, Consistent with our discussions, Habitat Technologies has completed a re -assessment of the onsite and immediately adjacent critical areas documented within the Critical Areas Assessment Study dated August 13, 2009 for the proposed Enchanted Village Apartments project site located at 35703 — 16t" Avenue South within the City of Federal Way, King County, Washington. The primary objective of this re -assessment was to identify whether or not the August 13, 2009 document continues to provide an accurate characterization, depiction, and categorization of onsite and immediately adjacent critical areas (wetlands, surface water drainage corridors, and critical habitats). The presence or absence of critical areas within or immediately adjacent to the project site was completed during November and December 2012 following the methods and procedures defined in the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (1987 Manual) with 2010 Supplement, the Washington State Department of Ecology guidance for the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Wash Manual), the State of Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Forest Practice Rules (WAC 222-16-030), the State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Species and Habitats Program, and the City of Federal Way Chapter 15.10 — Critical Areas. The prior 2008/2009 assessment process did not utilize the Corps' 2010 Supplement since the supplement had not yet been formally adopted. In addition, the prior assessment was completed in accordance with City of Federal Way Chapter 22 which has since been re -adopted as Chapter 15.10 — Critical Areas. RE -ASSESSMENT FINDINGS The following findings were identified during the November/December 2012 re- assessment process undertaken by Habitat Technologies: The August 13, 2009 document identified the presence of two onsite wetlands (Wetland A and Wetland B). As identified during November/December 2012 re- RF_ wetlands, streams, fisheries, wildlife — mitigation and permitting solutions 08136 P.Q. Box tom Puyallup, Washington 98371 7n voice 263-845-51'19 fax 253-84'1-1942 habitattech@gwe i e.n CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS assessment the initially defined boundaries of these two areas had not significantly changed since 2009. 2. The August 13, 2009 document identified a single surface water drainage passing generally north to south along the western side of the project site. As identified during November/December 2012 the ordinary high water mark of this stream corridor had not significantly changed since 2009. 3. The August 13, 2009 document identified Wetland A as a City of Federal Way Category 3 Wetland. As identified during November/December 2012 Wetland A continues to meet the criteria for designation as a Category 3 Wetland with a standard City buffer of 50 feet in width pursuant to Chapter 15.10 — Critical Areas. 4. The August 13, 2009 document identified Wetland B as a City of Federal Way Category 1 Wetland and as a part of the West Hylebos Creek System. As identified during November/December 2012 Wetland B continues to meet the criteria for designation as a Category 1 Wetland with a standard City buffer of 200 feet in width pursuant to Chapter 15.10 — Critical Areas, and continues to be a part of the West Hylebos Creek System. 5. The August 13, 2009 document identified the onsite surface water drainage as a City of Federal Way Major Stream pursuant to Chapter 15.10 — Critical Areas. As identified during November/December 2012 this surface water drainage continues to meet the criteria for designation as a City of Federal Way Major Stream and is a part of the West Hylebos Creek System. 6. The standard City of Federal Way buffers identified for Wetland A, Wetland B, and the onsite surface water drainage corridor have not changed since initially defined in the August 12, 2009 document. CONCLUSION As identified as a part of this re -assessment, the August 13, 2009 Critical Areas Assessment Study document continues to provide an accurate characterization, depiction, and categorization of onsite critical areas. In addition, while the proposed site development plan has been modified since the August 13, 2009 document the project continues to be consistent with the overall objective that such development would not require any adverse impacts to identified onsite wetlands, the identified stream corridor, 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 15.10 — Critical Areas. 2 08136 As an amenity to the overall site development proposal a recreational, five (5) foot wide trail system may be installed within the established onsite wetland buffer in accordance with 15.10.270 (4) and may utilize approximately 5,973 square feet of existing area within the established buffer. This minor improvement within the established standard buffer areas would not adversely affect local water quality, would not adversely affect the existing quality of onsite wildlife habitats, would not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities, would not lead to unstable earth conditions or create erosion hazards, and would not be materially detrimental to any other property. Thank you for allowing Habitat Technologies the opportunity to assist with your project needs. Please contact us with any questions or need for additional information. Sincerely, 1710wai D. Dewlhq Thomas D. Deming PWS Habitat Technologies 08136 Park 16 Multifamily Process III Project Approval Narrative - Community Design Guidelines Note: This narrative refers to the Site Plan and Elevations prepared by Ross Deckman and Associates for the "Process III" project approval submittal for the Park 16 Multifamily project in Federal Way, Washington. The Site Plan and Building Elevations/ Design Intent for the Park 16 project have been prepared according to the requirements of Chapter 19.115 of the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) titled "Community Design Guidelines". All required items for Site Plan and Building Elevation approval for a Process III permit submittal have been included per Sections J and M of the Process III submittal checklist. Below is a summary of the preliminary site plan and building elevations submittal checklist items, and a description of how they are being met with the submitted plans. Site Plan 1. Project name, plan date, andlor revision date(s). Included. 2. Name and phone number of ownerlagent. Included. 3. Name, phone number, and license stamp of preparer. Included. 4. North arrow and bar scale. Included. 5. Vicinity Map. Included. 6. Site Area. Included. 7. Total parking stall count. Included. 8. Total gross floor area of all proposed floors or levels. Included. 9. Location and dimensions of existing1proposed structures, property lines, sidewalks, easements, parking layout street edges, mechanical equipment, trash enclosures, outdoor uses, storage areas, fencing, rockeries, and retaining walls. Included. 10. Existing streams, ponds, wetlands, natural drainage courses, and other surface features on or within 200 feet of site per FWRC Chapter 14.30. "Critical Areas" Included. 11. Location of stands of trees as defined by FWRC Chapter 79.50.200. See tree inventory map. No trees will be retained east of the wetland buffer. 12. Existing and proposed utilities including: utility poles and boxes, water storm sewer, and fire hydrants. See Item K by CPH Consultants. 13. Structures and Driveways within 150' of subject site (both sides of the street). Included. 14. International Building Code (IBC) construction type and occupancy classification. Included. 15. Location and square footage of any onsite pedestrian areas (i.e. plazas courtyards) or open space areas. Included. Building Elevations/Design Intent 1. Project name, plan date, andlor revision date(s). Included. 2. Name, phone number, and license stamp of preparer. Included. 3. Bar Scale. Included. 4. Statement of architectural design intent, finishes materials and colors. See narrative below. 5. Front, rear, and side (labeled north, south, east, west) building elevations of proposed structures. Included. 6. Exterior wall openings. Included. 7. Exterior materials and color board. Included. 8. Garbage/recycling facility screen details. Included. 9. Roof top and ground based mechanical equipment screen details. Included. 10. Building height calculations. Included. 11. Narrative summery of how the project complies with applicable design guidelines (FWRC Chapter 19.7 15, community Design Guidelines"). See below. Ross Deckman DEVCO, INC. CP H CvNSULTA KTS RESUBMITTED CPH Project No. 00024-1 1-010 DEC 2 1.0c`2tt? 12, 2012 DG-1 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS Park 16 Multifamily Process III Project Approval Narrative - Community Design Guidelines The project site design allows for pedestrian safe entries and walks that provide access to recreational and viewing open space as well as the access to the public streets. The buildings have prominent entries in clear view of the parking and other buildings. Building modulation and design features were used to break up the fagade. In addition to the building entry elements the structures are designed with a three part fa4ade that varies in material and color to provide a base middle and top. Through the use of different exposures of horizontal sidings and type of siding treatment the human scale of the buildings is maintained. Three story apartment buildings will have three distinct but integrating color schemes as indicated on the color boards. Where possible the buildings step down the contours. Landscaped yards are provided between buildings and a minimum of six foot wide sidewalks are provided throughout the side and to the city right-of-ways. All units are provided with an outdoor space, the ground floor has a patio and the upper floors have a deck that looks over the adjacent open spaces. With design features as decks, entry porches, trellis and window trims, the buildings meet the standards indicated in the guidelines. 'di<rE Plannr DEVCO, INC. CP -I quails LOOMS C0 N5 U LTA FATS CPH Project No. 00024-1 1 -010 December 1 2, 201 2 DG-2 Park 16 Multifamily Process III Project Approval Narrative — Preliminary Landscape Note: This narrative refers to the Preliminary Landscape Plan prepared by Talasaea Consultants for the "Process III" project approval submittal for the Park 16 Multifamily project in Federal Way, Washington. The preliminary landscape plans for the Park 16 project have been prepared according to the requirements of Chapter 19.125 of the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) titled "Outdoors, Yards, and Landscaping". All required items for preliminary landscape plans for a Process III permit submittal have been included per Section L of the Process III submittal checklist. Talasaea Consultants received clarification of these requirements per a phone call with Isaac Conlen (City of Federal Way Planner) on 27 November 2012, and some of the submittal checklist items were modified to be more consistent with the preliminary nature of the Process III review, per Mr. Conlen's direction. Below is a summary of the preliminary landscape plan submittal checklist items, and a description of how they are being met with the submitted plans. 1. Project name, plan date, and/or revision date(s). Included. 2. Name, phone number, and license stamp of preparer. Included. 3. North arrow and bar scale. Included. 4. Specific location, type, size, and number of trees to remain and to be removed. Included. Tree retention and replacement calculations have also been included per FWRC 19.120.130. 5. Plant schedule with the scientific name, common name, size, spacing, and quantity of each. Included, with the exception of quantity (quantity not necessary for preliminary landscape plans, per Mr. Conlen's direction). 5. Specific location and square footage calculations of drought tolerant landscaping per FWRC 19.125.040(6). Included. All plantings are proposed to be drought tolerant. 7. Irrigation plan for lawn areas. Not required for the preliminary landscape plan submittal per Mr. Conlen's direction. 8. Specific location, square footage calculations, and total square footage of each parking lot landscape island per FWRC 19.125.070(2)(a). Included. 9. Screening of outdoor facilities such as: trashlrecycling enclosures, outdoor storage, drive through facilities, stormwater facilities, and ground based mechanical equipment. Type III landscaping included around proposed trash/recycling enclosure. 10. Building wall area landscaping per FWRC 19.125.040. Not applicable to any of the proposed buildings. 1 1 . Specific location of street trees in the right-of-way. Included. 12. Identify perimeter landscape type as I, Il, or III. Included. The proposed preliminary landscape plan depicts the required planting areas (e.g., parking lot, screening, and perimeter landscaping) as general hatches. Associated area calculations are provided on the plan sheets where applicable. Individual plant symbols are not shown (except for street trees). This level of detail was deemed not to be necessary at the preliminary level per Mr. Conlen's direction. Actual quantities are also not shown, but a preliminary plant schedule is included with all proposed species, sizes, and minimum proposed spacing. Sizes and spacing of plant material are in accordance with the general landscaping requirements of FWRC 19.125.040. General landscape notes are also included, and these notes are consistent with the general landscaping " requirements of FWRC 19.125.040, including requirements for soil preparation anR Ff >B FT,fT.— topsoil and mulch. DEC 207 CPH Project No. 00024-11 -010 DEVCO, INC. -lAl_:a,3AEA CITY 0"ube q}I��{ CDs Park 16 Multifamily Process III Project Approval Narrative — Preliminary Landscape The proposed project contains "Lock-n-Load" type retaining walls. Some of these walls are located within perimeter landscape areas that require Type III landscaping. Type III landscaping is also required on terraces between walls per FWRC 19.120.120. The structural requirements of the walls have been reviewed with the geotechnical engineer, and it has been determined that the required Type III landscaping is compatible with the design of the walls, as long as only small deciduous and evergreen tree species are proposed above the walls and on the wall terraces. The proposed plant schedule includes a variety of small evergreen and deciduous trees suitable for these locations, and these species have been specifically identified in the plant schedule. All areas within the developed portion of the project site not covered by buildings, paving, or other constructed features will be landscaped. However, on the preliminary landscape plans only the required perimeter, screening, and parking lot landscaping areas are designated. The remaining areas will be planted with a variety of trees, shrubs, and groundcover using the species depicted on the proposed plant schedule. The planting in these areas will be shown, along with the perimeter, screening, and parking lot landscaping, on the final detailed landscape plans. DEVCO, INC U.ti.,,,- CPH Project No. 0002n-1 1-010 JALASAEA December I 2012 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 18, 2012 TO: Ann Dower, Senior Engineering Plans Reviewer Scott Sproul, Assistant Building Official Sarady Long, Senior Transportation Engineer Brian Asbury, Lakehaven Utility District Chris Ingham, South King Fire & Rescue FROM: Janet Shull FOR DRC MTG. ON: January 10 - Internal FILE NUMBER (S): 12-105564-00-UP RELATED FILE NOS.: 12-105565-00-SE PROJECT NAME: PARK 16 MULTIFAMILY PROJECT ADDRESS: 35703 16TH AVE S ZONING DISTRICT: RM 2400 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposal to build 26 multi -family buildings with 301 dwelling units. LAND USE PERMITS: Process III, SEPA PROJECT CONTACT: DEVCO INC 11100 MAIN ST Suite 301 MATERIALS SUBMITTED: Master Land Use Application; one set mailing envelopes fnr c notice; geotechnical study; Level 1 offsite analysis; quarter section map; environmental checklist; wetland determination and delineation study; Parking demand analysis; Transportation impact study; title report; certificate of water and sewer availability; hazardous materials checklist; Preliminary TIR; plan sets - 1% MASTER LAND USE APPLICATION RECEIVED DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33325 8`h Avenue South CITY OF Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Federal Way���13 2012 253-835-2607; Fax 253-835-2609 C1TY OF FEDERAL WAY www.cityoffederalwgy.com CDS APPLICATION NO(S) r ■ �- V� r� r 0S56S - S Date Dec. 13, 2012 Project Name Park 16 Multifamil Property Address/Location 35703 16th Avenue S, Federal Way, WA Parcel Number(s) 2 9 210 4- 9 0 9 5, 2 9 210 4- 910 7 The project proposes to construct 26 multi -family residential buildings, a Project Description community recreation center, onsite parking and internal access, uti sties, -landscapin5l, common areas, and stormwater facilities. PT.F.ASF. PRINT Type of Permit Required Annexation Binding Site Plan Boundary Line Adjustment Comp Plan/Rezone Land Surface Modification Lot Line Elimination Preapplication Conference Process I (Director's Approval) Process II (Site Plan Review) _ Process III (Project Approval) Process IV (Hearing Examiner's Decision) Process V (Quasi -Judicial Rezone) Process VI SEPA w/Project SEPA Only Shoreline: Variance/Conditional Use Short Subdivision Subdivision Variance: Commercial/Residential Required Information 9, 2- yoo Zoning Designation &r .I Comprehensive Plan Designation J 2,5Wo 000 Value of Existing Improvements 000000 Value of Proposed Improvements International Building Code (IBC): Occupancy Type Construction Type Applicant Name: DevCo., Inc. Address: 11100 Main Street, Suite 301 City/State: Bellevue, WA Zip: 98004 Phone: (425) 453-9551 Fax: (425) 453-9566 Email: tneubauer@devcoapts.com Signature: Agent (if different than Applicant) Name: CPH Consultants Address: 733 7th Avenue, Suite 100 City/State: Kirkland, WA Zip: 98033 Phone: (425) 285-2390 Fax: (425) 2 85 -23 89 Email: matt@cphconsu tants.com Signature:, Owner Name: DevCo., Inc. Address: 11100 Main Street, Suite 301 City/State: Bellevue, WA Zip: 98004 Phone: (425) 453-9551 Fax: (425) 453-9566 Email: tneubauer co t s . com Signature: Bulletin #003 - January 1, 2011 Page 1 of 1 k:\Handouts\A4aster Land Use Application ANt Secretary- I, SAM REED, Secretary of State of the State of Washington and custodian of its seal, hereby issue this CERTIFICATE OF FORMATION PARK 16, LLC a/an WA Limited Liability Company. Charter documents are effective on the date indicated below. UBI Number: 603-245-770 Given under my hand and the Seal of the State of Washington at Olympia, the State Capital State of Washington Secretary of State CORPORATIONS DIVISION James M. Dolliver Building 801 Capitol Way South PO Box 40234 Olympia WA 98504-0234 360.725.0377 FILED SECRETARY OF STATE SAM REED OCTOBER 12, 2012 STATE OF WASHINGTON Initial Report Application ID 2508502 Associated App ID 2508487 Entity Name PARK 16, LLC UBI Number 603 245 770 Corporation Type Limited Liability Company Tracking ID 2403747 Validation ID 2275853-002 Date Submitted for Filing 10/12/2012 Filing Due Date State of Incorporation WA Inc./Qual Date 10112/2012 Nature of Business real estate Contact Information Contact Name Evan Hunden Contact Address 11100 Main Street, #301 Bellevue WA 98004 Contact Email jhunden@devcoapts.com Contact Phone 425-453-9551 Registered Agent Information Agent is Individual Agent Name Evan Hunden Agent Street Address 11100 Main Street, #301 Bellevue WA 98004 Agent Mailing Address Same as Street Address Agent Email Address jhunden@devcoapts.com Place of Business Place of Business is in US Yes Street Address 11100 Main Street, #301 Bellevue WA 98004 Member/Manager Member #1 Name Evan Hunden 11100 Main Street, #301 Bellevue,WA 98004 Execution Information Executed By Evan John Hunden State of Washington Secretary of State CORPORATIONS DIVISION James M. Dolliver Building 801 Capitol Way South PO Box 40234 Olympia WA 98504-0234 360.725.0377 FILED SECRETARY OF STATE SAM REED OCTOBER 12, 2012 STATE OF WASHINGTON 603 245 770 Limited Liability Company Office Information Application ID 2508487 Tracking ID 2403747 Validation ID 2275853-001 Date Submitted for Filing: 10/12/2012 Contact Information Contact Name Evan Hunden Contact Address 11100 Main Street, #301 Bellevue WA 98004 Contact Email jhunden@devcoapts-corn Contact Phone 425-453-9551 Certificate of Formation Preferred Name PARK 16, LLC Alternate Name 1 > Physical Address 11100 Main Street, #301 Bellevue WA 98004 Purpose Any Lawful Purpose Duration Perpetual Formation Date Effective Upon Filing by the Secretary of State Expiration Date 10/31/2013 Limited Liability Company Management Members Limited Liability Company mailing Adress Reg Agent Members Signature On File Registered Agent Information Agent is Individual Agent Name Evan Hunden Agent Street Address 11100 Main Street, #301 Bellevue WA 98004 Agent Mailing Address Same as Street Address Agent Email Address jhunden@devcoapts.com Executors Information Executor #1 Executor Name Evan Hunden Executor Title Executor Executor Address 11100 Main Street, #301 Bellevue WA 98004 Submitter Information Submitted By Evan John Hunden LRvff-M LlABffM COMPANY AGREEMENT OF s Pam- �Lv . L-t— C— THIS LUAITHD LIA13MITY COMPANY AGRF.,�NT (this "Agreemei&) is made and entered into and is effective as of the date the Formation Certificate was filed with the Secretary of State, by and among the Persons whose signatures appear 'on the signature page hereof. ARTICLE 1— DENZNITIONS The following terms used in this Agreement shall have the following meanings (unless otherwise expressly provided Aerein): Act"means, the Washington Limited Liability Company Act (RCW Ch25.15) - " ffiliat 'means, with respect to any Person, U) any other Person directly- or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with such person, (ii) any Person owning or controlling 50 percent (51%p) or more of the outstanding voting interests of such Person, (iii) any officer, director, or general partner of such Person, or (iv) any Person who is an officer, director, general partner, hi stee, or holder of 51 percent (51'/'*) or more of the voting interests of any Pelson described in clauses (i) through (iii). For purposes of this definition, the term "controls," "is controlled by," or "is under common control with" shall mean the possession,, direct or indirect, of the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of a Person, whether through the ownership of voting securities, by contract or otherwise. _ "Ca ital A unt" means the capital account determined and -maintained for each Unit Holder pursuant to Scrtiorj -a- "Ca ital C n 'butt n" means any contribution to the capital of the Company - in cash or property by a Member sarheriever made. • "Certificates Fb nation" means the certifieate:of formation pursuant to - - which the Company was formed, as originally filets with the office of the�Secretary of Sate on the date reflected on that Certificate and as amended from time to time. "Code" means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or corresponding provisions of subsequent -superseding federal revenue laws. "QQm an 1 means' �� ,�. ,4 �L 1(P) t-L-C,� an Minimum a i r1" has the same meaning as the term "partnership minimum, gain" in Regulation Sections 1.7W2(b) M and 1-704-2(d). "D €i it a ital ount" means jvith respect to azzy Unit Holder, the deficit ders' Capital Account. as of the end of the taxable balance, if any, in such Unit Hol year, after giving effect to the .following adjustments: (i) credit to such Capital Account any amount that such Unit Holder is obligated to restore to the Company under Re0 next Section sentences 1(h)(2)(ii)(c), as well as any addition thereto pursuant to the next to las#sentences of Regulation Sections 1.704-2(g)(1) and (i)(5); and (ii) debit to such Capital Account the items desccribed in Regulation • Sections 1.701-1(b)(2)(ii)(d)(Q, (5) and (6)• _ a This definition of is intended to comply with the provisions of 1�eoation Sections 1.704-1(b)(2)(ii)(d) and 1..704-2, and will be interpreted consistently with those Provisions. - "Distributable ash" means all rash received by the Company, less the sum of the following to the extent paid or set aside by the Company= (i) all principal and interest payments on indebtedness of the Company and other stuns paid or payable td lenders; (ii) all cash expenditures incurred incident to the normal operation of the Company's business; and (Q Reserves. "JEconLmic Intere�" means a Unit Holder's share of Net Profits, Net fosses, and other tax items of the Company and distributions of the Comp aziy's assets pursuant to this Agreement and the Act, but shall not include any right to. participate in the management or a.ffaizs of the Company, including, the right to vote on, consent to or othenvise participate in any decision of the Members. " c n mic Interest Crwner" means the owner of an Economic Interest who is not a Member. - limited artnershzp, limited liability " nt-ity" means any genes partnership. P mess trust, :cvopera five or association • - . company, corporation, jD]Tlt Venture, trust, bL�S or any other organization that is not a natural person.' "hdajoritv Interest" means, at any time, more than fifty percent (507a) of the then outstanding Units held by Members. -r an - - r' means 0 E,,/ — -3 • and any other Person'who may become a substitute or additional Managerzz provided in rt3c1 "Membe'means each Person who executes a counterpart of this Agreement as a Member and each Person who may hereafter become a Member. To the extent a a Membership Interest in the Company, it will have all the Manager has purchased rights of a Member with respect to such membership Interest, and the term "Member" as used herein shall include a Manager to the, extent it has purchased a Membership Interest in Company. If a Person is a Member immediately prior to the acquisition by such Person of an Economic Interest, such Person shall have all the rights of a Member with respect to such Economic Interest. "Me rn_ bershiv Interest" means all of a Mernbees share in the Net Profits, Net Losses, and other tax items of the Company and disb*utions of the Company's assets pursuant to this Agreement and the Act and all of a Member's rights to participate in the management or affairs of the Company, including the right to vote on, consent to or otherwise participate man y decisive of the Members. "Mernber Minimum ai " bias the same meaning as the terra "partner nonrecourse debt minimum gain" in Regulation Section 1.704-7-(i.). •, ember N nr c u D ducfl n " has the same meaning as the term "partners nonrecourse deductions" in Regulation Sections 1.704=2(i)(1) and (2). The - amount of Member Nonrecourse Deductions fro a Company fiscal year shall be determined in accordance with Regulation Section 1.704.2(i)(2). et P fits" and 'Wet Losses" shall have the meaning asmbed to those terms in Sectir�n 9.5. " nre ur a Deducti ns" has the meaning set forth in Regulation Section 1704-2(b)(1). The amount of Nonrecourse Deductions for a Company fiscal year shall be determiined pursuant to Regulation Section 1.704-2(c). " nrec ur a Li -ability" has the meaning set forth in Regulation Section 1.704-2(b)(3). rcenta a Let rest" means with respect tto of U is held by Unit Holder he Unit age . detern fined based upon the ration that the number Holder dears to the total number of outstanding Units• , • . F�rsbn" means any iridividual or entity, and the heirs, executors, administrators, legal representatives, successors, and assigns of such "Person" where the context so permits. ~ " e Iations" includes proposed, temporary, and final Treasury ea ur�e regIfl t' ns promulgated un -under the Code and the corresponding sections Y � ations subsequently issued that amend or supersede such regulations. ernes" means, with respect to any fiscal period, funds set aside or amounts allocated during such period to reserves which shall be maintained in amounts deemed sufficient by the Manager for working capital and to pay taxes, I insurance, debt service or other costs or expenses incident to the ownership or operation of the Company's business. "i nit olden" means a Person who is a Member or who holds a an Economic Interest but is not a Member. it•.„ means the Units issued to any Member under this Agreement as reflected in. attached Echedulc 1 as amended from time to time. ARTICLE 2 - FORMATION OF COMPANY 2.1 Formation_ The Company was formed when the Certificate of Formation was executed and filed with the office of the Secretary of State iq accordance with and pursuant to the Act. A . 2.2 Name. The name of the Company is '� � ►� ll P , L-L-C, r 2.3 Principal Place of'Eusiness. The: principal place of business of the Company shall be 11 100 <<•� °� S'�-•- 3L�' 1 Bellevue, Washington 98004 The Company may locate its places of business at any other place or places as the Manager may from time to time deem advisable. 2.4 Registered Office and Registered Agent. The Company's initial . registered agent and the address of its initial registered office in the State of Washington are as follows: Name d dd Evan J. Huaden _ II Ia0 ?lA-irt °�•. Su.i-k'�1 ' . - Bellevue, WA 98004 The registered office and registered agent may be changed by the Manager from tune an amendment to the Certificate of Formation. to time by filing , 2�5 Term. ' The term of the Company shall be as set forth iri ithe . Certifcation of Formation unless the Company is earlier dssvived in accordance with either rtide 14 or the Act. ARTICLE 3 BUMESS OF COMPANY The business of the Company shall be" (a)' to promote affordable housing through the developmefit, construction and operation of affordable housingf including but not limited to - affordable housing developed with the federal low incOuie housing tax credit; A {a) to promote affordable housing through the development, construction and operation of affordable housing, including but not limited to affordable housing developed with the federal low income housing tax credit; (b) to carry on any lawful business or acd ity which may be conducted by a limited liability company organized under the Act; an (c) to exercise all other power necessary to or reasonably connected with the Company"s business which znay be legally exercised by limited . liability companies under the Act. ARTICLE 4 — NAMES -AND ADDRESSES OF ME ERS The names and addresses of the Members are set forth on attached Schedule 1, as amended or restated from time to time. ARTICLE 5 — MANAGERS; RIGHTS AND DUDES 5.I Management. The business and affairs of the Company shall be managed by the Manager. Except as otherwise expressly Provided in this Agreement, the Manager shall have full and complete authority, power and r discretion to manage and control the business, affairs and properties of the Company, to make all decisions regarding those matters and to perform any and'all other acts or activities customary or incident to the management of the Company's business. At any time when there is more than one Manager, any one Manager may take any action permitted to be taken by the Managers, unless the approval or more than one of the Managers is expressly required by this Agreement or the Act. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Manager shall have power and authority, on -behalf of the Company: (i) to acquire property from any Person as z . the Manager may determine, and the fact that a Manager or a Member is an Affiliate of such Person shall not prohibit the Manager from dealing with that Person: ' . (ii) to borrow money from financial institutions, the Manager, Members, or Affiliates of the Manager or Members on such terms as the Manager deems appropriate, and in connection therewith, to hypothecate, encumber and grant security, interests in the assets of the • Company to secure repayment of the borrowed sums; A (iii) to purchase liability and other insurance -to protect the Company's property and business; . (iv) except as provided in 5ertion 5 to acquir.e, improve, manage, charter, operate, sell. transfer., exchange, encumber, pledge, or dispose of any real or personal property of the Company; (v) to invest Company funds temporarily in time deposits, short-term governmental obligations, commercial paper or other short-term investments; (vi) to exeWte instrwnents and docIments, including without limitation, checks, drafts, notes and l other negotiable instrumen% mortgages or deeds of ", security agreements, financing statements, documents providing for the acquisition, mortgage or disposition of the Company's property, assignments, bills of sale, leases, partnership agreements, operating agreements of other limited liability companies, and any other instruments or documents necessary, in the opinion of the Manager, to the business of the Company: (vii) to employ accountants, legal counsel, managing agents or other experts to perform services for the Company and to compensate them from Company funds; (viii) to enter into any and all oher s such agreements with any other Person for an purpose, form as the Manager may approve: (ix) from time to time to open bank accounts in the name of the Company, and the Manager shall be the sole signatory thereon; unless the Manager determ?nes otherwise; and • () P all other acts as ma x to do and ex arm y be'necessary or appropriate to the conduct of the Company's i business. Unless authorized to do so by this Agreement or by the Manager, no Member, . employee or other agent of the Company shall have any power or authority to bind . to pledge its credit or to render it liable for any purpose. the Company in any way, 5.2 Compensation. A The Manager shall also be reimbursed by the Company for reasonable out-of- pocket expenses incurred by the Manager in connection with the Company's business, including without limitation expenses incurred in the organization of the Company and the placement of the Units. 5,3 Limitation on Liabiliter nor y: lndemnificatio ua daManamages any Affiliate of the Manager shall be liable, responsibleoaccaun accountable or other wise to the Company or the Members for any act or omission by any such Person performed in good faith pursuant to the authority granted to such Person by this Agreement or in accordance with its provisions, and in a manner reasonably believed by such Person to be within the scope of the authority granted to such Person and in the best interest of the Company: pr v'd that such act or omrission- did not constitute fraud, misconduct, bad faith or negligence, The Company � shall - indemnify - indnify and hold harmless the Manager, and each director, hfficer, partner, employee or agent thereof, against any liability► loss, damage, cc§sst or expense incurred by them on behalf of the Company or in furtherance cif the Company t interests without relieving any such Person of liability for fraud, misconduct, bad • faith or negligence. No memii� sew fi� ve Lion of theabove-mentioned. Onal Perswith ons. Any to the satisfaction of any required m. Any indemnification required to be made by the Company shall be made promptly following the fixing of- the liability, loss, damage, cost or expense incurred or suffered by a final judgement of any court, settlement, contract or otherwise. lit addition, the Company may advance funds to a Person claiming indemnification under this 5 cti n .3 for legal expenses and other costs incurred as a result of a legal action brought against such Person only if (i) the legal ,action relates to the Company, (H) the legal action is initiated by a party other than a Member, and (iii) such Person undertakes to repay the advanced hands to the Company if it is determined that such Person is not entitled to indemnification pursuant to the terms of this Agreement; 5.4 Removal. At a meeting called expressly for that purpose, the Manager may be removed at any time, with or without cause, by the affirmative . vote of the holders of two-thirds of the.Units held by Members. The removal of a . Manager who is also a Member shall not affect -the Manager's rights as a Member and shall not constitute a withdrawal of a Member. 5.5 Vacancies. Any vacancy occurring for any reason in tl`ie number of Managers. may be filled by the affirmative vote of a majority of the reYmixung Managers. If there are no remaining Managers, the vacancy shall be filled by the affirmative vote of the holders of a Majority interest. 5.6 Right to Rely on the Manager. Any Person dealing with the Company may rely (without duty of farther inquiry) upon a certificate signed by any rity of any Manager or other Person to auto on Manager as to the identity and autho behalf of the Company or any Member. a S ARTICLE 6 — RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF MEMBERS 6.1 ' Limitation of Liability. Each Members liability shall be limited as set forth in this Agreement and the Act. • 6.2 Liability for Company Obligations. Members shall not be personally liable for any debt, obligations, or liabilities of the Company beyond their respective Capital Contributions and any obligation of the Members under cti n 1 or $l- to make Capital Contributions, except as otherwise provided by law. 6.3 .Approval of Sale of All Assets. The Company shall not sell, exchange, ore otherwise odispose of two-thirds oth substantially of the Units held by Me�mb�er�s�ut the affirmative vote of th 6A inspection of Records. Upon reasonable request, each Member shall have the right to inspect and copy at such Members expense, during ordinary business hours the records required to be maintained by the Company pursuant to kection 1T,5. 6.5 No Priority and Return of Capital. Except as expressly provided in rti 9 or 10, no Unit Holder Capitald Cantxibuthave �ons orOver asto NetProfits, other Net Lossrdt es -or " either as to the return o distributions; r a that this h 6- 'shall not apply to loans made by a Member to the Company. 6.6 Withdrawal of Member. Except as expressly permitted in this Agreement, no Member shall voluntarily resign or otherwise withdraw as a Member.Urdess otherwise approved by Members holding a Majority Interest, a Member who resigns or withdraws shall be entitled to receive only those . . distributions to which such Person would have been entitled had such Person remained a Member (and only at such times as such distribution would have been made had such Person remained a Member), Except as o%erwise expressly provided herein, a resigning or withdrawing Member shall become an Economic Interest . Owner. The -remedy for breach of this cti n shall be monetary damages (and not specific performance), which may be offset against distributionsby.the Company to which such Person would otherwise be entitled. ARTICLE 7 -= MEETINGS OF MEMBERS 7.1 - Annual Meeting. The annual meeting of the Members -shall be held on Elie first -Monday of May of each and every year, otrrantsacti n of such business as fi determined by the Members, for the purpose of th may come before the meeting. t 72 Special Meetings: Special meetings of the Members, for any purpose or purposes, may be called by the Manager or by Members holdix►g at least ten percent (10°l4) of the Units held by Members. 7.3 Place of Meetings. The Manager or the Members may designate any place, either within or outside the State of Washington, as the place of meeting for any meeting -of the Members. If no designation is made, or if a special meeting is called, the place of meeting shallbe the principal office of the Company specified in gection 2.3. 7.4 Notice of Meetings. Written notice stating the place, day and hour of the meeting and, in the case of a special meeting, the purpose or purposes for which the meeting is called shall be delivered not less than ten (10) normore than filly (50) days before the date of the meeting, either perso Y or by mail, by or at the direction of the Manager or the Members calling the meeting, to each Member entitled to vote at such meeting. If mailed, such notice shall be deemed to be deposited delivered two calendar days after being the United States Mail, addressed to the Member as specified in 0-16-1, with Postage thereupon prepaid. 7.5 Record Date. For the purpose of determining Members entitled to. ,Txotice of or to vote at any meeting of Members or any adjourn eon which notice nt thereof, or Members entitled to receive payment of any distribution, of the meeting is mailed.or the date on which the resolution declaring such distribution is adopted, as the case may be, shallbe the record date for such determination of Members. When a determination of Members entitled to vote at any meeting of Members has been made 's provided ent thereof. this Section, such determination shall apply to any d}ourn 7.6 Quorum. A Majority Interest represented in person or by proxy shall constitute a quorum at any meeting of Members. In the absence of a quorum at any such meeting, a majority of Units held by Members so represented may adjourn further. meeting from time to time for a period not to exceed sixty (60) days s or without after he -notice. However, if the adjournment is for more than sixty (60) Y • . adjvuxriment a new record date is for the adjourndd meethig, a notice of the . • - � adjouiznecl�meeting shall be' g'cvere to each•Member v€ record'-entitledresent to feral the meeting. 'At such adjourned meeting at which a quorum beP represented, any business maybe transacted which might have been �trainsacted at the meeting as originally noticed. The Members presented at a duly o�as d meeting may continue to transact business � adjournment, uts absencetan the withdrawal. -during such meeting of that number cause less than a quorum. 7.7 Manner of Acting. If a quorum is the represented nt. the �i�ti d of the te f Members holding more than fifty percent (50%) F meeting in person or by proxy shall be the act of the Members, unless the vote of a greater or lesser percentage is required by this Agreemer4 or the Act. 7.8 Proxies. At all meetings of Members a Member may vote in person or by proxy executed in writing by the Member. Such -proxyall. be be after eleven manager before or at -the time of the: meeting. No proxy (11) months from the date of its execution, unless otherwise provided in the proxy. 7.9 Action by Members Without a Meeting. Action required or permitted to be taken at a meeting of Members may be taken without a meeting if the action is evidenced by one ore more written consents describing the action taken executed by Members entitled to vote thereon and delivered to the Manager for inclusion in the Company's minutes. Action taken under this �Kecoon 7.9 is effective when all Members entitYed to vote thereon have signed -such consents, unless such consents specify a different effective date. The record-3 date for determining Members entitled to take action without a meeting shall be the date the first Member signs a consent. 7.10 Waiver of Notice. When any notice is required to be given to a Member, a waiver thereof in the time stated thed erein hall be equivalent to the giving Member entitled to such notice, whether before, at, or after . of such notice. ARTICLE 8 -- CON'iRIBIMONS TO THE COMPANY AND CAPITAL ACCOUNTS 8.1 Members' Capital Contributions. Each Member shall contribute such amount as is set forth in attached hedule 1 as such Member's share of the Members' Capital Contribution. 82 Additional Contributions. Each Member shall be required to make such additional Capital Contributions as shall be determtried by 1hd Manager from.. time to time to be, reasonably necessary to meet the expenses of the Company; provided,, such additional Capital Contributions .shall not be greater then their . initial Capital Cantdbutions. The Manager shall give written notice to each Me3nber of the amount of any required additional Capital Contribution, and each Member shall pay to the Company such additional Capital Contribution no later.th d � t38y�� is or following 'rite date such notice is -given.: Nothing contain shall be deemed to be £vr the benefit of any Person other than the Members and the Company, and no such Person shalt under any dreums mom have any right to compel any actions or payments by the Members. 8.3 Capital Accounts. e 8.3.1 Establishment and Maintenance. A separate Capital Account will be maintained for each Unit Holder throughout the term of the Company in accordance with the rules of Regulation Section 1.7041(b)(2)(iv). Each Unit Holder's Capital Account will be increased by (1) the amount of money contributed by such Unit Holder to the Company; (2) the fair market value of property contributed by such Unit Holder to the Company (net of liabilities secured by such contributed `property that the Company is considered to assume or take the property subject to under Code Section 752); (3) allocations to such Unit Holder of Net Profits; (4) any items in the nature of income and gain that are specially allocated to the Unit Holder pursuant to Sections 9.2 and 21; and (5) allocations to such Unit holder of income and gain exempt from federal income tax. Each Unit Holder's Capital Account will. be decreased by (1) the amount of money distributed to such Unit Holder by the Company; (2) the fair market value of property distributed to such Unit Holder by the Company (net of liabilities secured by such distributed property' that such Unit Holder is considered to assume or take the property subject to Code Section 752); (3) Allocations to such Unit Holder of expenditures described in Code Section 705(a)(2)(13); (4) any items in the nature of deduction and loss that are specially allocated to the Unit Holder p:irsuant to Sections 9-2 and 2.3, and (5) allocations to such Unit holder of Net Losses. In the event of a permitted sale or exchange of a Membership Interest or an Economic interest in the Company, the Capital Account of the trar►sferor shall become the Capital Account of the transferee ' to the extent it relates to the transferred Membership Interest or Economic Interest. 8.3.2 Compliance with Regulations. The manner in which Capital. Accounts are to be maintained pursuant to this atgfi .3 is intended to comply, with the requirements of Code Section 704 (b) and the Regulations promulgated thereunder. If in the opinion of the Company's legal counsel or accountants the manner in which Capital Accounts are to be maintained pursuant to the preceding provisions of this Section 83 should be modified in order to comply with Code Section 704(b) and the Regulations thereunder, then notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the preceding provisions of this Section 83, the method in which Capital Accounts are maintained shall be so modified; provided, however, that any change in the manner of maintaining Capital Accounts shall not materially • alter the econoxiuc agreement beiween' or ammig the ;Members: . 8A Withdrawal or Reduction of Membe' Contributions to Capital. A Member shall not receive out of the Company's property any part.of its Capital Contribution until all liabilities of the Company, except liabilities to Members on account of their Capital Contributions, have been paid or there remains property of . . the Company sufficient to pay them. A Member, irrespective of the nature of its Capital. Contribution, has only the right to demand and receive cash in return for its Capital Contribution. ARTICLE 9 — ALLOCATIONS OF NET PROFITS AND LOSSES t 17 _ 9.1 Allocation of Net Profit and Loss - In General. 9.1.1 Allocation of Net Profit or Loss. After giving effect to the special. allocations set forth in Secd9ns_9.2 and 9-.1 the Net: Profit or Net Loss for any fiscal • . year of the Company shall be allocated among the Unit Holders in accordance with their respective Percentage Interests. 9.12 Limitation. The Net Loss allocated to each Member for any Company fiscal year pursuant to S " n shall not exceed the maximum amount of Net Loss that can be so allocated without causing sud+ Member to have a Deficit Capital Account at the end of the fiscal year. All Net Losses in excess of the ]imitation set forth in this Section 9.12 shall be allocated to the other Unit Holders who do not have Deficit Capital Accounts in proportion to their respective Percentage Interests. i 9.2 Special Allocations. The following special allocafions shall be made for any fiscal year of the Company in the following order. 9.2.1 Minimum Gain Chargeback. If'there is -a net decrease in Company Minimum Gain during any Company fiscal yekr, each Unit Holder shall be specially allocated items of Company income and gain for such year (and, if necessary, subsequent years) in are, amount equal to such Unit Holder's share of the net decrease in Company Minimum Gain, determined in accordance with regulation Sections 1.7042(f) and 1.704--2(g) (2)• The items to be so allocated, and the mariner in which those items are to be allocated among the Unit Holders, shall be determined in accordance with Regulation Sections 1.704-2(f) and 1.704••20)(2). This Section 9.2.1 is intended to satisfy the minimum gain chargeback requirement in Regulation Section 1.704+2(f) and shall be interpreted and applied accordingly. 9.2.2 Member Minimum Gain Chargeback, If there is a net decrease in Member Minimum Gain during any Company fiscal .year, each Unit Holder who has a share of that Member Minimum Gain, determined in accordance with Regulation Section 1.704 2(i)(5), shall be specially allocated items of Company income and gain for such year (and, if necessary, subsequent years) in an amount equal to such Unit Holder's share of the net ,decrease in. . Member Muwmum Gdin, determined in accordance with Regulation Sections 1.704- 2(i)(4) and 1; 704-2(i)�5).' _The items to be so allocated, and the manner in which those items are to be allocated among the Unit Holders, sW be determined in accordance with Regulation Sections 1.704-2(h)(4).and 1.704-2Q) (2). This Section 9.22 is intended to satisfy the minimum gain chargeback requirement in Regulation Section 1.704-2(i)(4) and shall be interpreted and applied accordingly. 9.2.3 Qualified Income Offset. In the event that any Unit Holder unexpectedly receives any adjustments, allocations, or distributions described in Regulation Sections 1.704-1(b)(2)(ii)(d)(4), (5) or (d), items of Company income and gain shall be specially allocated to such Unit Holder in an amount and -in a manner b sufficient to eliminate as quickly as possible, to the extent required by Regulation Section 1.704 (1)(b)(2)(ti)(d). the Deficit Capital Accvunt:.o£ the Unit Holder (Wi ich nefidt Capital Account shall be determined as if all other allocations provided for in this rticl leave been tentatively made as if this 5ectt'or were not in this Agreement). 9.2.4 Nonrecourse Deductions. Nonrecourse Deductions shall be allocated among the Unit Holders in accordance with the respective Percentage Interest. 9.2.5 Member Nonrecourse Deductions. Any Member Nonrecourse Deductions shall be specially allocated among the Unit -Holders in accordance with Regulation. Section 1.704- O. { 9.3 Corrective Allocations. 9.3.1 Allocations to Achieve Economic Agreement. The allocations set forth in the last sentence of 5L4.lion 9. .2 and in Section 9.2 are intended to complf with certain regulatory requirements under Code Section 704(b). The Members intend that, to the extent possible, all allocations made pursuant to such Sections will, over the•term of the Company; be offset either with other allocations pursuant to Seth4— 2 or with special allocations 'af other items of Company income. loss, or deduction under this .3.1 in whatever manner the Manager determines is appropriate so that, after such offsetting special allocations are made, the Capital Accounts of the Unit Holders are, to the extent possible, equal to the Capital Accounts each would have if the provisions of Section 9.2 were not contained in this Agreement and all income, gain, loss and deduction of the Company were instead allocated pursuant to cti n 9.3.2 Waiver of Application of Minimum Gain Car eba The Manager with the prior consent of a Majority Interest shall request om the Comnvssioner of the Internal Revenue Service a waiver, pursuant to Regulation Section 1.704 2(f) (4), of the minimum gain chargeb ack requirements of Regulation Sec3iot 1.7p44(f) if -the applic4tiori of such .minimum gain chaxgeback requirement' _ would cause a permanent distortion of the ecoAvmic arr4ngement of the Pailners, . as -reflected in Ledigaix .1. s 9A Other Allocation Rules. y _ 9.4.1 Cenral. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, all items of Company income, gain, loss, deduction, and any other allocations -not otherwise provided for shall be divided among the U ma ben for the yam• proportions as they share Net Profits or Net Losses, as Y 9A2 Allocation of Recapture Items. -In making any allocation among the Unit Holders if income or gain from the sale or ❑tkef disposition of a Company asset, the ordinary income portion, if any, of such income and gain resulting from the recapture of cost recovery or other -deductions shall -be allocated among those Unit Holders who were previously allocated for whose predecessors -in -interest were previously allocated) the cost recovery deductions or other deductions resulting in the recapture item, in proportion to the amount of such cost recovery deductions or other deductions previously allocated to these. 9A3. Allocation of Excess Nonrecourse Liabilities. Solely for purposes of determining a Unit Holders proportionate share of the "excess nonrecourse liabilities" of the Company within the meaning of Regulation Section 1.752 3(a)(3), the Unit Holders` interest in the Company's proft shall be consistent with the requirements of Regulation Section 1.752--31. 9AA Allocations in Connection with Varying Interests. If, during a Company fiscal year, there is (i) a permitted transfer of a Membership Interest or Economic Interest under this Agreement during a Company fiscal year or (ii) the admission of a Member or additional Members. Net Profit, Net Loss, each item thereof, and all other tax items of the Company for such period shall be divided an allocated among the Unit Holders by taking into account their varying interests during such fiscal year in accordance with Code Section 706(d) and using any conventions permitted by law and selected by the Manager. 9.5 Determination of Net Profit or Loss. 9.5.1 Computation of Net Profit or Loss. The Net Profit or Net Loss of the Company, for each fiscal year or other period, shall be an amount equal to the Company's taxable income or loss for such period, determined in accordance with Code -Section 703(a) (and, for this purpose, all items of income, gain, loss or deduction required to be stated separately -pursuant to Code Section 703(a)(1), including income and gain exempt from federal income! tax, shall be included in taxable income or loss). 9.5.2 Adjustments to. Net Frofif ar -Loss. For purposes of computing ' taxabl�e'income or loss on the disposition of an item *of Comy Prop" err for purposes of determining the cost recovery, depreciation, or amortization deduction with respect to any prop", the Company shall use such property's book value determined hi accordance with Regulation Section 1.704-1(b). - consequently, each property's book value shall be equal to its adjusted basis for federal income fax purposes, except as follows: . (a) The initial book value of any property contributed by a Member to the Company shall be the gross fair market value of such property at the time of contribution; ;f' (b) In the discretion of the Members the book value of all Company properties may be adjusted to equal their respective gross fair market values, as determined by the Manager as of the following times: (1) in connection with the acquisition of an interest in the Company by a new or existing Member for more than a dg mi imis capital contribution, (2) in connection with theliquidation of the Company as defined in Regulation Section 1.704-(1)(b)(2)(u) )► or 3 ti connection with a more Than d mi 'mi distribution to a retiring or a continuing Unit Holder as consideration for all or a portion of his or its interest in the Company. In the event of a revaluation of any Company assets hereunder, the Capital Accounts of the: Unit Holders shall be adjusted, including continuing adjustments for depreciation, to the extent provided in Regulation Section 1.704- (1)(b)(2)(iv)(f); (c) If the book value of an item of company property has been determined pursuant to this &rti_n 9.6.2, such book Value shall thereafter be used, and shall thereafter be adjusted by depreciation or amortization, if any, taken into account with respect to such property, for purposes of computing taxable i come or loss. 95.3 Items Specially Allocated. Notwithstanding any other ,,provision of this any items that are specially allocated pursuant to &coons 9.2 or M shall not be taken into account in computing Net Profit or Net Loss. 9.6 Mandatory Tax Allocations Under Code Section 704(c). In accordance with Code Section 704(c) and Regulation Section 1.704-3, income, gain, loss and deduction with respect to any property contributed to the capital of the Company shall, solely for tax purposes, be allocated among the Unit Holders so as to take account of any.variation between the adjusted basis of such property to the Company for federal income tax purposes and its initial book value computed in accordance with �aragrapa) of tin ,L2. Prior to the contribution of any property to the Company that has a fair market value that differs from its adjusted... tax basis in the hands Qf the contributing Member on the date of contn'bution, the. . • = contributing Member and the Manager (or, if the coritribpftg Member is the. Manager, a Majgrity Interest of the noikDntributing Members) shall agree upon the . zllvcatidn method to be applied with respect to that property under Regulation Section 1.704-3, which allocation method shall be set forth on attached hedule 2 as amended froril time to time. ' If the book value of any Company property is adjusted pursuant to ara h jK of . n .5.Z subsequent allocations of income, gain, loss and deduction with respect tb such property shall take account bf any variation between theadjgsted basis of such property for federal income tax purposes and its book value in the same manner as under Code Section 704(c). The choice of allocation methods under Regulation Section 1.704-3 with respect to such revalued property shall be made by the Manager and set forth on attached Scher as amended from time to time. Allocations pursuant to this ti n 9. are solely for purposes of federal, state, and local taxes and shall not affect, or in any way be taken into account in computing, any Unit Holder's Capital Account or share of Net Profit, Net loss, or other items as computed for book purposes, or distributions pursuant to any provision of this Agreement. ' ARTICLE 10 —'DISTRIBUTIONS 10.1 Cash Distributions 10.1.1 Nonliquidating Distributions. Distributions of Distributable Cash, other thandistributions in liquidation pursuant to 9eiort 10.1.2. shall be made to the Unzt Holders mon&dy in the: order of their signature on the last page hereof priority. 10.1.2 Distributions in Liquidation. Notwithstanding Section 10.1.1 distributions in liquidation of the Company shall be made to each Unit Holder in the manner set forth i Section 14? c . 10.2 Distributions in Kind. Non -cash assets, if any, shall be distributed in fa manner that reflects how cash proceeds from the sale of such assets for fair market value would have been distributed (after any unrealized gain or loss attributable to such non -cash assets has been allocated among the Unit Holders in accordance with rocle 9 . 10.3 Withholding; Amounts Withheld Treated as Distributions. The Manager is authorized to withhold from distributions, or with respect to allocations or payments, to Unit Holders and to pay over to the appropriate federal, star, or local governmental authority any amoijnts required to be withheld pursuant to the Code or provisions of applicable state ar local law. All amounts withheld pursuant to the preceding sentence in connection with any payment, distribution or allocation to any Unit Holden shall be treated as amounts distributed to such Unit Holder . . pursuant to this Artigle 10 for all purposes of this Agreement. ` 10A Limitation Upon. Distributions: No distribution shall be declared arid' paid unless, after the distribution is made, the assets of the Company are in excess of all liabilities of the Company, except liabilities to Members on account of their contributions. - ARTICLE 11— ACCOUNTING, BOOKS AND RECORDS 11..1 Accounting Principles. The Company's books and records shall be kept, and its income tax returns prepared, under such permissible method of accounting, consistently applied, -as the Manager determines is in the best interest of the Company and its Members. - 11.2 Interest on and Return of Capital. Contrib ations. No Member shall be entitled to interest on its Capital Contribution or to retw n of its Capital - Contribution, except as otherwise specific4ly provided for herein. 11.E Loans to Company. Noshing in this Agreement shall prevent any. Member from making secured or unsecured loans to the Company. 11.4 Accounting Period. The Company's accounting period shall be the calendar year. 11.5 . Records, Audits and Reports. At the expense of the Company, the Manager shallmaintain records and accounts of all operations and expenditures of the Company. At a rnhtimum the Company shall keep txt its priDdpal place of business s the following records: (a) A current list and past list, setting ford► the full name and last known mailing address of each Member, Economic Interest Owner and Manager: (b) A copy of the Certificate of Formation and all amendments thereto; (c) Copies of this Agreement and all, amendments hereto: 19 (d) Copies of the Company's federal, state, and local tax returns and reports, if any, for the three most recent years; (e) Minutes of every meeting of the members and any written consents obtained from Members for actions taken by Members without a meeting; and (f) Copies of the Company s financial statements for the three most recent years. 11.6 Tax Matters Partner- 11.6.1. Designation. The Manager, or if the Manager is ineligl-ble to ' serve then the Member'with the largest interest M' Cai�tpa??y profits, shall be the " "tax roan tern partner" of the Company for pu€poses•of Code Section 6221 •e�. and corresponding provisions of any state or local tax saw. 5 v 11.6.2 Pxpenses of Tax Matters Partner; 1ndernni 1cat on The Company shall inderYuu€y and reimburse the tax matters partner for all reasonable expenses, including legal and accounting fees, claims, liabilities, losses and damagproceeding with ed incurred i�:r corinection with any administrative to theompany. Thep t of to the tax liability of the Unit Hold allsuch expenses shall be made before any distributions are made to Unit Holders' If (and such expenses shall be taken into consideration for purposes of determining Distributable Cash) or any discretionary, Reserves are set aside by the Manager.' ,7 Neither the tax matters partner nor any Member shall have any obligation to provide funds for such purpose. The provisions for exculpation and indemnification of the Manager set h� tax matters person for the Comptaz-Siyall be fully applicable to the Member acting 11.7 Returns and Other Elections. The Manager shall cause the preparation and timely filing of all tax and information ret-Lum required to be tiled by the Company pusuant to the Code and all other tax and, information returns deemed necessary and required in each jurisdiction in which the Company does business., copies of such returns, or pertinent information therefrom, shall be - furnished to the Unit Holders within a reasonable time after the end of the Company's fiscal year. a Except as otherwise expressly provided to the contrary in if& Agreement; all elections perautted to be made by the Company under federal or ttate laws shall be made by the Manager in his or its sole discretion. ARTICLE 12 — TRANSFERABILTI'Y 12.1 General. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, neither a Member nor an Economic interest Cgvner shall have the right to: " (a) sell, assign, transfer, exchange or otherwise transfer for consideration, (collectively, "sell" or "sale"), (b) gift, bequeath, or otherwise transfer for no consideration whether or not by operations of law, except in the case of bankruptcy (collectively "gift"), all or any paxt of its Membership Interest or Economic Interest. Each Member and Economic Interest Owner hereby acknowledges the reasonableness of the restrictions on sale and gift of Membership Interests and Economic Interests imposed by this Agreement in view of the' Cam an 's ose5-- and the relationship of the Members and Economic Interest Owners. AuOrdingly, . the restrictions on sale and gift -contained herein shal be specifically. enforceable. In dges or otherwise encumbers any of its the event that any idiot I3older plc M.�tmbeyship Interest or Economic Interest as security for repayment of a liability, any such pledge or hypothecation shall be made pursuant to a pledge or hypothecation agreement that tequires the pledgee or seed party to be bound by all -the tern-ts and conditions of this rti le l2. 12.2 First Refusal Rfghts. . (a} A Unit: Holder desiring to sell all or any portion of its shall obtain , Membership Interest or Economic Interest to a third paizty Pp from such third party purchaser a bona tide written offer to purchase such Interest, t stating the tenhs and conditions upon which the purchase is to be made and the consideration offered therefor. Such Unit Holder shall eve written notice other Unit Holders and the Manager of its intention to so transfer such Interest'. to the Such notice shall set forth the complete terms of the written offer to purchase and . the name and address of the proposed third party purchaser. (b) The other Unit Holders, shall. on a basis Pro rats to their Units or on a basis pro rats to: the Units of those remaining Unit Holders exercisi g their first refusal rights, have the first right to purchase all (but not less than all) of the Interests proposed to be sold by the selling Unit Holder upon the same terms and conditions stated in the notice given pursuant to man 12 a by giving written notice to the other Unit Holders and the Manager within ten (10). days after such notice from the selling Unit Holder. The failure of a Unit Holder to sv notify the other Unit Holders and the Manager of its desire ��❑ fus �� � resultall al rights ththe within said ten (10) day period as required by this , termination of such Unit Holders first refusal rights. Within ten {Iti} days after expiration of the ten (10) day period specified in the preceding paragraph, the Manager shall notify those Unit Holders electing to exercise their first refusal rights of any Units that the other Unit Holders did not elect to purchase. Those Unit Holders exercising first refusal rights accordance Shall then notify the Manager and the other with the preceding paragraph to urchase such remaining Urdts, purchasing Unit Holders whether allocated sure otheelectpr manner as the gur - asing Unit which shall be pro rats or Holders shall agree. If no such notification is received by the Manager from any such Unit Holders in accordance with this paragraph, no Unit Holder shall have any further first refusal rights with respect to such Units. If Unit Holders have elected to purchase all of the Units offered by the selling Unit Holder, the selling Unit Holder shall sell such Units upon the same terms and conditions specified in the notice required by won 12.2 a and the purchasing Unit Holders shall have the right to close the purchase within thirty (30) days after receipt of notification from the Manager that such Unit Holders have elected to purchase the.selling Unit Holder's Units. e If Unit Holders do not elect to purchase all of the Units offered by the selling . - Vrdt Holder in accordance with this section 12 Chashen er in accordance wselling Unit ith theIder be entitled to sell such Units to the third party p►� is tobe made as specified in the terms and conditions upon which the purchase notice under Section 1.2.2_aa�.• However, if such sale is not completed within thirty (39) days following expiration of the other Urdt'Hoi�.ers' first refusal rights under this Iggtion'12.2 then the selling Unit Holder Shall not be entitled Units hall continue sale to such third party purchaser and the selling Unit to be subject to he rights of first refusal set forth in this Sdgfign 12.2 with respect to any proposed subsequent transfer. (c) Upon the purchase or the gift of a Membership Interest or an Economic Interest, and as a omdition to recognizirfg the effectiveness and binding nature of any sale or gift and (subject to 5—e ion X23 below) substitution of a Person as a new Unit Holder, the Manager may require the Lansfemng Unit Holder and the proposed purchaser, donee or successor -in -interest, as the case may be to execute, acknowledge and deliver to the Manager such instruments of transfer, assignment and assumption and such other agreements and to perform all such other acts that the Manager may deem necessary or desirable to: (i) constitute such Person as a Unit Holder. (ii) confirm that the Person desiring to become a Unit Holder has accepted, assumed and agreed f� be subject and bound by all of the terms, obligations and conditions of this Agreement (whether such Person is to be admitted as a new Member or will merely be an Economic Interest owner); (iii) maintain the status of the Company as a partnership for federal tax purposes; and ` (iv) assure compliance with any applicable state and federal laws, including securities laws and regulafions. (d) Any sale or gift of a Memberslup interest or Economic Interest or admission of a Member in compliance with #his rtic3e 7.2 shall be deemed effective as of the last day of the calendar month in which the remaining Members' consent thereto was given, or, if no such consent was required pursuant to Secb n x23, than on such date that the transferor and the transferee both comply with Section 72.2 c . The transferring Unit Holder hereby indern if"ies the Company and the Manager against any and all loss, damage, or expense (including, without limitation, tax liabilities or loss of tax benefits) arising directly or indirectly as a result of any transfer or purported transfer in violation of this rticle 12. (e) Subject to pion 12. a Unit Holder may gift all or any portion"- of its Membership Interest -and Economic Interest (without regard to coon 12.2 a . and bb, provided that the donee .complies with ,Section2,Zf and further provided that the donee is either such Unit Holder's spouse, former spouse; or lineal.- descendent (including adopted dd1dren). In the event of the gift of all ar any portion of a Unit Holder's Membership Interest or Economic Interest to one or more donees who are under 18 years of age, one or more trusts shall be established to hold the gifted interest(s) for. ihe benefit of such donee(&) until all of the donee(s) reach the age of at least 25 years. . 12.3 Transferee Not Member in Absence of Consent. - (a) Notwithstari_ding anything to the contr�y in this rti1 12 if the sale or gift of a Member's Membership Interest or Economic Interest to a transferee or donee which is not a Member iminediately, prior to the sale or & is not approved in writing by all of the other Members, in their sole discretion, then the proposed transferee or donee shall have no right to participate in the . management of the business and affairs of the Carnpany or to become a Member. Such transferee or donee shall be merely an Economic Interest Owner. (b) Promptly fallowing any sale or gift of a Member's Economic Interest which does not at the same time transfer the balance of the rights associated with such Persores Membership Interest, the Company shall purchase from such Person, and such Person shallsell to the Company for a purchase price of $100, all such remaining rights and interests retained by such Person which immediately prior to such sale or gift were associated with the transferred Economic Interest. The acquisition by the Company of such Persons rights shall not caul e a dissolution of the Company and such Person shall no longer be a Member. ARTICLE 13 — ADDMONAL LIEEM13ERS Persons other than transferees may become Members after execution of the Agreement by unanimous consent of the Members. ` ARTICLE 14 -- DISSOLU IION AND TERMINATION 14.1 Dissolution.. The Company shall be dissolved upon the occurrence of any of the following events - (a) upon expiration of the term specified in Section 2-5; (b) by the written agreement of all Members; or (c) a Person ceases to be a Member upon the occurrence of any of the events specified in Limited Liability Company Act, RCW, unless the business afthe Company- continues with the consent of al the remajn g Members within ninety (90) days -following-the occurrence of such event'-. ' 142 Allocation of Net: Profit and Loss in Liquidation. 'the allocation of Net Profit, Net Loss and other items of the Company following the date of dissolution, including but not limited to gain or loss upon the sale of all or substantially all of the Company's assets, shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of AitiGles_ 9 and LO and shall be credited or charged to the Capital Accounts of the Unit Holders in the same manner as•Net Profit, Nei Loss, and other items of the Company would have been credited or charged if there were no m dissolution and liquidation. 143 Winding Up, Liquidation and Distribution of Assets. Upon dissolution, the Manager shall immediately proceed ued d up the fai s of the Company, unless the business of the Company is cow provided Para�dragh c of 5e tin I4_1. The Manager shall sell or otherwise liquidate all of the Company's assets as promptly as practicable (except to Ore extent the Manager may deteranine to distribute any asset-, ta�ninQ Unit Campanyers asse s�� �01 wing d shall oFdythe er of proceeds of such sale and theg priority: (a) Payment of creditors, includinMembers andlatnr, in satisfactioMof agars who are creditors, to the extent otherwise permitted by liabilities of the Company, other than liabilities for distributions to Members; N To establish any reserves that the Mari�ager deems reasonably necessary for contingent or unforeseen obligations of khe Company and, at the expiration of sud, period ad the Manager shall deem advisable, the balance then remaining in the manner provided in fara h c below; (c) By the end of the taxable year in which the liquidation occurs (ax, if later, within ninety (90) days after the date of such liquidation), to the Unit Holder's in proportion to the positive balances of their representative Capital Accounts, as determined w�thg litoiu"dation occursunt all FotherAccount than those made for the taxable year during q pursuant to this ara h c . 14.4 No Obligation to Restore Negative Capital Account Balance on Liquidation. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in t s Agreement,anon a liquidation within the meaning of Renit gulation Section 1..70�1ffect (i all), if y Holder has a negative Capital Account balance (after giving ital Account adjustments for contributions, distributions, allocations, and other Cap all taxable years, including the year during which such liquidation occurs), such Unit Holder shall have: no obligation to make any Capital Contribution to the Company, and the negative balance of such Unit Holder's Capital Account shall not be,consWred a -debt owed by such Unit Holder to the Company or to any other Person for -any purpose whatsoever. , 14.5 Termination. The Manager shall comply with any affairs le the regvirements of applicable law pertaining to the winding UP of theCompany and the final distribution of its assets. iipon completion of the winding up, liquidation and distribution of the assets, the Company shall be deemed terminated; 14.6 Certificate of Cancellation. When all debts, liabilities and d e to ti efor and have been paid and discharged or adequate provisions have been all of the remaining; property and assets have been. distributed required to the the 'Upit Upolde�g the Manager shall file a certificate of cancellation of the certificate of -cancellation, the existence of the Company shall cease, except as otherwise provided in the Act. - 14.7 Return of Contribution Nonrecourse to Other Members. Except as provided by law or as expressly provided in this Agreement, upon dissolution each Unit Holder shall look solely to the assets of the ComPa.ny for the. return of its Capital Contribution. If the property remaining after the paynient or discharge of liabilities of the Company is insufficient to return the contributions of Members, no Unit Holder shall have recourse against any other Unit Holder. ARTICLE 15 — INDEPENDENT ACTIVITIES OF MANAGERS AND MEMBERS Any Manager and Member may engage in or possess an i4terest,in other business ventures of every nature and description, independently or with others,-. including but not limited to the ownership, financing, managenibrit, employment by, lending to or otherwise participating in businesses which are similar to the business of the Company, and neither the Company nor any of the Managers or Unit Holders shall have any right by virtue of this Agreement in and. to such independent ventures or to the income ur profits therefrom. ARTICLE 16 — MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS IN 16.1 Notices. Any notice, demand, or communication required or permitted under this Agreement shall be deemed o have been duly -given if delivered personally to the party to whom directed or, if mailed by registered or certified mail, postage and charges prepaid, addressed (a) if to a Member, to the Meamber's address specified on attached 5chOhake J, (b) if to the Company, -to the address specified in aection_2.3S and (c) if to the Manager, to the address specified in Section _2.3. Except as otherwise provided herein, any such notice shall be, deemed to be given when personally delivered or, if mailed, three (3) business days after the . date of mailing. A Mernber, the Company or the Manager may change its address for the purposes of notices hereunder by giving notice to the others specifying such changed address in the manner specified in this Secti n 16.1. Z. 162 Governing Law. Thus Agreement shall be -construed and enforced in accordance with the 'internal laws of the State of Washington.. 16.3 Amendments. Tliis Agreement may not be amended except by the unanimous written agreement -of all of the Members and the Manager. 16.4 , _ Construction. Whenever the singular number is used in this Agreement and when `required by the context, the same shall include the plural and vice versa, and the masculine gender shall include the feminine and neuter genders and vice versa. f t _ 1.65 Headings. •'The Headings in this Agreement are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect the interpretations of this Agreement. 16.6 Waivers. The failure of any Pr coedits f of bus or ation of or in sist nsist upon the strict performance of any covenant o Agreement shall not prevent a subsequent act, which would have: originally constituted- a anviolation, from having the effect of aoriginal violation_ 16.7 Rights and Remedies Cumulative. The rights and remedies remedy shall provided by this Agreement are emulative and the use of any o g� not preclude or waive the right to use any or all other remedies. Said rights and remedies are given in addition to any other rights the parties may have by law, statute, ordinance or otherwise. , 16.8 SeverabWty. If any provision of this Agreement 4x the application thereof to any Person or circumstance shall be invalid, illegal or'unenforceable to any extent, the remainder of this Agreement and the application thereof shall not be affected and shall be enforceable to the fullest extent perjxutted by law. 16.9 Heirs, Successors and Assigns. Each of the covenants, terms, provisions and agreements hexein contained shall be binding upon and inure to the benefzt of the parties hereto and, to the extent permitted by this Agreement, their respective heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns. 16.10 Creditors. None of the provisions of this Agreement shall be for the benefit of or enforceable by any creditors of the Company, 7 . I 16.11 Counterparts. This agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. Executed by the undersigned Member effective as of the date first above written. Name Name Name Schedule 1 Member Information Members Capital Contribution Units Percentage Interest Evan J. Hunden 1000 100% Executed by the undersigned Member effective this /2 day ofrjG�esr , 2012. Evan J. Hun en ; _ 1LLI co 1-721, 1- � Z w 00 5�N _,fr - �CF , , I r r / �� — 3Nl7� +` `gam \ ` i _ X / 0 �' �' 1 to- `� U_ — - - raa ti. _ ❑5 05 05; 'w s ❑S _�S - 55 -- is I - . — CIS LLI LL / / 1 N zo N n - / 4a. akl 1O! _ ` _' r - - as — a$ \ G - ^ — Y } aoLLA 00 1 IRE)/ �" lL ui N LO co V7 p"� J rr7 p pLLI — yr(; - O w p U x w _ °c cn w. w v o e� r� d - �¢ Q 11 Ewa In tea- wa00 LIJ ii CL Q _ r �'LQ'7. `'1 _ / w 7r�- y I Z -� In W /}� Vl pW _ CZ UJ N a i q -j - i-i n� 1O u li P1 1 �SUBM� 3 z _ O L"�nW. /� Yr `^'Hv Qz h r— a a 3 a 3 3 �. 0 .4J i., ❑F f-EC)E-RAI- WAY a —CQS O 2121019026 1 wETUNa BUFFER: Ir anz2 0 5F HARW HANGED � _ • _ CA7[LIHiY I - - I I PEN SPACE 5 255 Sr ci7VE) 767.65' 1. TRAIL: s aw.t ::: ..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.I -� 1 OPEN SPAC 14,690 SF (ACTIVE) 'I Y _-MIR 12HI ,@7' i 2921049050 292104906'j 2921049072 �'J4T5 ❑ 7 V U; 292 0n0001''��r-R F„• - r LEGEND PROGRAMMED RECREATION AREA -,� RECREA71ON BUILDING P WETLAND BUFFER AREA (NATIVE OR ENHANCED) -� WETLAND BUFFER TRAIL PLAY AREA ram_ �, ® MIN. 40x40' OPEN SPACE AREA L. 2921049005 f 'Common Recreational Open Space Usable for Many Activities, FWRC 19.205.040 Total PlayArea 40'x4O' Open Space 1 3,264 2,210 3,264 Open Space 2 6.846 4,520 6,846 Open Space 3 8,623 5,040 8,623 Open Space 4 4,338 I.9OO Open Space 5 4.255 3•888 Open Space 6 14.890 14,890 Active Site - Outdoor 42,216 I1,770 39,411 Reaeotion Building 10.778 7 Min. Project Requirement 4b7 1uUX arm Trail (Active) 4,775 Wetland "A" 2,775 Buffer (Native/Enhanced) 62290 26,635 Tout % Min. Project Requirement 607 07 45. Total Project 1 122,04 1 11,770 66,046 X Min, Protect Requirement 1057 10OX 113x Minimum Project Requirements: Common Open Space lIZ200 sf (293du x 400sf/du) Play Area 11.720 sf (107 of Total Open Space Req'd.) 40'x40' Area 58,600 sf (507 or Total Open Space Req'd.) I � INGRESS. r.:4r UnunE' E I N SB6' Y$e'E 365.00' — l -•--r `ii _ REC BLDG.- 3 re 778 SF I �' ■ [Acrr) Ij I X i _ _{_ ME PARK 16 MULTIFAMILY �EGRP74TIONAL OPEN SPACE CV- JUL 2-4 2013 CONSULTANTSngraflng �+�-t� C CT t OF FEDEFU L- 'N Site Planning Crvll ct Maeg lend useca�¢rene • PmJeG Menagelnelrt ADS o so 100 PLAN IN FM ?MMAwnoa.s iffillOmRr4W& M aW.(4M235,2MI nx(4M21gr2M www.cphconaultants.com July 23, 2013 Park 16 Multifamily Frocess 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): ESUBMIT'TED APR 18 fin^ CM OF i EDffiV-%L 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 geotechnica1, 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 J H quality.ounts CONSULTANTS COM Bulletin #050 / April 10, 2013 Page 1 of 15 Park 16 Multifamily Proc,—i 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 Washinaton 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. DEVC0, INC. CP J H quahNcounts 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. 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 quahlycounls CONSULTANTS COFW Bulletin #050 / April 10, 2013 Page 3 of 15 Park 16 Multifamily Proc...,s 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 I 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. CP I H 4.1"mums CONSULTANTS COFW Bulletin #050 / April 10, 2013 Page 5 of 15 Park 16 Multifamily Proc�z,s 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 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 DEVC0, INC. CPI H 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 quahry counts CONSULTANTS COFW Bulletin #050 / April 10, 2013 Page 7 of 15 Park 16 Multifamily Proc..s 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. CP H quahtvcounts 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 16'� Avenue and 356th 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 16`h 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 gvalitvCuunb CONSULTANTS COFW Bulletin #050 / April 10, 2013 Page 9 of 15 Park 16 Multifamily Pro,-_..s 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. CPI H yuAtv.uunts CONSULTANTS COFW 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 quahty counts CONSULTANTS COM Bulletin #050 / April 10, 2013 Page 11 of 15 Park 16 Multifamily ProL...s 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. DEVC0 INC. CP J H quahtycounte CONSULTANTS COM Bulletin 9050 / 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 3561h 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 frontag Hof 16'h 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 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. DEVCO, INC. CP I H quality-OWAS CONSULTANTS COFW Bulletin #050 / April 10, 2013 Page 13 of 15 Park 16 Multifamily Proc,_.,,s III Project Approval Environmental Checklist f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? F 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 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. CP I H quality 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 lea SIGNA DATE DEVCO, INC. CpIH quality counts CONSULTANTS COFW Bulletin #050 / April 10, 2013 Page 15 of 15 HABITAT TECHNOLOGIES CRITICAL AREAS ASSESSMENT STUDY PARCELS 2921049096 and 2921049107 35703 -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....................................................................I.............................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 CORRIDOR DETERMINATION......................................................7 WETLAND FUNCTION AND VALUE ASSESSMENT...................................................................9 ONSITE WETLAND VALUATION........................................................................a.....................10 WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS........................................................................................................11 OBSERVED SPECIES ........................................ MOVEMENT CORRIDORS. . ............................... STATE PRIORITY SPECIES ............................... FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES .......................... REGULATORY CONSIDERATION...............................................................................................14 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS - SECTION•404................................................................14 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY.....................................................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.......................................................................................................26 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 10"' 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 (Wash Manual), the State of Washington Department of Natural Resources (VVDNR) Forest Practice Rules (WAC 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 - 16th Avenue South and South 3501' 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. 1 08136 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 kisufch) 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 373�d 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 5). This mapping resource depicted a City of Federal Way "FW Rating 'I ° 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 359th Street. SOILS MAPPING The soil 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 rioted 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 Section/Township/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 (1 OYR3/1) 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 depressional corridor exhibited gravelly silty loam to silty loam texture. The surface soil exhibited a black (1OYR 2/1) to very dark brown (10YR 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 (10YR 2/1) to dark grayish brown (10YR 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 6 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 356t" 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 359th 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 359th 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/s atu 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 menziesir), domestic apple (Pyres spp.), crabapple (Pyres fusca), hawthorne (Crataegus monogyna), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus procera), evergreen blackberry (Rubus laciniatus), Pacific blackberry (Rubus ursinus), Scot's broom, rose (Rosa spp.), snowberry (Syrnplroricarpus albus), bracken fern (Pteridium aquilium), nettle (Urtica dioica), Canadian thistle (Cirsirim arvensis), orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata), fescue (Festuca spp.), velvet grass (Hoicus ianatus), 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 douglasi►), salmonberry (Rubus 6 08136 spectabilis), speedwell (Veronica scutellata), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), buttercup, big leaf avens (Geum macrophyllum), and curled dock (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 (Ater macrophyffum), 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 (Ater circinatum), hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), salmonberry, Pacific red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), red huckleberry (Vaccinium parvifofium), Oregon grape (Berberis nervosa), salal (Gaultheria shallop), sword fern (Polystichum munitum), bracken fern (Pferidium aquilium), nettle (Urfica 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 latifolia), black cottonwood. Western red cedar, Western hemlock, Pacific willow (Safix lasiandra), crabapple, Sitka willow, salmonberry, black twinberry (Lonicera involucrata), red osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), Douglas spiraea, vine maple, Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana), reed mannagrass (Glyceria grandis), reed canarygrass, common lady fern (Athyrium fifix-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 B PFOE 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 sheetflow 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, culvert 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 3561h 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 dischargq. 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. • 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 • 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 (Bufeo jamaicensis), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), 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 (Sturnus vulgaris), black capped chickadee (Parus atricapillus), bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), Northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), sharp -shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), 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 stellen), starling (Sturnus 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 townsendil), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), voles (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 359th Street also appeared to have created a passage barrier to the upstream movement of fish from south of South 359th Street to north of South 3591h 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 fshawytscha) within 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 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 373�d 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 projects 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 7 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. 95 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." 0 Wetland and Stream Buffers The City of Federal Way has established the following standard protective buffers for regulated wetlands and streams. WETLAND OR STREAM Category 1 Wetland Category 2 Wetland Category 3 Wetland Ma� of r stream Minor Stream STANDARD CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PROTECTIVE BUFFER WIDTH 200 feet 100 feet 50 feet >10,000sgft wetland 26 feet < 10,000sgft wetland 100 feet 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 (22-1369). 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 I11, 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 III, 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 59%, 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 Huffer 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. zo 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 f Certified Professional Wetland 5cientis 4 21 08136 FIGURES 22 08136 HABITAT TECHNOLOGIES jA r 1pj s• TiL n Figure 2 NWI Resource Mapping jL� 141-1 Al. HABITAT TECHNOLOGIES Figure 3 PHS Resource Mapping 0 PLSS Townships •. RNERS(124,000) DNR trans 24k '. PLSS Sections Paved Road CITIES Unpaved Roar! IJ Road Surf:-cco Unknown * Major Cities Trail Cities Railroad tip' H Towns M andonodiOrphan HABITAT Figure 4 g 1 WA4,000) DIES - 1,:2a,euo, TECHNOLOGIES WDFW Mapping COUN1Y El EVAT ION IRANSPORUATION P.,, .1 R'. I WAIERHODIES 40' opawm., Lq,ll eJ lo d S,,due R,f, STREAMS 9% m U il Wet Atc.1 X X. jj(,n-qpeJ p?, j22-16 IVETLANDS—AMM&AAW D101-Alk • W,w,T)p: Chmjc TiT- . A Tire B "llcr HABITAT Figure 5 TECHNOLOGIES WDNR Mapping DI 5 CE 1"r, fls I 0-3 S 356TIl ST C I E CE isrn RS15.0 RS1510 R M S 359TH-ST S35971 EM RS 15.0 till V11 FAIM0:1 'Sill H!O ]SM NJ:,; 1-111's 1117 Hill RS 15.0 HVI N HABITAT Figure 6 TECHNOLOGIES City of Federal Way Mapping CO co OQO 0069£L5 OQ3 L4 UAL ZS UQ9 £LS OOS L5 90Y _t5 OQE ,:ZS C a, m t K ■ cL c L 7rNd cn � - t •��►' � � g p Vi TUJ C O W � , � '1M� k ••' • N �br- d �. ID �, F+ y � r [A� � `it - r, 'r �� •�_j •� �R , � S+ �V Ap�w! k". v IL IL )► rOs MRS . r v 44 Y- fi• g o a 47) ►,► f ;..At ow AIT _� ......-..1 000§czs onwi"s �;�` 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., 1976. 23 08136 APPENDIX A -- FIELD DATA FORMS 24 08136 ►J'Y�. a Q 04 cn a r Lr lL v r ' •r rS. 1 Q N p a ra � 1 • � +�•, N a cc r r (J] � Q 6 a �- rn J� In p, Q (!i f' Q O O m 0CL a �. N \ n Ji Qj AN 10 �,, a ;! `Jn y •sue'` 0� l � t ���'• � � 'A: ��}► � � .� , � -' �. y�y � tit;° • .��7/y.�., �• �� �` _ � / f3. Qi,��--• !; .R" SAMPLE PLOT SPB 1 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project Site Parcels 292104-90951-9107 Date: 28 OCT 08 Appticant/Owner: County: King Investigator: Habitat Teclrnvla ies State: Washington Have vegetation, soils, or hydrologybeen disturbed? YES NO YES NO T Community mu IID ID. is the area a potential Problem area. VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an *) —_._ _— rv--41 on...,..; - Cfrat iim Ind 1. C)iisus sco arlus S UPL 9. 2. Rubus ursinus S FACU 10. 3. Galium a arine H FACU 11. 4. Poa spp. H -- 12. 5 13. 6. 14. � 15. 8 16. Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAG 0% (except FAC-). Include species noted (*) as showing morphological ada Cations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks: Northern portion of site w 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 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 1 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 Munseil Moist Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Rhizospheres, etc. 0-18 1OYR 3/3 None Gravelly 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 Soils List Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydrlc 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 hvdric soil NOT Dresent, 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 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 SAMeLE PLOT SPB 2 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project Site Parcels 292104-90951-9107 Investigator: I Habitat Technolo ies Date: 28 OCT 08 County: King State: Washington Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO YES NO CommunTransct jp ID: Is the area a potential Problem area? VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an *) ... __ _ _— ffk-.-.L n.,.... ;— Clrnfiim Ind 1. Pseudotsu a menziesii 2. tisus sco arius 3. Rubus ursinus 4. Gallum a arine 5. Toraxacum officinale 6. Poa s 7. 8. T FACU 9. S UPL 10. S FACU 11. H FACU 12. H FACU 13. H --- 1 14. 15. 16. Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC-). Include species noted (*) as showing morphological ada tatlons 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% 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 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 Gravelly sandy loam 1 OYR 3/2 None 4-18 1OYR 3/3 None Gravelly sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed 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 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 hydrolpAy patterns } SAMPLE PLOT SPB 3 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 Cal; WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project Site Parcels 292104-90951-9107 Date: 28 OCT 08 Applicant/Owner: County: King Investigator: Habitat Technola ies State: Washington Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO YES NO Transact Community ID ID: Is the area a potential Problem area? VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an *) . r 1__A - Ckri+aim Indwngnr Dominank Rlant S ecies Stratum indicator LJ►.tl 1. III I I IL 1 , C tisus sco arius - - - S -UPL 2. Rubus ursinus S FACU 3. Cirsium arvensis H FACU+ 4. Poa spP. H --- 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 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 moderately 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 _Rhizospheres, 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 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 Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? NO Remarks: WETLAND CRITERIA NOT MET Area dominated by Scots broom Area appears to drain moderate!y 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 Appl€cant[Owner: County: King Investigator: Habitat Technola ies State: Washington Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO Community €D: Is the area a potential Problem area? YES NO Transect 1D: VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an *) r ___:___, n1__i' a.....,— _ fImhim indinmor QOminant plant S ecies Stratum Indicator 1. rus spp.- _ _ T 2. C tisus sco arlus S UPI_ 3. Rubus procera S FACU 4. Rubus ursinus S FACU 5. Cirsium arvensis H FACU+ 6. Pteridium a uilium H FACU 7. Dac lis glomerata H FACU 8. Poa spp. H "' 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 16. 16. Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACK or FAC (except FAC-). Include species noted (*) as showing morphola ical 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 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) Soil appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events Map Unit Name: Everett gravelly sandy loam Taxonomy (Subgroup) Profile Description: Depth Horizon Matrix Color inches Munsell Moist 0-3 10YR 3/2 3-18 10YR 3/3 Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfldic Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Remarks: : SAMPLE PLOT SPB 4 Drainage Class: Somewhat excessive Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type YES NO Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Rhizospheres, etc. None None Gravelly sandy foam 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 following seasonal storm events Prominent redoximor hic features NOT present Field indicators of h dric soil NOT eresent. 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 Prior managed pasture area Areaapp ears to drain moderatelywell 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 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, King State: Washington Community ID: TransectlD: VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an *) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Pseudotsu a men; Acer circinatum C tisus sco arius Rubus ursinus Pteridium a uilium A rostis tenuis T FACU 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. S FAC- S UPL S FACU H FACU H FAC Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC-). Include species noted (*) as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: 16. 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 Rhizospheres, etc. 0-4 10YR 3/2 None 4-18 10YR 3/3 None Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Remarks: : 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 Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? N O 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 SAMeLE PLOT SPB 7 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 YES NO Community ommTranst ID ID: Is the area a potential Problem area? VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an *) r11--1 Rtrshim Ind 1. P rus spp. T ----- 9. 2. Pvrus fusca T FACW 10. 3. S iraea dou lasil S FACW —AC 11. 4. Rubus Drocera S FU 12. 5. Rubus ursinus S FACU 13. 6. Pteridlum a uilium H FACU 14. 7. 15. 8 16. Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC-). Include species noted (*) as showing mor bolo Ica[ 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 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 moderate!y well following seasonal storm events Map Unit Name: Everett gravelly sandy foam 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 Rhizos heres, etc. 0-3 10YR 3/2 3-18 10YR 4/3 Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Remarks: : None None SandX 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) 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 hydrology patterns SAMrLE PLOT $PB 8 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: King State: Washington Community ID: Transect ID: VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an *) Dominant PI ntSnecles Stratum -In icator 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Cratae us monogyna T FACU+ P rus fusee T FACW P rus spp. T ----- Rubus ursinus S FACU 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 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 Rhizospheres, etc. 0-18 10YR 412 10YR 4/6 Few/prominent Sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed 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 hydric 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 hydrology patterns Wetland Edge ^i SAMeLE 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 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 moraholonical adaptations to wetlands with an*) Ctralijm lnriinntrlr 1. P rus fusca T FACW 2. Rubus laciniatus S FACU- 3. Rubus ursinus S FACU 4. E iloblum an 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 mar holo lcal adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks: Western portion of project site aion 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 20% edge of forest Wetiand 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) (Mansell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Rhizospheres, etc, 0-18 10YR 4/2 Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosot Histic Eplpedon Sulfid€c 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 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? N O Remarks: WETLAND CRITERIA NOT MET Western portion of project site along edge of forest Area appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events No field evidence of wetland hydrology patterns ~1 SAMPLE PLOT SPB 13 Project Site AppllcantlOwner: Investigator: DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Parcels 292104-90951-9107 Habitat Technol 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: VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have mornholoolcal adaptations to wetlands with an *) Quail tm Indinninr I. Po uius trichocar a T FAC 2. Acer circinatum S FAC- 3. Sambucus racemosa S FACU 4. Ath rium fiiix-femina H FAC 5. 6. 7. S. Percent of Dominant species that are OWL, 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 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 Moist (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Rhizospheres, etc. 0-6 Duff 6-18 10YR 3/1 None Silty loam Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic 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 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 Westernportion of pr9ject site Area appears to drain poorly_ following seasonal storm events Field evidence of wetland hydrology patterns SAMPLE PLOT SPB 14 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: Transect ID: VEGETATION (Note those specles observed to have mornholoalcal adaptations to wetlands with an I r���,.:......a n1--4 C--Mn a Cfr.201 irn Indirninr 1. Thula licata T FAC 9. 2. Alnus rubra T FAC 10. 3. Acer circinatum S FAC- 11. 4. L sichltum americanum H OBL 12. 5. Ath rium filix-femina H FAC 13. 6. 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: 100% 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 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 Map Unit Name: Kitsap silt loam Taxonomy (Subgroup) Profile Description: Depth Horizon Matrix Color 0-3 3-18 Hydric Soil Indicators: 10YR 4/2 Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors SAMPLE PLOT SPB 14 Drainage Class: Moderately well Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type YES NO Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Rhizospheres, etc. 10YR 4/6 Few/faint Duff 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) Remarks: .- Soil appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Prominent redoximor hic features present Field indicators of h dric soil present. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES NO Hydric Solis 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 within Wetland B _ Area appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Field evidence of wetland hydrology patterns SAMPLE PLOT SPB 15 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 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 ") 1. Tsu a hetery h lia 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. Pof sVehum 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: 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 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 412 10YR 4/6 Histosol Histic Epipedon Suifidic Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Remarks: : 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 Hydrophylic 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 hyLrology patterns SAMPLE PLOT SPB 16 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 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 *) Dominant Plant S ecies Stratum Indicator Doming t Plant 5 ecie Stratum Ind 1. Alnus rubra T FAC 9. 2. Po ulus trlchocar a T FAC 10. 3. Thula plicata sap FAC 11. 4 Athvrium filix-femina H FAC 12. 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 13. 14. 15. 16. 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 seasonal) and SAMPLE PLOT SPB 16 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. 0-8 Duff 8-18 Hydric Soil Indicators: 10YR 3/1 Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidle Odor None x Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions x Gleyed 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 redoximor hic features present Field indicators of h dric 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 ro'ect site Area appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Field evidence of wetland hydrology atterns Wetland Edge 1 SAMPLE PLOT SPB 17 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 __§t_ate.-J Washington Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO Community ID: Is the area a potential Problem area? YES NO Transect 1D: 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. Pol stichum munitum H FACU 12. 5. 13. 6. 14. 7. 15. 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 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 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 Munseli Moist) Abundance/Contrast Rhizos heres, etc. 0-18 10YR 3/2 Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sultidic Odor 10YR 4/6 Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Few/faint 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 Bresent 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 Western portion of site upslope from wetland Area appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events No field evidence of wetland hydrology patterns %LE 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: ling State: Washington Community ID: TransectlD: VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have moraholoalcal adaptations to wetlands with an *) Dominant :;nf S ecies Stratum Indicator 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Alnus rubra T _ FAC FFAC- Acer circinatum I 5 Athyrium fllix-femina H FAC Percent of Dominant species that are bBL, 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: None 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 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 Rhizosoheres. etc. 0-6 Duff 6-18 10YR 2/1 None Loose loam Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic 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 Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Soil appears to drain pooh following seasonal storm events Prominent redoximorphic features present _ Field indicators of h dric soil present. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophylic 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 within Wetland B Area appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Field evidence of wetland hydrology atterns SAIVWLE PLOT SPB 20 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project Site Parcels 292104-9095 l-9107 Date: 28 OCT 08 Applicant/Owner: County: King 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 �) h :.... 6f,..,► C„enine lratl Im Irnrtirainr Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1., Pseudotsu a menxiesii T FACU 2. Acer circinatum S FAC- 3. Gaultheria shallop S FACU 4. Rubus ursinus S FACU 6. Pteridium a cilium H FACU 6. Poi stichum munitum H FACU 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: 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 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 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 SPB 20 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. 0-18 10YR 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 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: Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? NO WETLAND CRITERIA NOT MET Upland forest Area appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events No field evidence of wetland hydrology atterns SAMPLE PLOT SPTT 1 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project site Parcels 292104-9095 l-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 *) Dominant Plant S ec StratuM Indicator ❑)minant Plant S Decies Strat m Indicator 1. C tisus sco arfus S UPL 9. 2. S m horicar us albus S FACU 10, 3. Rubus ursinus S FACU 11. 4. Pteridium a uilium H FACU 12. 5. Poa spp. H --- 13. 6. 14. 7. 15. g. 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 appearsto drain moderatelywell 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 Rhizoseheres, etc. 0-2 2-18 10YR 3/2 10YR 313 Hydric Soil Indicators: 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 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: 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 SAt► .,LE PLOT SPIT 2 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project Site Parcels 292104-9095 l-9107 Date: 28 OCT 08 ApplicantlOwner: County: King 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 *) 1. P rus spp. T --"- 9• 2. Rubus procera S FACU % 3. Rubus ursinus S FACU 11. 4. C tisus sco arius S UPL 12. 5. Cirsium arvensis H FACU+ 13. 6. Agropyron cristatum H ---- 14. 7. Pteridium a uilium H FACU 15. 8. Poa spp. _ H --- 16. Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACK 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 2 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) (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Rhizospheres, etc. 0-3 3-1 B 10YR 3/2 10YR 3/3 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 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 Hydrlc 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 SAir��LE PLOT SPTT 3 Project Site Applicant/Owner: Investigator: DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Parcels 292104-90951-91.07 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 *) ©fonF Cnaniae NITARlft7 Indicator Daminarlt Plant S eCies Stratum Incilcator 1. S Iraea dou lasli S FACW 12. 3. 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: 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 Remarks: Onsite assessment during fall 2008 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) Soil appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Area appears to seasonally pond Excavated depression 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 Munsell Moist Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Rhizos heres, etc. 0-1 10YR 3/1 Leaves/foam 1-16 10YR 4/1 10YR 4/6 Commonl rominent Silty 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 List 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 h dric soil 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? YES Remarks: WETLAND CRITERIA MET Small depression in central project site Area appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Field evidence of wetland hydrology atterns SAhwrLE PLOT SPTT 4 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: King State: Washington Community ID: Transect ID: VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an I n;^ont Dlant Cnariae Stratum Indicator 1. C � isus sco aritls S UPL 2. Rubus ursinus S FACU 3. Pteridium a uilium H FACU 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACK or FAG (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 Moist Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Rhinos hares, etc. 0-8 8-18 10YR 312 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 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 0 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 c ST-FAB FEDERAL WAY SEC. 29/TWP. 21/RGE. 04 E., W.M. SITE PLAN !} r 1 LOf!vlSCCUL !1!1%M7a j i i i ; i } i } \ \" ■� ■ ` - FViFFFrda-E KE) ♦ L t� {6 fROPQYQ IAyiSC%1E i j L, ■\■ 1� �I��` `, 29zIrN9a9or ♦ S ; � st r " 'Jiz `1 / seam'z.t 7a7,i>tr ' ! I I I f ai is ■ -r�_ - aT, .,l,�I;`� ,♦,7i,, ti� "` -�♦.` ♦,' 1 { It ` ; ti'■ ■■ `I 1'■ ''1 1■ i 'uR' 1 t ',1 1 1 } I l I P ' ' •`;♦` L, wy ^ ~ ` •'3 }I 5 { ■ ` ■ `■ \ ■j ■■ \' ♦] 11 '1 , 11 + ■, ■ 1 � .: • , �} {{ ! { it .■ \+ `\ ` `\ \\ :1 i•'i'_ 1 •1 ■�b il .. . . . . . . . . . )' ,',' •, .�. }a� r-- �z�iiti _ '' I�.I 1 ♦ • ■11 ■ f 1 1 1 1 1 1 ■ ♦`. ♦� ~'•♦ ''♦ a1 • .' . • . _ � ♦ ♦ ■ ♦\ `♦ I , ��� i - } I 1 `I If kh 1 51 ■ 1 111` 1 ,Ill :a• iP+. ♦ �■ I . . ' [Ali4i,L. I . ■1 1 1 } ■■ 1 , ■` ! �♦ ~\ i j 4 •5 1! ■ 2 �' 1 1 ■ Itil. 1.4 l l .1lsaze7.� S 5 1 ti #♦sraw I jF { Ir 1 `�uu r dal.snl ry ■ \ j{ 1 A I • � ' rr •;Rlh. ! rf '1 j 5 ,,■ +t !� � � 3 � `I { � ` • ' ` •� r 1 �. _ j FF � �� ■ � � Ir Al71aF10D1 ��� .• '?? �f ! Jir / fr rl •�.}el4 f = •} I� ` I ,r 1 1' � 1`j )II )) x} • •'• r j r �! } � � IL`-__{=_�� F JI IY ',. �rl� F .MR l+xtE♦s ,:V.-r--1 p ;•1' , ) 1 r ' ) y3tis• i�l._ 33/[ _ _ I r ! 11 puoW[ertet 1Ff`a1vL . f' •�� ! S ! ! ll -t'=•" F ! ' ♦ !! w7 es xlax a la • . _ ` • ! P g f r . r, s ° T rnavicertr,nn I i t + Ir J! � I. � � i ! rr • •�`, _ j irrri �' i I I t� 1 r . 1, J r I I ,room I' • i v a' r 'a7 r lslk { L 1 , �I,'.••••' K 1 1 1 ! I J 7l7.sa9r I. ) f +Lcf•is•.�L'ICf 1 ■ • r ! 1 ! 1 2' r - r' i �_, SDl] !1 f ! 1 J r� r. 14 11 • _ •JY i 1 I 1 )! r ff J � 1 � r0. 1 rr I. ) { 1 1 Ir•',••• .`! r r ! i 1 F r ! ! I• ��! f. .1 11 If 1 j Fa i ] r ! f ) ) xsw 9rI 1 f I J I It:�••• -•• I � ). I i ry} i ,• f.� fI /rJ r 1 Il■{■1 � � l r �' I r ' ! / W 1fCi+lPRl + ' i i■ L� • I . • • • • • ' : �.. rl. r' �, �' ♦!•�r�-..1.'._.. J /57.21nra'Ss j I 1 • . w—n'M ram r ■ AIT"L a," ff F - oxAPtnc acita cU E Q E:::'• v ai g Sd W- r �\ a PAd"m All rR ' '4 2991019005 j g971011092 'f• -- A I- /j S7' `\ I 5' rWLI El�rr 7ieE (r) \ r I - '--' �''`�sr`:} s' c.�_•.� f• � ♦. aa•.f�a■t .MLGY [s�or,,Irl / /l I. 1 ' 1ti ,/ I {11"Iml-I I JAN-131,-'--�r----.�..'.�',-�••=.r._•=��P,.iwea war 'r-s_.n,• ' t\y' ,'i - I' ` i I '-" ,� g.�• 5 5� a s a s• � - - i �' i 1= _� �' �i�,,, •' �f'f raas5 sr�J';.� �7 C � )n . I, } I :. � I k • • l�f� i , 292104M I 297r0i9091 i I T917a8099 I R9710490" I 19710440x I 127Sar90079 i i I I I I j I I I I I r- m O o IL J � � N cu Q Pro!CL M a M qU Q3cf 00 ��'T'g oU OwaD LL N Q Q N rn ff] NIL OM ll �n>r rn �a d� Qi6 D 0. cv dl d Q �...r9s, ..�,...' Irr., . . . �.. .Ile k. . .1•-^----�Ty�• :. r II; `5${$��I � •S� � r i 1�•, «'�.=.9.. •C F t e i1 - 'j : F �' -- .p J i I • 15• [ YS i . i f �-'' ... �:.. s , - 6. 1, ' . 1 �. � f Fl- �iC •..r I 1 }a � � , 'r5 EC' _ki[L•: _ [ _ -C�I: �^'._• _i' � ti- L•F1[>.i ' -�,6 ..,. - II } f I: 'r` � � I` r J z e Q q• I ;. It is a.• 1. -'4j} , L' �_ / !• `p,� }I •'\.. �al'3• � •� � f �' F[ - xf �-iilk, - t' '� I u4{ c � .=...1:� j^s.R�r r�,l�1=e yrL"Ea ,rr.,•.... _..-:,. $ {I _.. � �,q;a-�9`77tt -a •-�_'Iy,e,J - � . � Ir . .y ti �� �� y f, Poo ���+'?�.t _�ixatRo�`{y �amlwsa3 � j �Jlwsosr• � �. �arzlwl•aa ♦ r r Yi ` g `;a,,j `, I I cics o (L I Z 1 I Q ST - FAB FEDERAL WAY SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 21 N., RANGE 04 E., W.M. IN 11" ._ ��+ fir; r" i- y • �.' ,y�'"_�r, �,�:��; - � ,;..� r v• Y •� l ..`� 'L .y ' •�, ��++yy ! ��� 1 �• �1'•}r a Y1F ;, it wt., .IiZ /y��}' •t+� •'��{•• �•]�• V•�� ,� ' . ,„ _ 's 'y �'f • � • r �� } f>r:�r � :- r ..,'' a f_,�_ ...:�.� � ' ' titi-'e •,�,. � ,?' '^fir r �'-�����r<a _ •+' .•y 't, (�; �_ ��s,�;+ f`�s�.r�1 r ,�ij�•+_' i i � '.?yam �� 1{;1�' �}. �,y �/�,ti• ': - �� . r.�i" r�• 45+;yS • •}, '`�' , . � '. �.e -: +r '.jr:. - "f. � ���,k'. / ,y ! l h J W W LL m N.T.S. Eai ' J H 1I o U tai _® Il co "Aw, oull-DINCti f3 '{ti r+I-�'' r, :.5, •rF.s •, yr ti. f'w. [ •yt �;... r, :. lr Ir �`i; r��~m~.`,I-j�l�. R4:'IE1[:, - �.-:.;iL^. •i 1 •�4 �• 1, � , ����rr �It�' �. �{. I � '�' �r }��� 11�i'f�Y if I WE ND _ {� � . , �C���G�<�F�� • Y r,, � ' t �.. , r •,;r. ��_ x � "{ �trl _?�.�,,,� •N "� i• i IEi7G 7 . - ^ , •a- yd,r '+,I 1�. .y1 - _d fiu'LS4- +. J-Ss7£� • �,z� r r ,.elf, y ���• rr" ,�; �.,,; �r it11 j, �• '�:r•I_'_ rl w� •ti7r' 'At I— 1: .t1f~i '{�' .1,• •" r. "`w H. 1 •rsCr ,. ��.� •:C,:-• •k�= }.,._ 'wry 1.. , '.i' •[ r- v •+� ' � , � '�.�s ►►a+aL:'ii}.#� ir3 li��i' k .r - ,E {sir •, ' • '!:- .� a � '�',� ''� - -. •�e "i � - •�• 'S'7,1�E ., k '[ `fk�'. r �2r�, .��.:�5' :� ll�l If i ri ,•rlp�, + i, � L � ff=�-rr -=• � fsr 1 � , it • �, +:. _ .. .•�. r � - -rf '�� . �£�.� •. �1,�::.�` : i�:•� . � �f 11 ir.yl 4:�I �.r,!'? , t p' ...vi•• f e'vw' ;; I r ti' Sti :T :. I ; !S. r- +� i.-•� i':rS. -r. 4'� :- ice..._ r. .+_' .{Is`i`�tis � ! .f r, *, ;' { . .�" .• r. - 1 's -, ./ 9y:'..' � ' .r .• ., .. _ :.� j j�� � _ I ,r• �r�l�, '`!•f.jis,- ,rat lw•, •:-,�iy4: �- . •; . _ I ',r ��• 11]}}} 'd'; kipEl t. , r r'• ri?� •��FF� !• 7�. rr}. S [ •�:��','y 1y,_�.2- '. .'r. J �,�:.}, :i; kr si '. � ,r�� r1.[��Rf} 'tr,:j�; ��ti- .� 1.� i y� ::ji'•L'::j��.ir. '�1,;s' ��' ',, , •ir'M " ' `: _ n n y i S n e ,Cl • � r, C C C J }}yC -! No J J M U� c:7 T a7 b J E H M < a o 5 20 V)¢Q oU Q c°a Z ° a ` _ J coy,, 2 M is [U)jdo� (V m Q Oa d 1 0 m o o m o R w o Z C� w o 3 w � >w W c+ K ui ru a a 2 as o o m Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment Face Page File No.: NCS-517821-WAl �, iXF ,7-, COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE Issued by FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY First American Title Insurance Company, herein called the Company, for valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagor of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor; all subject to the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof. This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of the issuance of the Commitment or by subsequent endorsement. This Commitment if preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six (6) months after the effective date hereof or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the fault of the Company. This Commitment shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by an authorized officer or agent. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this commitment to be signed and sealed, to become valid when countersigned by an authorized officer or agent of the Company, all in accordance with its By -Laws. This Commitment is effective as of the date shown in Schedule A as "Effective Date." r.e.� FirstAmerican Title Insurance Company ,r���«t lasap s°P'•fY I'/ -- President 1 yy IFoAttest: xx■*' - ®fit Secretary By: Countersigned RECEIVED DEC 13 2012 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS First American Title Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) File No.: NCS-517821-WAl Commitment Page No. 1 First American Title Insurance Company National Commercial Services 818 Stewart Street, Suite 800, Seattle, WA 98101 (206)728-0400 - (800)526-7544 FAX (206)448-6348 Mike Cooper (206)615-3107 mcooper@firstam.com To: DevCo, Inc. 375 118th Ave SE, Suite 118 Bellevue, WA 98005 Attn: Jack Hunden SECOND REPORT SCHEDULE A 1. Commitment Date: October 31, 2012 at 7:30 A.M. Laura Lau (206)615-3017 Ilau@firstam.com File No.: NCS-517821-WA1 Your Ref No.: 35706 16th Avenue South and 1405 South 356th Stree 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: AMOUNT PREMIUM TAX Short Term Rate Standard Owner's Coverage $ To Follow $ $ Proposed Insured: DEVCO, Inc., a Washington corporation 3. The estate or interest in the land described on Page 2 herein is Fee Simple, as to Parcels A and B, and Easement as to Parcel C, and title thereto is at the effective date hereof vested In: Dominion Holdings, LLC, a Washington limited liability company 4. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: The land referred to in this report is described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. First American Title Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment EXHIBIT 'A' LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PARCEL A: File No.: NCS-517821-WAl Page No. 2 THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER THEREOF; ALSO EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING EAST OF A LINE WHICH IS PARALLEL WITH AND 395 FEET WEST OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION; ALSO EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY FOR ROAD BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 698891. PARCEL B: THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE EAST 30 FEET FOR ROAD AS DISCLOSED BY DEEDS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NOS. 6630398 AND 6669685. PARCEL C: A NON EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS AS DESCRIBED IN AND DISCLOSED BY THAT CERTAIN DOCUMENT ENTITLED "EASEMENT AGREEMENT" RECORDED AS RECORDING NO. RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. FirstAmerican Title Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment SCHEDULE B - SECTION 1 REQUIREMENTS The following are the Requirements to be complied with: File No.: NCS-517821-WAI Page No. 3 Item (A) Payment to or for the account of the Grantors or Mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. Item (B) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record. Item (C) Pay us the premiums, fees and charges for the policy. Item (D) You must tell us in writing the name of anyone not referred to in this Commitment who will get an interest in the land or who will make a loan on the land. We may then make additional requirements or exceptions SCHEDULE B - SECTION 2 GENERAL EXCEPTIONS The Policy or Policies to be issued will contain Exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company. A. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. B. Any facts, rights, interest, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said land or by making inquiry of person in possession thereof. C. Easements, claims of easement or encumbrances which are not shown by the public records. D. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by public records. E. (1) Unpatented mining claims; (2) reservations or exceptions in patents or in acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (3) Water rights, claims or title to water; whether or not the matters excepted under (1), (2) or (3) are shown by the public records; (4) Indian Tribal Codes or Regulations, Indian Treaty or Aboriginal Rights, including easements or equitable servitudes. F. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor, materials or medical assistance theretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. G. Any service, installation, connection, maintenance, construction, tap or reimbursement charges/costs for sewer, water, garbage or electricity. H. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgages thereon covered by this Commitment. First American Title Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) File No.: NCS-517821-WAl Commitment Page No. 4 SCHEDULE B - SECTION 2 (continued) SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS 1. Lien of the Real Estate Excise Sales Tax and Surcharge upon any sale of said premises, if unpaid. As of the date herein, the excise tax rate for the City of Federal Way is at 1.78%. Levy/Area Code: 1205 For all transactions recorded on or after July 1, 2005: • A fee of $10.00 will be charged on all exempt transactions; • A fee of $5.00 will be charged on all taxable transactions in addition to the excise tax due. 2. Facility Charges, if any, including but not limited to hook-up, or connection charges and latecomer charges for water or sewer facilities of Federal Way Water and Sewer as disclosed by instrument recorded August 4, 1986 under Recording No. 8608041129. 3. Facility Charges, if any, including but not limited to hook-up, or connection charges and latecomer charges for water or sewer facilities of Federal Way Water and Sewer as disclosed by instrument recorded May 12, 1989 under Recording No. 8905120210. Said notice supercedes previous notice recorded June 1, 1981 under Recording No. 8106010916, 4. Facility Charges, if any, including but not limited to hook-up, or connection charges and latecomer charges for water or sewer facilities of Federal Way Water and Sewer as disclosed by instrument recorded January 19, 1993 under Recording No. 9301190272. 5. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: April 26, 1943 under Recording No. 3382778 For: Road Affects: The North 30 feet of Parcel B 6. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: June 12, 1974 under Recording No. 7406120648 In Favor of: Puget Sound Power and Light Company, a Washington corporation For: 3 guy wires and 1 anchor Affects: A 10 foot wide strip located within the North 35 feet of Parcel A at a point approximately 90 feet West of the East line thereof T Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: January 22, 1980 under Recording No. 8001220514 In Favor of: King County Water District No. 124 For: Water line Affects: The Northerly 10 feet of Parcel B First American Tit/e Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment File No.: NCS-517821-WAl Page No. 5 8. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: April 9, 1981 under Recording No. 8104090458 In Favor of: Puget Sound Power and Light Company, a Washington corporation For: Electric transmission and/or distribution system Affects: The North 70 feet of Parcel B Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: August 20, 1985 under Recording No. 8508200805 In Favor of: Lakehaven Sewer District For: Affects: Sewer mains The West 5 feet of Parcel A 10. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: September 27, 1990 under Recording No. 9009270129 In Favor of: Federal Way Water and Sewer For: Water facilities Affects: The West 10 feet of the East 415 feet of the North 215 feet and the West 15 feet of the East 430 feet of the South 15 feet of the North 215 feet of Parcel B Said easement supercedes and cancels easement recorded September 23, 1987 under Recording No. 8709230889. 11. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled Agreement, executed by and between The Federal Way Water and Sewer District, King County, a municipal corporation and Federal Way School District No. 210, recorded March 18, 1992 as Instrument No. 9203182167 of Official Records. Document(s) declaring modifications thereof recorded February 19, 1999 as Recording No. 9902191058 of Official Records. 12. Conditions, notes, easements, provisions contained and/or delineated on the face of the Survey recorded May 19, 1992 under Recording No. 9205199001, recorded in Volume 87 of surveys, at Page(s) 65 through 65A, in King County, Washington. 13. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled Purchase and Sale and Option to Purchase Agreement of the 356 Property in the City of Federal Way, executed by and between Group II, LLC, a Washington limited liability company and Dominion Holdings, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, recorded January 19, 2005 as Instrument No. 20050119001832 of Official Records. 14. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled Private Pump Station Agreement, executed by and between Lakehaven Utility District, King County, a municipal corporation and Dominion Holdings, Inc., D.B.A. ST Fabrication, recorded July 25, 2005 as Instrument No. 20050725002063 of Official Records. FirstAmerican Title Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment File No.: NCS-517821-WAl Page No. 6 15. Deed of Trust and the terms and conditions thereof. Grantor/Trustor: Dominion Holdings LLC, a Washington limited liability company Grantee/Beneficiary: Sterling Savings Bank Trustee: UPF Washington Incorporated Amount: $3,242,459.46 Recorded: April 28, 2011 Recording Information: 20110428000806 Document states that it is for Cross-Default/Cross-Col lateral ization. 16. Assignment of leases and/or rents and the terms and conditions thereof: Assignor: Dominion Holdings LLC, a Washington limited liability company Assignee: Sterling Savings Bank Recorded: April 28, 2011 Recording Information: 20110428000807 17. Evidence of the authority of the individual(s) to execute the forthcoming document for Dominion Holdings LLC, a Washington limited liability company, copies of the current operating agreement should be submitted prior to closing. 18. Evidence of the authority of the officers of DEVCO, Inc., a Washington corporation, to execute the forthcoming instrument, copies of the current Articles of Incorporation, By -Laws and certified copies of appropriate resolutions should be submitted prior to closincL 19. Unrecorded leaseholds, if any, rights of vendors and security agreement on personal property and rights of tenants, and secured parties to remove trade fixtures at the expiration of the term. 20. Deed of Trust and the terms and conditions thereof. Grantor/Trustor: Dominion Holdings, LLC Grantee/Beneficiary: Sterling Savings Bank dba Sterling Bank Trustee: UPF Washington Incorporated Amount: $500,000.00 Recorded: September 26, 2012 Recording Information: 20120926000195 21. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled "Easement Agreement" recorded as of Official Records. First American Title Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment INFORMATIONAL NOTES A. General taxes for the year 2012, which have been paid. Tax Account No. 292104-9095-05 Amount: $21,139.17 Assessed Land Value: $1,551,000.00 Assessed Improvement Value: $0.00 (Affects Parcel A) B. General taxes for the year 2012, which have been paid. Tax Account No. 292104-9107-01 Amount: $23,424.89 Assessed Land Value: $830,000.00 Assessed Improvement Value: $585,800.00 File No.: NCS-517821-WAl Page No. 7 (Affects Parcel B) C. Effective January 1, 1997, and pursuant to amendment of Washington State Statutes relating to standardization of recorded documents, the following format and content requirements must be met. Failure to comply may result in rejection of the document by the recorder. D. Any sketch attached hereto is done so as a courtesy only and is not part of any title commitment or policy. It is furnished solely for the purpose of assisting in locating the premises and First American expressly disclaims any liability which may result from reliance made upon it. E. The description can be abbreviated as suggested below if necessary to meet standardization requirements. The full text of the description must appear in the document(s) to be insured. Ptn Sec 29 Twp 21N Rge 04E, SE Qtr NE Qtr APN: 292104-9095-05 APN: 292104-9107-01 F. According to the application for title insurance, title is to vest in DEVCO, Inc., a Washington corporation. Examination of the records discloses no matters pending against said party(ies). G. A fee will be charged upon the cancellation of this Commitment pursuant to the Washington State Insurance Code and the filed Rate Schedule of the Company. END OF SCHEDULE B First American Title Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment First American Title insurance Company National Commercial Services COMMITMENT Conditions and Stipulations File No.: NCS-517821-WA1 Page No. 8 1. The term "mortgage" when used herein shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument. 2. If the proposed Insured has or acquires actual knowledge of a defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment, other than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in writing, the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act or reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclosure such knowledge to the Company, or if the Company otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter, the Company at its option, may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall not relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations. 3. Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties included under the definition of Insured in the form of Policy or Policies committed for, and only for actual loss incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the requirements hereof, or (b) to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the Policy or Policies committed for and such liability is subject to the Insuring provisions, exclusion from coverage, and the Conditions and Stipulations of the form of Policy or Policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby incorporated by references, and are made a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein. 4. Any claim of loss or damage, whether or not based on negligence, and which arises out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the lien of the Insured mortgage covered hereby or any action asserting such claim, shall be restricted to the provisions and Conditions and Stipulations of this Commitment. First American Title Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment The First American Corporation First American Title Insurance Company National Commercial Services PRIVACY POLICY We Are Committed to Safeguarding Customer Information File No.: NCS-517821-WAl Page No. 9 In order to better serve your needs now and in the future, we may ask you to provide us with certain information. We understand that you may be concerned about what we will do with such information particularly any personal or Financial Information. We agree that you have a right to know how we will utilize the personal information you provide to us. Therefore, together with our parent company, The First American Corporation, we have adopted this Privacy Policy to govern the use and handling of your personal information. Applicability This Privacy Policy governs our use of the information which you provide to us. It does not govern the manner in which we may use Information we have obtained from any other source, such as information obtained from a public record or from another person or entity. First American has also adopted broader guidelines that govern our use of personal information regardless of its source. First American calls these guidelines its Fair Information Values, a copy of which can be found on our website at www.firstam.com. Types of Information Depending upon which of our services you are utilizing, the types of nonpublic personal information that we may collect include: Information we receive from you on applications, forms and in other communications to us, whether in writing, in person, by telephone or any other means; Information about your transactions with us, our affiliated companies, or others; and - Information we receive from a consumer reporting agency. Use of Information We request Information from you for our own legitimate business purposes and not for the benefit of any nonaffiliated party. Therefore, we will not release your information to nonaffiliated parties except: (1) as necessary for us to provide the product or service you have requested of us; or (2) as permitted by law. We may, however, store such information indefinitely, including the period after which any customer relationship has ceased. Such Information may be used for any Internal purpose, such as quality control efforts or customer analysis. We may also provide all of the types of nonpublic personal information listed above to one or more of our affiliated companies. Such affiliated companies Include financial service providers, such as title Insurers, property and casualty Insurers, and trust and investment advisory companies, or cam panles involved in real estate services, such as appraisal companies, home warranty companies, and escrow companies. Furthermore, we may also provide all the information we collect as described above, to companies that perform marketing services on our behalf, on behalf of our affiliated companies, or to other financial institutions with whom we or our affiliated companies have joint marketing agreements. Former Customers Even if you are no longer our customer, our Privacy Policy will continue to apply to you. Confidentiality and Security We will use our best efforts to ensure that no unauthorized parties have access to any of your information. We restrict access to nonpublic personal information about you to those individuals and entities who need to know that information to provide products or services to you. We will use our best efforts to train and oversee our employees and agents to ensure that your information will be handled responsibly and in accordance with this Privacy Policy and First American's Fair Information Values. We currently maintain physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards that comply with federal regulations to guard your nonpublic personal information. c 2001 The First American Corporation - All Rights Reserved First American Title Insurance Company PREPARED FOR DEVCO December 11, 2012 1IN ftz_ Raymond A. Coglas Principal GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PARK 16 APARTMENTS 35703 - 16T" AVENUE SOUTH FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON ES-0529.02 Earth Solutions NW, LLC 2881 —162"d Avenue Northeast Redmond, Washington 98052 Phone:426-284-3300 Fax:425-284-2865 Toll Free: 866-336-8710 DEC 13 2012 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS r— Geolechnicel Engineering Report � Geotechnical Services Are Parformed for Specific Purposes, Persons. and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geolechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi- neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solelyfor the client. No one except you should rely an your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one — noteven you —should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on A Unique Set of Project -Specific Factolrs Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project -specific fac- tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth- erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: • not prepared for you, not prepared for your project, not prepared for the specific site explored, or completed before important project changes were made. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect: • the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse, elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure, composition of the design team, or project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your gealechnicaI engineer of project changes ---even minor ones and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechntral engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed. Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer- ing report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua- tions. Always contact the geolechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems. Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi- neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface condilians throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ ---sometimes significantly — from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. A Report's Recommendations Are Not Fnal Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engi- neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface condiIiorls revealed during crostructlon. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report`s recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation. A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geo- technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti- nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications, Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs Geolechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing lags based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs frorn Pile report can elevate risk Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by 11miling what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con- tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest tee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contrac- tors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci- plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations" many d these provisions indicate where geolechnical engineers' responsi- bilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron- menfal study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoen- vironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk man- agement guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else. Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, irilegraled into a com- prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num- ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings are conveyed in -this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per- formed in connection with the geofechnical engineer's study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven- tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself he sufficient In prevent mold from growing in or on the structure involved. Rely. on Your ASLL-Member Geotechncial Engineer for Additional Assistance Membership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with you ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information. ASFE TOO Ee51 P50916 +■ E011! 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone:301/565-2733 Facsimile:301/589-2017 e-mail: info@asfe.org www.asfe.org Copyright 2t70A by ASFE, fnc. puplrration, reproduction, Or copying or li+is docnmanr, in whole or in part by any means YRratsoever, Is strictly prohibited, except wr'fh ASFE specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or orhervAse extracting wording f[Om this document is permitted Only with the express wriff n permissfnn orASFF, aril only for purposes of scholarly research of bunk review only members of ASFE may use this documenf as a corr+pflmlent to or as an element of a gvolechnical er;giaeerinp report Any other firm, individual, or ether entity that so uses this documenf Wllhour being au ASFE member could As comm>ning negligee[ or r+rlen[ioaal {trdudufentJ mrsrepreserrfation. IIGER06045,0M December 11, 2012 ES-0529.02 DevCo 11100 Main Street, Suite 301 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Attention: Mr. Tom Neubauer Dear Mr. Neubauer: 94 io Earth Solutions NW LLC • Geotechnical Engineering • Construction Monitoring • Environmental Sciences Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) is pleased to present this report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Park 16 Apartments, 35703 - 16t" Avenue South, Federal Way, Washington". Based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the test pit locations, the site is underlain primarily by native soils consisting of dense glacial till deposits, and isolated areas of medium dense, recessional outwash and fill extending to variabie depths. Groundwater was not observed at the test pit locations during the fieldwork (December 2008). Based on the results of our study, the proposed apartment structures can be supported on conventional foundation systems bearing on undisturbed, competent native soil or structural fill. Based on the subsurface conditions observed at the exploration sites, competent soils suitable for support of foundations should be encountered at foundation depths for daylight basements and at depths of between two to four feet below existing grades elsewhere. Where loose or unsuitable soil conditions are exposed at foundation subgrade elevations, compaction of the soils to the specifications of structural fill, or overexcavation and replacement with structural fill will be necessary. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have questions regarding the content of this geotechnical engineering study, please call. S"erely� 1 EARTH SOLUTI N , LL R ymond A Cod al s rincipal 1805 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 • Bellevue, WA 98005 • (425) 449-4704 0 FAX (425) 449-4711 TA13LE OF CONTENTS ES-0529.02 PAGE INTRODUCTION............................................................... General...................................................... 1 Pro•ect Description .................................................... 2 SITE CONDITIONS ............................................... Surface........................................................... Site Topography.......................................................... 3 Existing Improvements ............................................... Subsurface. ...................................................... .. 3 Topsoil..........,............................................................... 3 Fill ........ .................. ........ ........................................ I...... 3 Recessional Outwash Deposits ................................. Glacial Till Deposits ..................................................... 4 Geologic Setting ................................................. 44 Groundwater.............................................................. . CRITICAL AREAS ASSESSMENT.................................................... 44 Landslide Hazard Assessment .............................................. Erosion Hazard Assessment ................................................. 5 Setback Recommendations................................................... 5 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ 5 5 General ............................. ....................................... 6 Site Pre Oration and General Earthwork ......................... Site Stripping Recommendations ................................ 6 Temporary Erosion Control.......................................... 6 In -situ Soils .................. .................................. 6 Slope Fill Placement..................................................... 7 Structural Fill .......................................... 7 Foundations .................................... ................ , 8 Seismic Design Considerations .................................... Slab -On -Grade Floors .................................................. 8 Retainin Walls.... ..................... 8 Detention Vaults .................... •••• 10 Excavations and Slopes.............. .................................... Utility Trench Backfill................................................... 10 10 Pavement Sections ........................................................ 11 LIMITATIONS ............. ...................... 11 Additional Services .................................... I.................. Earth Solutions NW, LLC TABLE OF CONTENTS Cont'd ES-0529.02 GRAPHICS PLATE 1 VICINITY MAP PLATE 2 TEST PIT LOCATION PLAN PLATE 3 SLOPE FILL PLACEMENT PLATE 4 RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DEATAIL PLATE 5 FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL APPENDICES Appendix A Subsurface Exploration Test Pit Logs Appendix B Laboratory Test Results Earth Solutions NW, LLC GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PARK 16 APARTMENTS 36703 -16TH AVENUE SOUTH FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON ES-0529.02 INTRODUCTION General This geotechnical engineering study was prepared for the apartment building complex to be constructed near the southwestern corner of ttie intersection between 16th Avenue South and South 3561h Street in Federal Way, Washington. The purpose of this study was to develop geotechnical recommendations for the proposed development. Our scope of services for completing this geotechnical engineering study included the following: Conducting subsurface explorations within accessible portions of the development envelope; • Laboratory testing of soil samples obtained during the subsurface exploration; Conduct engineering analyses; and, 0 Preparation of this report The following documents/maps were reviewed as part of our report preparation: 0 Conceptual Site Plan prepared by Ross Deckman and Associates, November 2012; ■ Geologic Map of King County, Booth et al, 2006, and; • King County USDA Soil Conservation Survey (SCS). Prolect Description We understand that the subject site will be redeveloped with a multi -family apartment building complex and associated improvements. We anticipate the apartment structures will be on the order of three to four stories in height and may incorporate daylight basement construction at some locations. The structures will be supported on conventional spread footing foundations and will utilize conventional framing construction and slab -on -grade floors. DevCo ES-0529.02 December 11, 2012 Page 2 At the time this report was prepared, specific building load values were not available. However, based on our experience with similar developments we anticipate wall loads will range from about 4 to 8 kips per foot and column loads are anticipated to range from 100 to 200 kips. Slab -on -grade loading will likely be on the order of 150 pounds per square foot (psf). Based on the existing topography, grading will be relatively minimal across the majority of the site, and will likely require cuts and fills on the order of five feet to achieve finish floor elevations. Daylight basements may be utilized to accommodate parking and/or residential units, which will require cuts of about eight to ten feet. The remainder of the site will be developed with general landscaping and asphalt paved drive lanes and parking areas. Finalized stormwater designs were being developed at the time of this report. However, we understand stormwater vaults and possible infiltration facilities are being considered as part of the overall stormwater design. If the above design assumptions are incorrect or change, ESNW should be contacted to review the recommendations in this report. ESNW should review the final design to confirm that our geotechnical recommendations have been incorporated. SITE CONDITIONS Surface The site is located on the west side of 16th Avenue South and just south of South 356th Street in Federal Way, Washington. The approximate location of the property is illustrated on Plate 1 (Vicinity Map) included in this study. The site is irregular in shape and consists of two adjoining tax parcels (King County Parcel Nos. 292104-9095 and 292104-9107) totaling about 16.6 acres in size. The eastern parcel is occupied by a manufacturing business and associated improvements, while the western parcel is vacant, The site is bordered to the north by South 256th Street and an existing commercial property, to the south by residential parcels, to the east by 16tt, Avenue South and to the west by wetlands and open space. Site Topography The existing site topography descends gently to the west-southwest with approximately 40 feet of total elevation change. Gradients are generally less than 20 percent, except an isolated area in the south-central portion of the site, along the boundary between structural improvements and open space. Slope gradients in the south-central portion of the property range up to a maximum of about 28 percent, with a vertical relief of about 15 feet and are likely the result of past grading associated with the existing development features on the subject site. Earth Solutions NW, LLC DevCo December 11, 2012 Existing Improvements ES-0529.02 Page 3 The eastern parcel is currently developed with six marnufacturinglstorage structures and associated improvements, such as utilities and pavement areas. The structures are primarily single -story, metal framed buildings constructed at -grade. A detention pond is located near the southwestern corner of the development area. Minor indicators of past grading, such as areas of cuts and fills associated with existing buildings and paved surfaces, were observed during the fieldwork. Two areas of fill outside the existing development envelope are delineated on the Test Pit Location Plan (Plate 2) attached to this report. The fill area located in the north -central portion of the property consisted primarily of loose soil and contained rubble to a depth of approximately four feet below existing grades. The area of fill located to the west of the development envelope was not explored during the fieldwork because it was located outside the area of structural improvements. The western parcel is currently vacant. Subsurface An ESNW representative observed, logged and sampled ten test pits excavated by an excavator and operator contracted by ESNW. The approximate locations of the test pits are depicted on the Test Pit Location Plan (Plate 2). Please refer to the test pit logs provided in Appendix A for a more detailed description of the subsurface conditions. Below is a description of the typical soil types encountered during the fieldwork. Topsoil Topsoil was encountered at all test pit locations extending to depths of between about 6 to 12 inches. Topsoil and organic -rich soil is not suitable for foundation support, nor is it suitable for use as structural fill. Topsoil or organic -rich soil can be used in non-structural areas if desired. Fill Areas of fill were encountered in the central and western portions of the site. Fill depths encountered in the central portion of the property (TP-3) consisted primarily of silty sand with gravel (unified soil classification SM) in a loose to medium dense condition. The fill contained rubble throughout the extent explored. Recessional Outwash Deposits Outwash type soils were encountered at several test pit locations, primarily in the topographically lower areas of the site, with one exception. Poorly graded sand (SP) and sand with silt (SP-SM) was encountered at test pit locations TP-1, TP-3, TP-6, TP-9 and TP-10 extending to depths of between about six to ten feet below existing grades. Gravel (GM and Gull) was encountered at test pit location TP-3 from a depth of about 9.5 to 12 and in TP-6 from about 2.5 feet to 9.5 feet below existing grades. In general, the relatively clean outwash sand and gravel deposits were in a loose to medium dense condition. Earth Solutions NW, LLC DevCo December 11, 2012 Glacial Till Deposits Silty sand with gravel (SM) glacial till deposits were underlying the topsoil, fill and outwash soils. The primarily in the topographically higher areas of the site. about five feet were in a dense condition. Geologic Setting ES-0529.02 Page 4 encountered at the test pit locations glacial till deposits were encountered Native silty sand with gravel soils below The referenced geologic map resource identifies recessional outwash (Qvr) deposits throughout the site and surrounding areas. The King County Soil Survey (SCS) identifies Everett-Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, EwC across the eastern portions of the development envelope and Everett gravelly sandy loam EvC (5 to 15 percent slopes) to the west. These soils formed in recessional glacial outwash and till and are typically not associated with prime farmland areas within urban settings. These soil units present a slight to moderate erosion hazard and slow to medium runoff. The soil conditions described in subsurface explorations are generally consistent with the soil map designations, but also include glacial till deposits (Qvt). Groundwater Groundwater was not observed at the test pit locations during the fieldwork (December 2008). In general, groundwater can become perched at the contact between the permeable outwash deposits and relatively impermeable glacial till layer. Rates of seepage can range from slight to rapid within the outwash sands and gravels. Groundwater seepage rates and elevations fluctuate depending on many factors, including precipitation duration and intensity, the time of year, and soil conditions. In general, groundwater flow rates are higher during the wetter, winter months. CRITICAL AREAS ASSESSMENT The City of Federal Way code provides criteria for identifying and classifying critical areas and guidance for designing sites containing critical areas. Based on review of pre -application comments provided by the City of Federal Way, geologic critical areas were not identified on the subject site. Landslide Hazard Assessment The existing site topography descends gently to the west-southwest with approximately 40 feet of total elevation change. Gradients are generally less than 20 percent, except an isolated area in the south-central portion of the site, along the boundary between structural improvements and open space. Slope gradients in the south-central portion of the property range up to a maximum of about 28 percent, with a vertical relief of about 15 feet and are likely the result of past grading associated with the existing development features on the subject site. Earth Solutions NW, LLC DevCo ES-0529.02 December 11, 2012 Page 5 Based on the conditions encountered at the test sites, the slopes are underlain by relatively homogeneous, firm glacial deposits. Groundwater seepage was not observed at the test sites. Given the presence of firm native soils and the lack of a shallow groundwater table, in our opinion the site slopes would present a low landslide hazard. In our opinion, the soils observed at our test sites would exhibit slight to moderate erosion hazard characteristics, and can generally maintain high angles of repose. In our opinion, the proposed development will not increase the potential for landslide on the site or surrounding properties. In our opinion, the proposed construction will likely improve slope stability at the site due to improved soil retention via concrete foundation walls, and improved site drainage. Erosion Hazard Assessment The site soils identified across the subject property typically exhibit slight to moderate erosion hazard characteristics. In our opinion, Best Management Practices (BMPs) consistent with current City of Federal Way code regulations should be included in site designs. At a minimum, silt fencing should be placed along the entire dlown-slope development envelope. Construction entrances should be surfaced with quarry spalls to minimize off -site tracking of silt and soil generated during site construction. ESNW should review the proposed Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC) plans to confirm that appropriate means of controlling off -site sedimentation are implemented and to provide supplemental recommendations, as necessary. Setback Recommendations In our opinion, the subject site presents a low landslide hazard. Modification within the sloped areas is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations detailed in this report and City of Federal Way development standards are incorporated into site designs. Standard zoning setbacks are feasible and will not increase the potential for slope instability on the site or surrounding properties. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on the results of our review, construction of the proposed multi -family apartment complex is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The primary geotechnical considerations associated with the proposed development include foundation support, slab -on -grade subgrade support, and structural fill placement. Based on the results of our study, the new structures can be supported on conventional spread and continuous footings bearing on undisturbed, competent native soil or structural fill. We anticipate competent native soils capable of providing adequate foundation support will be encountered at the foundation depth for daylight basement structures and between two to four feet below existing grades, elsewhere. Slab -on -grade areas should be supported on competent native soil or at least one foot of structural fill. Earth Solutlons NW, LLC DevCo ES-0529.02 December 11, 2012 Page 6 In our opinion, the soils generated from cuts throughout the majority of the site should generally be suitable for use as structural fill. However, the existing fill and native glacial till soils are moisture sensitive. Placement and compaction of these soils during wet weather conditions will be difficult. A representative of ESNW should be on -site during fill placement to confirm that adequate compaction is achieved. This study has been prepared for the exclusive use of DevCo, and their representatives. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This study has been prepared in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. Site Preparation and Earthwork Prior to construction, the development areas should be cleared and stripped of vegetation and topsoil. Existing structures will be removed, and existing pavement can be left in place to function as a working surface where feasible. Site Stripping Recommendations Topsoil and organic -rich soil was encountered generally within the upper 6 to 12 inches at the test pit locations. Due to the variable nature of these organic soils, ESNW should observe stripping operations to confirm adequate removal of organic soil. Temporary Erosion Control Temporary construction entrances and drive lanes, consisting of at least 12 inches of quarry spalls can be considered in order to minimize off -site soil tracking and to provide a stable access entrance surface, as necessary. Erosion control measures should consist of silt fencing placed along the down gradient side of the site. Soil stockpiles should be protected to reduce soil erosion. In -situ Soils From a geotechnical standpoint, the soils encountered at the test pit locations are generally suitable for use as structural fill. The soils at the majority of the test sites have a moderate to high sensitivity to moisture and were generally in a moist condition at the time of the explorations (December 2008). Soils encountered during site excavations that are excessively over the optimum moisture content will require moisture conditioning prior to placement and compaction. Conversely, soils that are substantially below the optimum moisture content may require moisture conditioning through the addition of water prior to use as structural fill. Earth Solutions NW, LLC DevCo December 11, 2012 Slope Fill Placement ES-0529.02 Page 7 In general, fill placement throughout the existing sloped areas of the site is feasible, provided the existing ground surface is benched and the toe of the fill is keyed into the existing grade. General guidelines for slope fill placement are provided on Plate 3 of this report. The project geotechnical engineer should be on -site during the fill placement to assess the slope fill construction, and to provide supplemental recommendations for the fill placement. The face of the fill slope must be compacted to 95 percent of modified proctor. Structural Fill Structural fill is defined as compacted soil placed in foundation, slab -on -grade, and roadway areas. Fills placed to construct permanent slopes and throughout retaining wall and utility trench backfill areas are also considered structural fill. Soils placed in structural areas should be placed in loose lifts of 12 inches or less and be compacted to a relative compaction of 90 percent, based on the laboratory maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor Method (ASTM D-1557). Soil placed in the upper 12 inches of slab -on -grade and pavement areas and face of slopes should be compacted to a relative compaction of at least 95 percent. Imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a well graded granular soil with a moisture content that is at or near the optimum level. During wet weather conditions, imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a well graded granular soil with a fines content of 5 percent or less defined as the percent passing the #200 sieve, based on the minus three-quarter inch fraction. Foundations Based on the results of our study, the multi story mixed -use structures can be supported on conventional spread and continuous footings bearing on competent, undisturbed native soil or structural fill. Based on the site soil conditions encountered at the test pit locations, competent native soils suitable for support of foundations should be encountered at foundation depths for daylight basement structures and at depths of between two to four feet below existing grades elsewhere. Where loose or unsuitable soil conditions are exposed at foundation subgrade elevations, compaction of the soils to the specifications of structural fill, or overexcavation and replacement with structural fill, may be necessary. Provided foundations will be supported as described above, the following parameters can be used for design of new foundations: Allowable soil bearing capacity 3,000 psf (competent native soil or structural fill) Passive earth pressure 350 pcf (equivalent fluid) Coefficient of friction 0.40 Earth Solutions NW, LLC DevCo ES-0529.02 December 11, 2012 Page 8 A one-third increase in the allowable soil bearing capacity can assumed for short-term wind and seismic loading conditions. The above passive pressure and friction values include a factor -of - safety of 1.5. With structural loading as expected, total settlement in the range of one inch and differential settlement of about one-half inch is anticipated. The majority of the settlements should occur during construction, as dead loads are applied. Seismic Design Considerations The 2009 International Building Code specifies several soil profiles that are used as a basis for seismic design of structures. Based on the soil conditions observed at the test sites, Site Class C, from table 1613.5.2, should be used for design. In our opinion, the site has a low susceptibility to liquefaction given the lack of an established groundwater table and the density of the soil underlying the site. Slab -On -Grade Floors Slab -on -grade floors for the proposed buildings should be supported on a firm and unyielding subgrade consisting of competent native soil or structural fill. Unstable or yielding areas of the subgrade should be recompacted or overexcavated and replaced with suitable structural fill prior to construction of the slab. A capillary break consisting of a minimum of four inches of free draining crushed rock or gravel should be placed below the slab. The free draining material should have a fines content of 5 percent or less (percent passing the #200 sieve, based on the minus three-quarter inch fraction). In areas where slab moisture is undesirable, installation of a vapor barrier below the slab should be considered. If a vapor barrier is to be utilized it should be a material specifically designed for use as a vapor barrier and should be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. Retaining Walls Retaining walls must be designed to resist earth pressures and applicable surcharge loads. The following parameters can be used for retaining wall design: Active earth pressure (yielding wall) ■ At -rest earth pressure (restrained wall) • Traffic surcharge for passenger vehicles (where applicable) • Passive earth pressure ■ Coefficient of friction ■ Seismic surcharge 35 pcf (equivalent fluid) 50 pcf 70psf (rectangular distribution) 350 pcf (equivalent fluid) 0.4 6H (where H equals retained height) Earth Solutions NW, LLC DevCo ES-0529.02 December 11, 2012 Page 9 Additional surcharge loading from adjacent foundations, sloped backfill, or other loads should be included in the retaining wall design, if applicable. Drainage should be provided behind retaining walls such that hydrostatic pressures do not develop. If drainage is not provided, hydrostatic pressures should be included in the wall design, as appropriate. Retaining walls should be backfilled with free draining material that extends along the height of the wall, and a distance of at least 18 inches behind the wall. The upper one foot of the wall backfill can consist of a less permeable soil, if desired. A perforated drain pipe should be placed along the base of the wall, and connected to an approved discharge location. A typical retaining wall drainage detail is provided on Plate 4. ❑rainage Groundwater was not observed at the test pit locations during the fieldwork (December 2008), However, perched groundwater should be anticipated in site excavations particularly during the winter and spring months. Temporary measures to control surface water runoff during construction would likely involve interceptor trenches and sumps, as necessary. Based on the soil and groundwater conditions observed at the test pit locations, extensive dewatering of excavations will likely not be necessary. In our opinion, due to the relatively free draining nature of the gravel deposits reported at the majority of the test sites, eliminating perimeter footing drains around the proposed structures can be considered. If the footing drain is eliminated, a representative of ESNW should observe the foundation excavations to confirm soil conditions. A typical foundation drain detail is provided as Plate 5. Detention Vaults Where applicable, competent native soils suitable for support of vault foundations are anticipated to be exposed at subgrade elevations for detention vault structures. For design, the following geotechnical parameters should be used: Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity Active Earth Pressure (Yielding Wall) At -Rest Earth Pressure (Restrained Wall) Soil Unit Weight Active Earth Pressure Coefficient (Ka) At -Rest Earth Pressure Coefficient (Ko) Earth Solutions NW, LLC 5,000 psf (dense native) 35 pcf 50 pcf 125 pcf 0.28 0.40 DevCo ES-0529.02 December 11, 2012 Page 10 The geotechnical engineer should observe the vault excavation to confirm soil and groundwater conditions. As necessary, supplement geotechnical recommendations for foundation support will be provided. Excavations and Slv es The Federal Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA) provide soil classification in terms of temporary slope inclinations. Based on the soil conditions encountered at the test pit locations, the upper approximately four to five feet of the site soils and relatively cohesionless sand (SP) and gravel (GW) as described in the test pit logs attached to this report are classified as Type C by OSHA/WISHA. Temporary slopes over four feet in height in Type C soils must be sloped no steeper than 1.5H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical). The glacial till soils classified as Type A by OSHAIWISHA. Temporary slopes over four feet in height in Type A soils must be sloped no steeper than 0.75H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical). If the recommended temporary slope inclination cannot be achieved, temporary shoring may be necessary to support excavations. Permanent slopes should maintain a gradient of 2H:1V, or flatter, and should be planted with vegetation to enhance stability and to minimize erosion. The geotechnical engineer should observe temporary and permanent slopes to confirm the slope inclinations, and to provide additional excavation and slope recommendations, as necessary. Utillijy Trench Backfill In our opinion, the soils anticipated to be exposed in utility excavations will be generally suitable for support of utilities. Organic or highly compressible soils encountered in the trench excavations should not be used for supporting utilities. In general, the on -site soils should be suitable for use as structural backfill in the utility trench excavations, provided the soil is at or near the optimum moisture content at the time of placement and compaction. Moisture conditioning of the soils may be necessary prior to use as structural fill. Utility trench backfill should be placed and compacted to the specifications of structural fill provided in this report, or to the applicable City of Federal Way (or water and sewer district) specifications. Pavement Sections The performance of site pavements is largely related to the condition of the underlying subgrade. To ensure adequate pavement performance, the subgrade should be in a firm and unyielding condition when subjected to proofrolling with a loaded dump truck. Structural fill in pavement areas should be compacted as recommended in the "Site Preparation and Earthwork" section of this report. It is possible that soft, wet, or otherwise unsuitable subgrade areas may still exist after base grading activities. Areas of unsuitable or yielding subgrade conditions will require remedial measures such as overexcavation, placement of a geotextile and thicker crushed rock or structural fill sections prior to pavement. Earth Solutions Nw, LLC DevCo December 11, 2012 ES-0529.02 Page 11 For lightly loaded pavement areas subjected primarily to passenger vehicles, the following preliminary pavement sections can be considered: Two inches of asphalt concrete (AC) placed over four inches of crushed rock base (CRB), or; Two inches of AC placed over three inches of asphalt treated base (ATB). For relatively high volume, heavily loaded pavements subjected to moderate to high, loaded truck traffic, the following preliminary pavement sections can be considered: • Three inches of asphalt concrete (AC) placed over six inches of crushed rock base (CRB), or; Three inches of AC placed over four inches of asphalt treated base (ATB). The AC, ATB and CRB materials should conform to WSDCT specifications. All soil base material should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density. Final pavement design recommendations can be provided once final traffic loading has been determined. LIMITATIONS The recommendations and conclusions provided in this geotechnical engineering study are professional opinions consistent with the level of care and skill that is typical of other members in the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. A warranty is not expressed or implied. Variations in the soil and groundwater conditions observed at the test locations may exist, and may not become evident until construction. ESNW should reevaluate the conclusions in this geotechnical engineering study if variations are encountered. Additional Services ESNW should have an opportunity to review the final design with respect to the geotechnical recommendations provided in this report. ESNW should also be retained to provide testing and consultation services during construction. Earth Solutions NW, LLC ALA: nn if S.. . ,+CAM f SLTE I Tts vn r = =a AW ti. _ ;; ... n' 'yti c•. Ln Y'- �. . :rYr f.:....- 751 Sr Gib.a '� IS t`y� :."?i7.•�' Imo, i toll a z � 4' _ '�' �:.;R•'`a�S s33.[ll.l�� ' ,_1:.31L � � 2r ri f �I.•' i cf • L 11 is S 3;fir. f '-'v'� ti• - � w 7 . 1 i0v iv fr a v .-1'.4, - - --.: � . . - - - �.^ 'AFL �ldl:':a• vOr -.. h"r7al ���� •ems•• :- `-�¢ �= -W ,. �.'rio:'1;: � Fr -jilt 7 :I F61, rE.�. __ jnili7h'• _ a.: _ IF �r 151 l 1�•:.::� "':{il .- yam.. _ .':-.'•' ? . �:� c , _cr'- rr 'C 1'W "'C I FK _.. LU Reference: King County, Washington Map 775 By The Thomas Guide Rand McNally 32nd Edition f•� ti-'� CEI ,r i� L 3,3 iTr, wj - `Li i - - Earth Solutions NWuc Vicinity Map Park 16 Apartments Federal Way, Washington NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ESNW cannot be Drwn. GLS Date 12/11/2012 Proj. No. 0529.02 responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate. Checked RAC Date Dec. 2012 Plate 1 L_J L S. 356TH STREET _t TP-10 9 � I F Lu I � Approximate +�IUoA of Rubble r Fill P3 E0 MC TO c pF 0' I — ; 'll • y tot j. +,'Naa d I r - 1I 1 4y �.' •f ,i�r 1 1 0 75 150 300 1"= 150' Scale in Fesl LEGEND TP-1--1—ApproAmale Location of ESNW Test Pit, Pro)_ No. ES-0529.01, Dec. 2008 Proposed Building Subject Site I I Welland Area (Delineated By Others) Approximate Limits of Fill NOTE: The grephips shorn on N's plele are not intended la design pupoirrnpmi>+YX dMwXlaNt, tMmlrlp lBYntrY� 18pmd.m b knrtlonM1leYtllhtlAr �prmdr+xbtNmt d ebwo,brredmeastovrad%Arann rw or nleiproodon of the d¢hs by others MOTE R. plesn MW rw¢rre—AWir.195" ++a to ,,W,hk for rn1• whaegugd rcltl�gryroCdn¢ d _ r i*TI .n nW6gTam bW 8.wr repiej¢Cem d th-PW SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOTA CONSTRUCTION DRAWING Bench and Keyway Fill to consist of suitable granular material approved by the Geotechncial Engineer. Final Slope Gradient Compacted Slope Face Elm N "Key" (Minimum 2' Deep by 6' Wide) NOTES: o Slope should be stripped of topsoil and unsuitable materials prior to excavating Key Way or benches. o Benches will typically be equal to a dozer blade width, approximately 8 feet, but a minimum of 4 feet. o Final slope gradient should be 2 : 1 (horizontal : vertical). o Final slope face should be densified by over -building with compacted fill and trimming back to shape or by compaction with dozer or roller. o Planting or hydroseeding slope face with a rapid growth deep rooted vegetative mat will reduce erosion potential of slope area. o Use of pegged in place jute matting or geotechnical fabric will help maintain the seed and mulch in place until the root system has an opportunity to germinate. Typical "Bench" Keyed into Existing Slope Face Geotechnical Engineer to Verify Existing Grade Structural fill should be placed in thin loose lifts not exceeding 12 inches in thickness. Each lift should be compacted to no less than the degree specified in the "Site Preparation and Earth Work" section of this report. No additional lift should be placed until compaction is achieved. Earth Solutions NWuc SLOPE FILL DETAIL Park 16 Apartments Federal Way, Washington EDrwn. GLS Date12/11/2012 Proj. No. 0529.02 Checked RAC Date Dec. 2012 Plate 3 III —III — III r NOTES: 18" Min O o o a ^a d ❑ VD d d° o Q° v O G1 O p Q voQc ppC) oaf}] flo oQ❑ ❑ aD❑❑Q ❑ D ❑ ❑ 0❑ flovv a 0 00 0 o ° o v V ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑� ❑ ❑o ❑0 p o o ❑ a p Q ❑ Q a ° d ❑ Q o oQ o a 0vv� v D Qo oQ ❑ a n o ❑ aoo °aQ v Qovw�`6 oa v o d Qo 0 av a 0 pa o ❑ a C) 0 -0 v ❑ a o o Q o Q a o❑ o Cba p ❑ ❑ 4 n a aa❑p❑av d v ° o p Q a Q o0 ❑ o Q ❑ ❑ o ❑o da o ❑ Q oa o Q o ❑ ❑a v° oQ o 0 0 C .a0 ❑ v o❑ pQ o 8 oa Q e o p O❑"a a Qo Q co a Q : �° • Free Draining Backfill should consist of soil having less than 5 percent fines. Percent passing #4 should be 25 to 75 percent. • Sheet Drain may be feasible in lieu of Free Draining Backfill, per ESNW recommendations. • Drain Pipe should consist of perforated, rigid PVC Pipe surrounded with 1" Drain Rock. LEGEND: a o do o Free Draining Structural Backfill 0 ❑fl M.-"Sti1 inch Drain Rock ' I: Structural Fill Perforated Drain Pipe (Surround In Drain Rock) SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING s Earth Solutions NW r.tc RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL Park 16 Apartments Federal Way, Washington Drwn. GLS Date 12/11/2012 Proj. No. 0529.02 Checked RAC Date Dec. 2012 Plate 4 Perforated Rigid Drain Pipe (Surround with 1" Rock) NOTES: • Do NOT tie roof downspouts to Footing Drain. • Surface Seal to consist of 12" of less permeable, suitable soil. Slope away from building. LEGEND: Surface Seal; native soil or other low permeability material. d•l•r• ti•�•ti•ti• s•r•r•r. 1" Drain Rock rtirtirtirtif SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT OT SCALE NOTA CONSTRUCTION DRAWING S I Earth ` 'salutio NW L c �Eryg�neerfng, Consb ntai Sc FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL Park 16 Apartments Federal Way, Washington Drwn. GLS Date12/11/2012 Proj. No. 0529.02 Checked RAC Date Dec. 2012 Plate 5 1 APPENDIX A SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION ES-0529.02 The subsurface conditions at the site were exp4ored by excavating a total of ten test pits across accessible portions of the property. The subsurface explorations were completed in December 2008. The approximate test pit locations are illustrated on Plate 2 of this report. Logs of the test pits are provided in this Appendix. The test pits were excavated to a maximum depth of ten feet below existing grades. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Earth Solutions NWLLC SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART SYMBOLS TYPICAL MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH LETTER DESCRIPTIONS CLEAN ■ '='so GW WELL -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO GRAVEL GRAVELS ± FINES AND % • GRAVELLY Q❑° SOILS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) o paQ p GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL- SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE O Q ep OR NO FINES COARSE GRAINED GRAVELS WITH ° ❑ ° ° p GM SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - SOILS MORE THAN 50% FINES Q SILT MIXTURES OF COARSE a FRACTION RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLE GC CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - AMOUNT OF FINES) CLAY MIXTURES MORE THAN 50% SAND CLEAN SANDS .SW WELL -GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES OF MATERIAL IS AND LARGERTHAN SANDY NO.200 SIEVE SIZE SOILS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) SP POORLY -GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO FINES SANDS WITH SM SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT MORE THAN 50% FINES MIXTURES OF COARSE FRACTION PASSING ON NO. 4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLE SC CLAYEY SANDS, SAND -CLAY AMOUNT OF FINES) MIXTURES INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE ML SANDS. ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY SILTS INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO FINE AND LIQUID LIMIT CL MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY GRAINED CLAYS LESS THAN 50 CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY SOILS CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS OL ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC - - SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL 1 MH INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SMALLER THANN SILTY SOILS N0.200 SIEVE slzE SILTS AND LIQUID LIMIT CI I INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH CLAYS GREATER THAN50 PLASTICITY OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS"' ''—''"' pT PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH 01 01 HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS DUAL SYMBOLS are used to indicate borderline soil classifications. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the material presented in the attached logs. Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-1 PAGE 1 OF 1 1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 Wo Ril IQ. Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT 84 tLey Road Grau _ PROJECT NAME _Park 16 Apartments PROJECT NUMBER D529.02 PROJECT LOCATION Federal WaW� Washi ton r3g_ DATE STARTED 12115/08 COMPLETED 12115 8 G8 GROUND ELEVATION 254 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW ExC8v8t1�19�__ GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION --- LOGGED BY SSR _ T CHECKED BY SSR _ AT END OF EXCAVATION --- NOTES Surface Gravel AFTER EXCAVATION — w (L U a W an W d 110 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION .. J TESTS rA J M Z U' Q 0 Brown silty SAND, loose, moist (Fill) SM SP- SM 5 MC = 8.30% Fines = 28.60% SM t 0 MC = 9.200A x 00 with silt, medium dense, MGM gravel, dense, moist [USDA Classification: very gravelly LOAM Test pit terminated at 10.5 fleet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 10.5 feet. 251 Earth Solutions NW 1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT Abbey Road Group PROJECT NUMBER 0529.02 DATE STARTED 12/15/08 COMPLETED 12/15/08 EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating EXCAVATION METHOD LOGGED BY SSR CHECKED BY SSR NOTES Depth of Topsoil &Sod 8": field rass TEST PIT NUMBER TP-2 PAGE 1 OF 1 PROJECT NAME Park 16 Apartments PROJECT LOCATION Federal W8,y1,Wa$h�lotton GROUND ELEVATION 244 It TEST PIT SIZE GROUND WATER LEVELS: AT TIME OF EXCAVATION — AT END OF EXCAVATION — AFTER EXCAVATION — _ W 0 w a. W W _j g TESTS o Mz Cl) U = O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Brown silty SAND, loose, moist SM 3.0 -becomes medium dense - 241.0 Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist - SM 2s9.a Test pit terminated at 5.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 5.0 feet. Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-3 1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Wo @1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 :LIEN? Abbey Road Groff _ PROJECT NAME Park 16 ADartments PROJECT NUMBER 0529.02 PROJECT LOCATION Federal Wa Washingtan_ SATE STARTED 12/15/08 COMPLETED 12/15/08 GROUND ELEVATION 248 ft TEST PIT SIZE °XCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: XCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION — _OGGED BY SSR — CHECKED BY SSR ._ , AT END OF EXCAVATION — NOTES Depth of Topsoil &.Sod 6": field grass AFTER EXCAVATION — w o� U rri a W 0a TESTS ci a o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION W" aj �z a MC = 8.50% MC = 2.60% Brown silty SAND with grave[, loose, moist (Fill) SM M -trace rubble SP- SM GM Brown poorly graded fine SAND with sift, medium dense; moist -oxide staining Brown stlty GRAVEL with sand, dense, moist -contains large cobbles SM 1� g Gray silty SAND With gravel, sense, moist MC = 6.10% Test pit terminated at 12.5 feet below existing grade. No grc during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 12.5 feet. Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-4 1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT Abbey Road Group _ PROJECT NAME Park 16 Apartments PROJECT NUMBER 05Z9.02 PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way, Washington DATE STARTED 12/15/08 COMPLETED 12/15/08 GROUND ELEVATION 220 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION — LOGGED BY SSR CHECKED BY SSR AT END OF EXCAVATION — NOTES Depth of Tops H & Sod 6": field grass scotch broom AFTER EXCAVATION -- w r U _ wW W to TESTS to O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION o a az Cn 0 Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist -becomes medium dense MC = 11.30% Fines = 14.60% -becomes dense and gray 5 [USDA Classification: very gravelly LOAM] SM 10 MC = 11.50% 9,p _ 209.0 Test pit terminated at 11.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 11.0 feet. Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-5 1 PAGE 1 OF 1 { 1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 20 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT Abbev Road Group PROJECT NAME Park 16 Apartments v _ PROJECT NUMBER 0529.02 PROJECT LOCATION Federai_W� WB,� stf' DATE STARTED 12115/08 COMPLETED 12/15/08 GROUND ELEVATION 222 ft TEST PIT SIZE _ EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION LOGGED BY SSR CHECKED BY SSR AT END OF EXCAVATION NOTES Depth of Tnpsntl & Sod W: brambles and ftld grass AFTER EXCAVATION -- w o- U V) a iG w J� 0° TESTS v a p MATERIAL DESCRIPTION r1J �J Ov a.Z C7 Q a I Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, maist -becomes medium dense MC = 7.90% 1 l 1 1 -becomes dense MC = 4.20% —jam' Test pit temminated at 10.0 feet below existing grade. Na groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 10.0 feet. n Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-6 1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT Abbev Road Group PROJECT NAME -Park 16 Apartments PROJECT NUMBER 0529.02 PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way, Washirtaton DATE STARTED 12/15/08 COMPLETED 12/15/08 GROUND ELEVATION 208 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating_ GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION — LOGGED BY SSR CHECKED BY SSR AT END OF EXCAVATION —• NOTES Field Grass AFTER EXCAVATION -- w U _ a W W CO TESTS 0.0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION wQ.. a. =) az gJ 0 0 Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist SM 2.5 2as-5 well graded GRAVEL with sand, medium dense, moist `Brown ■ MC = 3.90% + r Fines = 3.40% r • r• GW r a r ■ r• [USDA Classification: extremely gravelly coarse SAND] �r * 6.5 _� 201.5 MC = 5.90% o Gray silty GRAVEL with sand, dense, moist Fines = 15.60% — GM [USDA Classification: very gravelly sandy LOAM] iW5 10 MC = 8.20% SM 14.0 Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist Sg$ p Fines = 23.00% [USDA Classification: gravelly sandy LOAM] _ Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet Ito below existing grade. groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 10.0 feet. Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-7 F 1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT ALbff Road Group PROJECT NAME Park 16ADartments PROJECT NUMBER 0529.02 PROJECT LOCATION _Federal Way, WAfthinntnn DATE STARTED 12/15/08 — COMPLETED 12/1&= GROUND ELEVATION 212 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating _ GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION -- LOGGED BY SSR CHECKED BY SSR AT END OF EXCAVATION -- NOTES Depth of Topsoil & Sod 8": field grass & scotch broom AFTER EXCAVATION — w Lu ui a w CO TESTS v a 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 111 •.+ J � V) � J a z C9 rn 0 Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist A a MC = 9.50% -becomes medium dense SM I I I I -becomes dense MC = 11.20% I l17.0Test pit terminated at 7.0 fBmE helDW eidstin9 grade. No groundwater envoi excavation. Bottom of test pit at 7.0 feet. Earth Solutions NW rM r 1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 qWzBellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT Abbey Road Group PROJECT NUMBER 05Z9.02 DATE STARTED 12/15/08 COMPLETED 12/15/OB EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating EXCAVATION METHOD LOGGED BY SSR — CHECKED BY SSR NOTES Death of Topsoil & Sod 12":_brush W � w U = w W TESTS (d _ O ❑ aZ ❑ V) 5 MC = 7.90% Fines = 12.50% MC = 9.10% Fines = 13.70% 6�N TEST PIT NUMBER TP-S PAGE 1 OF 1 PROJECT NAME Park 16 ments PROJECT LOCATION Feder, Washington GROUND ELEVATION 206 ft TEST PIT SIZE GROUND WATER LEVELS: AT TIME OF EXCAVATION AT END OF EXCAVATION -- AFTER EXCAVATION — MATERIAL DESCRIPTION silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist Brown silty GRAVEL with sand, medium dense, moist GM r �}]� [USDA Classification: very gravelly fine sandy LOAM] SM silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist [USDA Classification: very gravelly sandy LOAM] Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 10.0 feet. Earth Solutions NW 1805 136th Place N.E_, Suite 201 MWBellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT Abbey Road Gro PROJECT NUMBER 052902 DATE STARTED 12/15/08 COMPLETED 12115/08 EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating _ EXCAVATION METHOD LOGGED BY SSR _ CHECKED BY SSR NOTES Depth of Topsoil & Sod 6�scat�h.broom & brambles _ w o- v D~. v LU _j Co TESTS IL W O 2 z C7 5 a SM I C, 1 r1i 1 n1U1Y1aC117% r r-U PAGE 1 OF 1 PROJECT NAME Paste 15 ADartments T PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way, Washion --- GROUND ELEVATION 250 ft TEST PIT SIZE GROUND WATER LEVELS: AT TIME OF EXCAVATION --- AT END OF EXCAVATION — AFTER EXCAVATION — MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Brown silty SAND, loose, moist Brown poorly graded SANG with silt and gravel, loose, moist MC = 6.70% SM I �111 -becomes medium dense MC=11.10% 1 SM silty SAND with gravel, dense; moist Test pit terminated at 8.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 8.5 feet. C9 Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-10 Isom 1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 us Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT Abbev Road Group PROJECT NAME Parts 16 Apartments PROJECT NUMBER 2q .02 PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way, Washington DATE STARTED 12/15/08 COMPLETED 12/15/08 GROUND ELEVATION 256 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION — LOGGED BY SSR CHECKED BY SSR AT END OF EXCAVATION — NOTES Depth of Topsoil & Sod 6": scotch broom & brambles AFTER EXCAVATION — w U _ rW W co TESTS 0 O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION CL Q Z C9 0 Brown silty SAND, loose, moist SM 1 5 254.5 Brown poorly graded fine SAND, loose, moist MC = 4.40% Fines = 2,00% [USDA Classification: very gravelly SAND] 5 -slight caving - SP -becomes medium dense 10 MC = 7.00% io_o 2ag.o Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. i Bottom of test pit at 10.0 feet. APPENDIX B LABORATORY TEST RESULTS ES-0529.02 Earth Solutions NW, LLC Earth Solutions GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION _ 2881 152nd Avenuenue N..E.E. ' Redmond, WA 98052 c Telephone: (425) 284-3300 Fax: (425) 284-2855 CLIENT Abbey Road Group PROJECT NAME -ST Fabriacation Redevelopment _ PROJECT NUMBER ES-529.01 PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER 6 4 3 2 1.5 1 314 112" 3 4 6 810 1410 20 30 40 50 60 100 :•10 20 10 mill NEIIN9111 S 9 bc I - 11 oil no in 76 I ism 65 ON in Earth Solutions NW, LLC GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION 2881152nd Avenue N.E- Redmond, WA 98052 Telephone: (425) 284-3300 Fax: (425) 284-2855 CLIENT-AbbeY%cgd• Grote _____ __ PROJECT NAME ST Fabdacaticn Redevel4 Epent PROJECT NUMBER ES-529.C1_�____ _ PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way I I c CIFVF f1PFNIN( IN INCHES !Y- U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER 0 101: a u I-' COBBLES Specimen Identification • TP-1 7.0ft. M TP-4 4.Oft. A TP-6 3.5ft. n * TP-6 7.0ft. z (DI TP-6 10.0ft. aSpecimen Identification TP-1 7.0ft. o RI TP-4 4.Oft. W A TP-6 3.5ft. * TP-6 7.Oft. R'j O 1 TP-6 10-Oft. GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY coarse fine coarse medium fine Classification LL PL PI Cc . Cu � USDA Gray very gravelly loam, USCS: SM USDA: Gray very gravelly sandy loam, USCS: SM USDA: Gray extremely gravelly sand, USCS: GW 2.36 42.19 USDA: Gray very gravelly sandy loam, USCS: GM _ USDA. Gray gravelly sandy loam, USCS: SM _ D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Sill °kClay 37.5 0.102 30.0 28.6 _5.515 37.5 4.94 0.371 .8 j 44.6 14.6 F.4 37.5 11.629 2.753 T 0.276.5 32.1 3.4 75 319 11.078 0.147 .9 53.1 23.0 REPORT DISTRIBUTION ES-0529.02 EMAIL ONLY Devco 11100 Main Street, Suite 301 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Attention: Mr. Tom Neubauer EMAIL ONLY CPH Consultants 733 — 71" Avenue Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98033 Attention: Mr. Matt Hough Earth Solutions NW, LLC 20NRlG n.cc,nr� � - COYORE11ENg11E PLAN SSV10A1K11. FE t 2921049036 2921w909D t I S6I 76765' ,F�cr•�'� + 29TOT 21t%01091� • - 1 :� 1 LOT 1 1 5 1 • - - _ • Y. - • e°i`aop0i n S o ! e S \. •-r O O . . . . . . . . . . OM4 0 VI •.-_ . . . . . . . .•.�.- •.• y- - - • . • _•••--.-•.-. asm mms 1 J wAW411{11hc�., =`•t X;• j tt { qn� !va • - • - - " • - - • ' - - - • ' - "A dw+•w�in4� f Ir i,n nnI 1 f•. i9iIw9003 2921049092 i 1 TOT Y•-- •.•.•.•.-. .•.•.-. ' .raa,.c.wa., r.� `\. I �ao�8 I I Lora + ' I { i �. { • uITVJOtTIM . - - . Is at ` I L ,Nr 1 I I el ..... it 2921049006 ..... .. -._-.-.. -•. .. is ? I ado 1==$ A C cC I L ' 51 29712�r--------- __ -- SEWER EASEMENT ALONG r • �' _ - •aid -[ ¢ ,d,po gq law3 -nlc„n-----^_- --_-�_ M ' ' i THE NEST 5' OF THE HEST P . . k 1 I V PROPERTY LINE RECORDING 1. • . • - - - - • y •'' V I NO. 8508200505 I . _ _ - SO I. . j) i 1 5.a ac yp 6A a0 I • • _ �• ! •~ I 1 eejppI 1 6.OB SD I ]D SO 5tl 18Y 46 4A 56 I• •. . 40 .- - •' '� 'l f _� nM.71 ;, .1 n� ' '_--- ----- I 6pa 4GA 1 LAB $ I _ _ •I:su - Ir --L ----- I. 1 _._ _._ :/,•:.: _•_!.-�'• 1 fI[ � An�1 nn � �! 9m a.w a.w , 9OA 40A 0- .404 I .. -�- A166paA^ . V I a -- :•:•: :•::•� _'.: 4$� �e� t i �a;aas _�_�_� �_� Lam, x '6P Y4 -0 1 _1 „owl 1 rlv ,- �j - - _. -. -._. 1DT� a�Hai Ia=� 61 g-' i a - • . • .1 2 LOTS r - - 8.1 fu1 -l:IL I m r IT 6A Tr 1 1 fiA6 bT] i �- '.•; '. �TA4L6 f + --_ ].9 4A ® GPra ]6 ]p 66 ¢ .� { ae i Oe8 l I e.9 aoa 466 r a"' 7a ap E 6a sp LJ _ ----- oa •t , � 1 e.o _ � "0 ]116 ].Ce ]o _..—._�..—..,..,__ E_'—aso - a -{ __ 20 iuAbP. BaEA� � xI I I I I a°ra ;°� S0 a.o 69 - --- �. ]A y4 So 10 ]S ��r'�+��►r�--->!. 71 i ai .. I 10B oe a.p9 3.0 Sze ? .R92 +�� I P ]C 9A ep • , 1 — � 2921049060 I 2921w9W1 I + + I I i 2921049089 1 2921049072 f SIID7 n2T04w71 j ! I , i f ,� I ± ❑ f 2921w90079 ' 2921049065 I 2921W ' 2921049062 umn I a I 1 r I I I 1 1 I 2921049054 2921Iaw y + �I�••�• I I I I I r 1 I F I}II�I(I f r I ++ h ft SITE PLAN -- 293u-472s - 0' 51. 100, 150' 200' SCALE: 1-=50' PROJECT STATISTICS �4 PROJECT SCOPE: : MULTI-FAMILYINC,,TOM NEU TIAL �AUER RECREATION CENTER REQUIRED SETBACKS: DEVCO, NC„ TOM NEUBAUER, (425) 453-9551 FRONT: 3 FT (ADDITIONAL R O W,) OCCUPANCY CLASS : R-2{STACKED MULTIFAMILY APARTMENTS) PARKING: REQUIRED: 1.7/UNIT 499 STALLS OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS: PARCEL NUMB PARCEL NUMBERS: PARCEL A: 2921049107 20 FT IWILDIHO) 20 FT {TYPE III LANDSCAPING) R-3 (CARRIAGE MUSES) 1.6A1NIT 469 STALLS (2%ACCESSIBLE) REQUIRED; 400 SFANA7 TOT LOT • 117,YL10 SF I]TAL) . 11.720TOTAL SITE LOCATION: PARCEL B: 2921w9107 AVE S. 8 S 356TH ST., FEDERAL WAY, WA REAR: 5 FT [BUILAING) q-yg ( C, CENTER)(25 CONSTRUCTION TYPE: V-B [CARRIAGE Ii0U5ES IREM ) S.F. PAIN AREA) SITE AREA: EXISTING: EXISTING: 726.1 D6,50 SF (16.67 AC) REQUIRED 25 FT jWE7LANQR CATEGORY III BUFFER 2✓� FT ) (1h'ETLANO B CATEGORY 1 BUFFER) V-B (RC-C. CENTER) PROPOSED: TOTAL 472 STALLS IS 611 UNIT1 OPEN PLAY AREA =56,600 SF (50%OF TOTAL REQUIREMENT) FT 40 FT DEDICATION: 3,924 SF 0,10 AC ( ) PROPOSED: SIDE (SOUTH): 5 FT (BUILDING) V-B (BL11L0rNG5 B, 0, E, P) REGULAR 271 PROPOSED. (40 x MIN, ) JURISDICTION: 722,152.31 (16,57 AC) CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 20 F7 (TYPE II LANDSCAPING) V-A (BADINGS A. J, K, L. M. V, X, AA) GARAGE 81 (21%) [25%ALLOWED) TOT LOTS 40x60 ( ) 12,000 SF (5 LOCATIONS) SITE ZONING: ggnqn.CFn CITF I ICF• RM2400 SIDE (NORTH): 20 FT [ADDITIONAL R.O.W,] 5 FT (BUILDING) PROPOSED UNIT MIX: ACCESSIBLE GARAGE: 3 (1%) OPEN PLAY AREA (4Ox40) 30,611 SF (4 LOCATIONS) CTn(:KFn „I II TI_Fnarlll V gFCIIIFNTInI 1n FT /TVAC [n [ nN[ Appn UNIT TYPE BEDROOM/BATH UNITS SITE% ACCESSIBLE: 19(6%) CAUSEWAYVIEWING 1,444 SF .% n 1 REO CENTER (2STORY) 9,100 SF qFn c, [.[ gnT[n Tna eF ROM DECI M B ASSDCWTES K 2DT FOURTH AVENUE 6OUTHEAS PUYALLUP, WASHINGTON Mr.. PHONE: t5] ,4p ppp FN[ 253 BIO SU 7REGISTERED ARCHITECT ROS 5 E- 0E CX,M AN SATE Br wA5,1190r0H Z O z u, z �o3: W} a Qua mz� �. W J uj YQ� a(oLU SITE PLAN REVISIONS JOB NO 1 1124 ISSUE DATE 12-12-12 Ross Deckman + Associates Inc. Architecture - Planning • Design March 8, 2013 City of Federal Way Planning and Development Services 33325 8th Avenue S Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 Re: Park 16 Apartments 35703 16th Ave S Permit No: #12-105564-00-UP RDA Project No: 1124 Plans Reviewer: Isaac Conlen / Senior Planner; Janet Shull / Senior Planner Per our agreement established after our meeting of February 28, 2013, we hereby provide for your precursor review a revised project site plan (attached) addressing interpretive issues brought forth by our project team. These issues are as follows: A. On -site usable open -space Taking your advisement of the provision of additional and larger Open Rec Space, we propose 121, 252 s€ for the project (117,200 sf required). These active and passive areas distributed as follows: t Upland area (52,687 sf) 1 �� • (5) Open Play Areas (OPR) • (5) Tot Lots { • A Causeway for Wetland viewing {A - Wetland area (68,565 sf) • An accessible nature trail • An eastward and westward viewing area from the nature trail'. B. Building articulation and scale For those buildings longer than 120ft tagged as questionable modulation, we propose an accumulated modulation as shown on the attached Modulation Illustration sketch provided (building K $ L) to satisfy the 10% of total facade length modulation being required. C. Carriage buildings Entry Porches and open space amenities have been added to each Carriage building. In addition, outdoor spaces have been allotted immediately adjacent to the buildings_ Sincerely, j Mondonedo Ross Deckman + Associates cc: Park16 Project Team 207 4th Avenue 5E • Puyallup, WA 98372 • P. 253.840.9405 • E 253.840.9503 MODULATION DEPTH & WIDTH (a DEPTH) EACH SEGMENT HAS A 3' OR 3'4" JOG. THE PLAIN OF THE OFFSET WALL CONTINUES 2'-0" FOR 2x THE DEPTH MIN. ALL MODULATIONS COMBINED EQUALS 29'-8" 3'-0" REQUIRED OFFSETS 10% OF LENGTH. TOTAL LENGTH 179'-7" =18' MODULATION MIN. BUILDING 'L' FIRST FLOOR PLAN 10,506 SQ. FT. SCALE: 1/16"=1'-0" R D+A ROSS DECKMAN & ASSOCIATES INC. 207 FOURTH AVENUE SOUTHEAST PUYALLUP, WASHINGTON 98372 PHONE: FAX' 253. 840 . 9405 253. 840 . 9503 MODULATION DEPTH & WIDTH (2x DEPTH) EACH SEGMENT HAS A 2' OR 3' JOG. THE PLAIN OF THE OFFSET WALL CONTINUES 7-0" FOR 2. THE DEPTH MIN. ALL MODULATIONS COMBINED EQUALS 20 S-0' REQUIRED OFFSETS 10% OF LENGTH. TOTAL LENGTH 189'-7' =10' MODULATION MIN BUILDING 'K FIRST FLOOR PLAN 10,506 SQ. FT, SCALE: 1 /16"=1'-0" Em) R D+A ROSS DECKMAN & ASSOCIATES INC. 207 FOURTH AVENUE SOUTHEAST PUYALLUP, WASHINGTON 98372 PHONE: FAX 253 . 840 . 9405 253 840.9503 Ire Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Memorandum DATE: December 12, 2012 TO: Tom Neubauer, DevCo, Inc. RECEIVED FROM: Michael J. Read, P.E., Transpor tr ringineerin (it, LCD E C 13 2012 RE: Park 16 Multifamily C_-7Y OF FEDERAL WAY CDS Parking Demand Analysis of Proposed Residential Project This memorandum documents an evaluation of parking demand of the proposed residential apartment project known as Park 16Multifamily that is proposed on the southeast quadrant of the S 356 h Street and 16`' Avenue S intersection in Federal Way, WA. The proposed Project consists of constructing 301 residential units with an on -site parking supply of 483 stalls. This proposed parking supply results in a parking ratio of 1.6 stalls per dwelling unit. Federal Way Code Parking Requirements Federal Way Revised Code TWRC) 19.250.040 identifies minitnum off-street parking requirements for the proposed multifamily residential type of 1.7 stalls per dwelling unit. However, FWRC 19.130 contains provisions for reductions in the requirement for off-street parking based upon demand studies, shared use potential, and site incentives or measures to reduce automobile- utilization. The following paragraphs outline national and local peak parking demand rates and their applicability to the project. Estimated Demand for Parking Using the latest edition of Parking Generation; 4`�' Edition, 2010, as published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers ITE), observed peak parking generation rates for Low/Mid- Rise Apartments (Land Use Code: 221), were reviewed to estimated peak parking demand at the proposed Durk 76arament project. Parking demand rates documented by ITE represent the latest information on parking generation information, and are applied as standard practice in evaluating demand for many different types of land uses. Table 11 contains a summary of peals demand estimated using ITE rates, and compares total proposed supply. As shown, the proposed parking supply of 483 stalls is forecast to exceed peak demand (390 stalls) by 93 stalls. Therefore, no parking deficit or impact would occur with the proposed on -site parking supply of 483 stalls. Table 1: Off -Street Parking Demand using ITE Rates Land Use I Size I ITE Parking Rate' Parking Demand iTE LL1 221 Low/Mid-Rise Apartment 301 Losed Parking Supply 483 stalls { 1.42 * welli:7g units} - 38 390 stalls Total Off -Street Parkurplus+)/(-Deficit} +93 stalls 1 —!TC ParAing Generation, TN& Edition, 2004. www.tenw.com PO Box 65254 ♦ Seattle, WA 98155 Office/Fax (206) 361-7333 ♦ Toll Free (888) 220-7333 Park 16 Multifamily Parking Demand Analysis December 12, 2012 Page 2 Local Parking Surveys in addition to national puking standards, parking generation rates of local apartment complexes were also included in thisamu Lion. In lex" a 200ve sep� cationscted oath parking counts at five separate residential apartm p Snohomish County. These surveys are considered applicable to the proposed site contain representative suburban locations of similar apartmezt complexes. Surveyss were they collected on both weekday and weekend periods during typical peak residential demands during daytime and evening penOds. As shown as Table 2, peak parking demand surveys at five established residential projects average 1.2 stalls per dwelling unit, while available supply ly averaged 1.6 stalls per dwelling unit. ese �mare than one-e proposed third higher than observed k 16 Apartments is 1.6 stalls per dwelling unit, this supply Ievli local rates. Attachment A contains the results of the parking surveys over three different survey days at each site. Table 1: 2002 Peak Parking Demand Surveys in South Snohomish Apartment Total 1-Bedroom Units with More Complex Units Units than 1-Bedroom Pacific Park 177 122 5 5 yffiispering Pine 240 76 164 the Green 558 206 352 ;0n l Pointe 193 61 132 kwood 240 56 l84 average stallslunit of all survey sites average peak demand in stalls/dwelling unit of survey sites Source: T ,NW, HealherwoodApartmenl ConplexParking Analysis, 2002 Actual Parking I Peak Provided Utilization 291 fr' 188 / 65% 480 .. 0 255 / 53% 835 :46/ 89% 309 258 / 83% 435 332 / 76% 1.6 1.2 When applying local parking demand rates of similar multifamily residential uses to the peak parking demand analysis, total site demand rates. for sp eis levelak remains at ies thantethe �otal stalls; less than peak ITE parking d p proposed supply of 483 stalls. Conclusion As shown in Table 1, under the proposed parking reductions allowed under FWRC, the applicant proposes to provide 1.6 stalls per dwelling unit. As both national and local parking generation rates for similar residential apartment uses in suburban areas, peak demand of no more than 1.3 stalls was observed. Therefore, the analysis of parking demand for the proposed Part 16 Mmbifamiy project concluded that the proposed 1.6 stalls s pet unit would Mods, exceed forecasted demand, provide adequate surplus of on -site parkingduring p P no and a reduction of FWRC 19.130.080 (2) is justified. Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC PO Box 65254 ♦ Seattle, WA 98155 Office/Fax (206) 361-7333 • Toll Free (888) 220-7333 Attachment A Local Parking Surveys of Multifamily Residential Sites in Snohomish County Ti El c E m c E m c E c E CM m a L O Y m a -am Q. O Y CL m m 3 0 N U O o O( U M o 7 0 V O o 7 0 a V ti N o O M m m rn "' O co u, E o, O o y E o, r O y M E m r rno m me m rnam 4) cl)m� y Q> > < o> o o ate¢ Qua a'i6 'ad d Yd Vd \ OMN O o co O \ r O � o\ OOCo 0000 V) OM O\MOoN\N Co O car Co o\ VCOro_M r\v\0 W' \ MOO 0 \ M N \ 00 M o\ M M O o\ MMvO co \ 00 o\ MMN 'T \ V0 —CoNTOO CoNM � O— M N M� M N M O N M M r — M N M r M N O M r Y Y m U c 3 U o Oc 3.Uo N N U E W J W J L O M aa) c c> O 0) C Li co jw J LC U) WJ cri W U) a a=' O M Y O m -le O) O m 0') O M 0 3 O Vi m LQ m > ) m a> O J ac U f/i rn O f/ a U)�a U 1N m c =_ = N m _ c � =_ � = N m _ c =_ = N m = c =_ Cl) O O co O N O Cl)O O N O p V O N O p r O N M N N M M N co N N N L M M N co M N N V O M N co Cl) N N IN M N N W O 10 N W CEO O OO 'O CD p M O O O V 0 0 'O 0 M 0 'O M V O O Lo CD LO 0 M O V 0 0 'O O M O iO M C C N 't N O— M V `"" NV CV MM N CV OMp M r N N W M Y � m m as ,+U) r Il- r O V c0 l0 co O O r� r O ap l0 co O O r r O v co M M O O v r— r O v co U') co O O N LO N N if) N N O V C C C C a+ dQ (M a) a m O) cd a) aCA O « Y aO) N E a U 9 m o a Q m o 0 o n o 0 0 n o 0 aoa 0 3 A E " w a a a U) w a n 0 Q U m a c Occ — m a m a L c O — m a a L c O — m a N a L c 0 = a HABITATTECHNOLOGIES.---. CRITICAL AREAS ASSESSMENT STUDY PARCELS 2921049096 and 2921049107 35703 - loth 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 .................... •.................................................r.... 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 CORRIDOR DETERMINATION...................................................... 7 WETLAND FUNCTION AND VALUE ASSESSMENT...................................................................9 ONSITE WETLAND VALUATION..............................................................................................10 WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS........................................................................................................11 OBSERVED SPECIES ............................. MOVEMENT CORRIDORS ...................... STATE PRIORITY SPECIES .................... FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES ............... ..............I.......11 ......................12 ......................13 ......................14 REGULATORY CONSIDERATION...............................................................................................14 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS - SECTION 404................................................................14 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY.....................................................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.......................................................................................................26 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 16" 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 Welland Delineation Manual (1987 Manual), the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Wash Manual), the State of Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Forest Practice Rules (WAC 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 - 16th Avenue South and South 356th 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. 1 08136 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 fshawyfscha) within the West Hylebos Creek more than one-half of a mile downstream of the project site (downstream of South 373`(i 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 6). This mapping resource depicted a City of Federal Way "FW Rating 9" 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 359th Street. SOILS MAPPING The soil 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 Section/Township/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. Hydriic 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,, of sur lace VV pLG-I run-off devY ices, 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 (1 OYR3/1) coloration and silty loam texture. The subsoil ranged from very dark gray (1 aYR3/1) to dark gray (1 aYR 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 depressional corridor exhibited gravelly silty loam to silty loam texture. The surface soil exhibited a black (1 aYR 2/1) to very dark brown (10YR 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 aYR 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 359th 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 359th 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 ponded/saturated 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 menziesir), domestic apple (Pyrus spp.), crabapple (Pyrus fusca), hawthorne (Crataegus monogyna), Himalayan blackberry (Rebus 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 acetosel/a), 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 dock (Rumex crispus). This plant community was identified as hydrophytic in character (i. 0 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 (Pruntus 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), salmonberry, Pacific red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), red huckleberry (Vaccinium parvifolium), Oregon grape (Berberis nervosa), salal (Gaultheria shallon), sword fern (Polystichurn 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 latifolia), black cottonwood, Western red cedar, Western hemlock, Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra), crabapple, Sitka willow, salmonberry, black twinberry (Lonkera involucrata), red osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), Douglas spiraea, vine maple, Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana), reed mannagrass (Glyceria grandis), reed canarygrass, common lady fern (Athyrium fifix-femina), slough sedge (Carex obnupta), skunk cabbage (Lysichiturn 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 offs€te 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 � CLASSIFICATION FEDERAL WAY (USFWS) CATEGORY A PSSEx 3 B PFOE f 1 FUNCTIONAL I FEDERAL WAY VALUE BUFFER WIDTH _ Low 25 feet oderatelhigh 20 M0 feet 7 08136 Wetland A: Wetland A was identified within a shallaowdepression in the c oral portion of the project site. Wetland A had undergone prior land forest harvest, clearing, grading, excavation, and utilization by livestock. Wetland A was dominated by Doulas spiraea. Wetland A appeared to be hydrologically supportedto remain pond edlsa urater sheetfted Pollowl ng ow from the surrounding area. Wetland A appeared 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 (USFrated, eWca�vated criteria (PSSE } siWe#land A fication of palustrine, scrub -shrub, seasonally floodedlsatura 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 as den ifi med to enc the to il the northwest of the project site and to extend generally e south western portion of the project site. Wetland B had undergone prior excand use vation, fencing, culvert manipulations to include forest harvest, clearing, grading, 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 3561" Street Corridor and adjacent parcels, seasonal ground water seeps, and soils characteristics. Onsite Wetland B appeared to remain pond edlsaturated following seasonal storm events and to remain saturated to the surface into at swothe uld be epart xpected to growing satu saturated Areas within the lower portion of the wetland throughout the growing season. On site Wetland B met the BSFIIIIS criteria fa r class if rd been4denf•fled by the City of seasonally flooded/saturated (PFCE). Wetland B had Federal Way as a Category 1 Wetland. This wetland den f further identified d y as � � square feetet a part of the West in b size onsite. Wetland B Wetland also was o identified to tend offsite. Onsite Drainage- This assessment did not identify any continuously defined stream channels within the project site. IF such 1 would astream channel ear best defre ined as a (thin City Of area offsite to the west, such a stream channel pp Federal Way Major Stream based on downstreamfish be fully eni�ompassed onsi e wn. The standard i thof Federal Way buffer for such a Major Stream wouldY the defined areas for Wetland B and its associated 200-foot buffer 8 0806 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 awe seasoneands greater aliy flooded a�d 5acres to 'l0 acres Is size. Medium value is give n to wetlands that 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 979 above. These criteria are guidelines compiled from Adamus�('1987), and Reppert l ) and professional judgment must be exercised in assessll 1g "-- �, �•�-� values for a wetland are assigned, based on a synthesis of individual values. In addition to intrinsic functions, extrinsic functions are also rE.cognized. 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 uwlt to hen considtering creation, these functions are not rated, but are nonetheless important restoration, or enhancement projects. ONSITE WETLAND VALUATION Wetland A was evaluated following the functional vl functional valusessment process noted above and defined to exhibit an overall low 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. Stormwater Storage and Groundwater Recharge (low) - This wetland had a total area of 2,775 square feet. appeared � ed tohis tland reta n adbeen i�m limited amountdby prior af seasonal land use actions. Wetland A pp10 08136 stormwater 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 (moderate/high) - 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 pileatus), 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 sielleri), starling (Sturnus vulgaris), black capped chickadee (Parus atricapillus), bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), Northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), sharp -shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), merlin (Falco columbarius), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus) , Western screech owl (Ofus kennicoffr), 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 stellen), starling (Sturnus 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 lofor), porcupine (Erithizon dorsatum), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), opossum (Didelphis virginianus), eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), Townsend mole (Scapanus townsendit], 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). Dnsite assessment did not include a specific assessment of fish species. During the onsite assessment no portion of the project site exhibited surfaceter. I seasonalandaddition, he movement of surface water within the Wetland B Corridor appeared not appear to exhibit a continuously defined channel. The placement of a control culvert at South 359`" 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 359"' 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 8 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 hag 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 (VVDFW) 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 sipecial note: the WDFW "Salmonscape" mapping program has identified the documented presence of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) within West Hylebos Creek more than one-half of a mile downstream of the project site (downstream of South 373d 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 s ecial note: the WDFW "Salmonscape" mapping program has identified the documented presence of Chinook salmon to federally listed threatened species) 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. 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 developments 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, `educed plant characteristics. species diversity, and the reduction in the function and value of other associated 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 am the upland boundary r stems rward of the ordinary high water line of a water body or waterward f 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 Wafer 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 u°es to watene of the r lowing criteria: bodies which under a. Are contiguous with water bodes or population, including streams normal circumstances contain or support a fish pop 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 acrdominat d bysize in its non-nativeeanvave two ve spec es. re wetland classes, with neither class Category S 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 rips or any stream, which resident or or supports, or under normal circumstances consupports, migratory fish. If there exists a natural permanent blockage on the stream course which precludes the upstream movement of a{tae naturalpermanent Iblo, then that blockage shall portion of the stream which is downstream of 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 5TANDA ECTIVE BUFFER WIDTH AY PRDT � Cate *nf 1 Wetland 20O feet Cate o 2 Wetland 100 feet Category 3 Wetland 50 feet >10,000sgft wetland _ 25 feet_< 70 sous nwetland 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 (22-1369). 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 III, 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 III, 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. community (e) Buffer reduction. ucegthe standard lwetlanld buffer width development may reduce wid h 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 loll. The director shall have the authority to etlne if buffer additional bufferaging is area on other warranted on the subject property and, if so, may require 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. (9) 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 small 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 #��this ilprovide would hydrologic support to Wetland A and potentially Wetland a 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 histnrir_.ally been utilized as livestock pasture and is presently dominated by trait grasses, herbs, and clumps of invasive sted area of the project site would follow system to be located within the remnant fore 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 bird andl nature trail enjoymentem t provide an environment for exercise, 9 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 5cientis 21 08136 FIGURES zz 08136 HABITAT TECHNOLOGIES Lam-' s • a -, �� r ipl� _• n ♦. ... 0 9 Figure 2 NWI Resource Mapping HABITAT TECHNOLOGIES Figure 3 PHS Resource Mapping �-• T21-ON-R4-OE 1 N G '�•� �� Y- l } r •tea 1 ell,. llot k. 0 PLSSTownshIPS RIVERS(1124,ouo), DNR 1 rans 24k PLSS Sections paved Road CITIES Unpaved Road to Road Sorlaca Unknown Major Cities Trail IN it Clues Railroad M Road Towns AbandonedlOrphan HABITAT Figure 4 (124�000ODIES) COUNfY TECHNOLOGIES WDFW Mapping El EVATIO\ 1RA\SPORT.\TIO%, P.nnl Real WATER BODIES J(Piwe—1 STREAMS UL „ed P.o,.l' Spa, E,u ULL,—;, Of— 6'atu ./✓ Stream Water T31V S. F. \ <hp l•.ic:d { lee P.o�d 6�ua.,oe,::q o:,q �ry U U. md.nonn r hail ]Ln, NFA. F:,n- % X. non•g-° ped pe, WAC 2''1U L'n1,:ouu G:aa„iticd ` Wmer NI:(h mg. INLTLkNh5- v,,, T?FrA ,FaeeeJ HABITAT ...,Tea M1ef Figur.e.5� TECHNOLOGIES WDNR Mapping UZ 141 11 IN, CE CE It CE S 356T11 ST C) �I_, L 14 b CE MINI Apia Psi 5.0 R&I 5 iio MUM-, W(c Ij 11111:15:11 ;,,", .121 5"1 RM lice >,, O!I:A S35971 S 359'fli-ST RS15-0 IE P71 ISM IVI, 1113 11111 KIC; 1 mislj-1,51il RS15.0 ' p c.:,o:m (.1.11. I'M 6"Dm4 hilt HABITAT Figure 6 TECHNOLOGIES City of Federal Way Mapping 1. 0 rn c Ly 10 p� n O� O) a0 CO) 000 we OOQ 00 on is O O 66. t l i40 t E Nviv �.y F •► M1. �vi [1�y R r Cf7 y O F jh Y i .'• � Y aa,�� f�.r - fJ�- R � S � � I V �� • � � Z �• � fir= �-� 4 ' �'� �Y'i� �� 49 10 •�. �'4 L i� �L. 4 I .ram i "Pro Co 0 , ,� •, art '*�'� # ; 0 r • . p rS 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 FORMS 24 08136 SAMPLE PLOT SPB 1 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project Site Parcels 292104-9095 /-9107 Date: 28 OCT 08 ApplicantlOwner: County: King 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 ') Do 1. i ant Plant Species Stratum Indicator C isus sca Dominant Plant S eci s Stratum Ind! a%W16. 2. Rubus ursinus 3. Galium a arin 4. Pos s 5. 6. 7. 8' Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC-). Include species noted (*) as showing 0% mor hold fcal adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks: Northern poRrntLlon of site -- 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 Wetiand 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) Profile Description: Depth Horizon •Matrix Color 0-18 r Hydric Soil Indicators: 1 OYR 313 Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor . SAMPLE PLOT SPB 1 Drainage Class: Somewhat excessive Field Observations YES NO Confirm Mapped Type Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Rhizos heres, etc. None Probable Aquic Moisture Regime �— Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Graveliv sandy loam Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer Organic Streaking Listed on Local Hydric Soils List —T 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 Meld Indicators of h dric soil NOT present. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES NO Hydric Soils Present? YES NO Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? NO Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Remarks: WETLAND CRITERIA NOT MET Northern ortion of site - area dominated b Scots broom Area appears to drain moderate) well followin seasonal storm events No field evidence of wetland hydrology atterns SAMPLE PLOT SPB 2 Project Site Applicant/Owner: Investigator: DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Parcels 292104-9095 /-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: TransectlD: VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an *) 1. Pseudotsu a menzlesli 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Cytisus scoarius Rubus ursinus Galium a arine Taraxacum officinale Poa s T FACU 9. S UPL 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. S FACU H FACU H FACU H --- Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC-). Include species noted (*) as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: 16. 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 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 Munseii Moist Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Rhizos heres, etc. 4-4 4-18 Hydric Soil Indicators: 1 OYR 312 1 OYR 313 None None Gravelly sandy loam Gravelly sandy foam Histosol Concretions Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer Sulfidlc Odor Organic Streaking Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils 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 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 moderat2!y well following seasonal storm events No fleld evidence of wetland hydrology patterns SAMPLE PLOT SPB 3 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project Site Parcels 292104-9095 /-9107 Date: 28 OCT 08 Applicant/Owner: County: lCing 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 *) __. ni--& o...., ;. LTFQTIIM lrrriinn or Dominant Plant S ecies St a um In icatar LJ V 1. 1.1 C tisus sco arius S UPL 2. Rubus ursinus S FACU 3. Cirsium arvensis H FACU+ 4. Poa app. H "- 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: 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 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 4% 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 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 Rhizospheres, 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 sand 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 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 Area dominated by Scots broom Area appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events No field evidence of wetland hydrology patterns ti SAMPLE PLOT SPB 4 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 S#a#e: 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 *} -. _ __1 �1__L n- ..-- Cirofiim Inriiratnr 1. P rus spp. T ----- 9. 2. Cytisus scc arius S UPL 10. 3. Rubus Procera S FACU 11. 4. Rubus ursinus S FACU 12, 5. Clrsium arvensis H FACU+ 13. 6. Pteridium a uilium H FACU 14. 7. Dact lis glomerata H FACU 15. 8. Poa spp. H --- 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: 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 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 SPB 4 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 10YR 3/2 None 3-18 1OYR 3/3 None Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidlc Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Remarks: : 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) Soil a ears 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? NO 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 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 I n.. ,s., ..,; ai,,F c.,e.•Lce ^gtrnhim Indirator 1 Pseudotsu a menziesii T FACU 2. Acer circinatum S FAC- 3. C tisus sco arius S UPL 4. Rubus ursinus S FACU 5. Pterldlum a uillum H FACU 6. A rostis tenuis H FAC 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 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 Rhizos hares, etc. 0-4 Sandy loam 10YR 3/2 None 4-18 10YR 313 None Gravelly sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors 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: 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 SAMPLE PLOT SPB 7 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project site Parcels 292104-90951-9107 Date: 28 OCT 08 Applicant/Owner: Investigator: Habitat Technologies County: State. King Washington Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? Is the area a potential Problem area? YES NO Community ID: YES NO Transect ID: VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have Dominant Plants ecles Stra um Indic morphological adaptations to wetlands with an *) or I. P rus s T Dominant Pla S scles Stratum Indi _-_,_ 2. P rus fusca T FACW 9. 10. 3. S iraea dou lasii S FACW 11. 4. Rubus rocera S FACU 12. 6. Rubus ursinus S FACU 13. 6. Pteridlum a ullium H FACU 14. 7. is. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC-). Include species noted (*) as showing mar halo lcal adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks: Ad'acent 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) Profile Description: Depth Horizon finches] Matrix Color SAMPLE PLOT SPB T Drainage Class: Somewhat excessive Field Observations YES NO Confirm Mapped Type Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, Munseli Moist) Abundanceontrast Rhizos heres, etc. g 3 . 1 ()YR 312 None 3-1 a �~ 1 OYR 413 None Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Suifidic Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors SandY loam Gravels sand 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 followingseasonal 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 Adjacent #o shallow depression Area a ears to drain moderatel well following seasonal storm events mn fipirl evidence of wetland hydrologypafterns SAMPLE PLOT $Pg 8 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project Site Parcels 292104-9095 /-9107 Date: 218 OCT 08 Applicant/Owner: County: King 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 *) Dominant Plant Species etrs:ts. I -A;....,..- _. 1. Cratae us r 2. P rus fusca 3. P rus s 4. Rubus ursin 5. 6. 7. 8. T[14. Ftg 15. 16. Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC-). Include species noted (*) as showing mor holo ical ada Cations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks: Ad'acent 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 Evidence of ponding Map Unit Name: Everett gravelly sandy loam Taxonomy (Subgroup) Profile Description: Depth Horizon 'inches) 0-18 Hydric Soil Indicators: Matrix Color 10YR 4/2 Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor SAMPLE PLOT SPB 8 Drainage Class: Somewhat excessive Field Observations YES NO Confirm Mapped Type Mottle Colors Mottle Kh mQ011 MniRt1 AbundancelContrast 10YR 416 _ Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Remarks: Soil appears to drain moderate) well following seasonal storm events Prominent redoximor hic features NOT present Field indicators of h dric soil NOT present. Fewl rominent Texture, Concretions, Phi7nsnheres. etc. Sand 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) WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES NO Hydric Soils Present? YES NO Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? NO Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Remarks: WETLAND CRITERIA NOT MET Ad'acent to shallow de cession ) well following seasonal storm events Area appears to drain moderate No field evidence of wetland h drolo atterns Wetland Edge A SAMPLE PLOT SPB 10 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project Site Parcels 292104-9095 /-9107 1 Date: 28 OCT 08 Applicant/Owner: County: King Investigator: Habitat Technolo les 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 �) Do inant Plant Snignign Stratum Indicator Dominant lant S ecies Stratum lndi 1. P rus fusca 9. 2. Rubus lacinlatus 10. 3. Rubus ursinus 11. 4. E ilobium an ustifolium12. NHFACU 5. Pteridium a uilium 13. 6. 14. 7. 15 8. 16. Percentof 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 al 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 20% of forest 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: Kitsap silt loam Taxonomy (Subgroup) Profile Description: Depth Horizon 'inches) 0-18 Hydric Soil Indicators: Matrix Color 10YR 412 Histosol Histic Epipedon -� Sulfidic Odor SAMPLE PLOT SP� B 10 Drainage Class: Moderately well Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type YES NO Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, eat. menil UnI01 AbundancelContrast Rhizos heres. etc. 10YR 4/6 Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors 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) Remarks: Soil appears to drain moderate) well followin seasonal storm events Prominent redoximor hic features NOT present Field indicators of h drie soil NOT present. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic vegetation Present? YES NO Hydric Solis Present? YES NO Is this Sampling Point within a Wetiand? N O Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Remarks: WETLAND CRITERIA NOT MET Western onro ion of 'ect site alon ed a of forest Area appears to drain modera#el well followin seasonal storm events No field evidence of wetland h drolo atterns 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 moroholoalcal adaptations to wetlands with an *) 1. Po ulus trichocar a T FAC 2. Acer circinatum S FAC- 3. Sambucus racemosa S FACU 4. Ath rium fiiix-femina H FAC 5. 6. 7. 8. Percent of Dominant species that are 08L, 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 75% Weiland 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 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 Moist Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Rhizos heres, etc. 0-6 Duff 6-18 10YR 3/1 None Silty loam Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic 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 redoximor hic 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: Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? YES WETLAND CRITERIA MET Western portion of project site Area appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Field evidence of wetland hydrology patterns _ SAMPLE PLOT SPB 14 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 mornholoalcal adaptations to wetlands with an *) n...,7. �..f 01nni Cnarliar afraid im Indicator 1 Thula plicata T FAC 2. Ainus rubra T FAC 3. Acer circiinatum S FAC- 4. L sichitum americanum H OBL 6. Ath rium filix-femina H FAC 6. 7. 8. Percent of Dominant species that are 58L. 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: None 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 Map Unit Name: Kitsap silt loam Taxonomy (Subgroup) SAMPLE PLOT SPB 14 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 Rhizospheres, etc. 0-3 Duff 3-18 10YR 412 Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Remarks: 10YR 4/6 Few/faint Concretions Course 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 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 Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Remarks: WETLAND CRITERIA MET Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? YES Western portion of project site within Wetland B Area appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Field evidence of wetland hydrology patterns 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 Community ID: Is the area a potential Problem area? YES NO Transect lD: VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an *) n t......a 01.._4f C _Mino carnhim Inrfiratnr 1., Tsu a hetero h lla T FACU 2. Thula plicata T FAC 3. Alnus rubra T FAC 4. Rubus s ectabllis S FAC+ 5. ubus ursinus S FACU 6. Poi stichum munitum H FACU 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 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 Rhizospheres, etc. 0-8 8-18 10YR 412 10YR 416 Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors 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) 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: Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? N O WETLAND CRITERIA NOT MET Upland forest Area appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events No field evidence of wetland hydrology patterns w SAMPLE PLOT SPB 16 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project Site Parcels 292104-9095 /-9107 Date: 28 OCT 08 Appllcant/Owner: County: King Investigator., Technologies State: Washington : H 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 *) ,_ ...� 01-6 42_n^iao CFrati im Inc r.Rtnr Dominant Plant 5 eCiBs Stratum Indicator 1. Alnus rubra T FAC 2. Po ulus trichocar a T FAC 3. Thula plicata sa FAC 4. Ath riurn filix-femina H FAC 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 1 o. 11. 12. 13. 14. 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: 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 Remarks: Onslte assessment during fall 2008 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) Soil appears to drainpoorly following seasonal storm events Area appears to seasonal) and Map Unit Name: Kitsap slit loam Taxonomy (Subgroup) SAMPLE PLOT SPB 16 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 Rhizospheres, etc. 0-8 - Duff r 8-� $ 10YR 3/1 None Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Suifidic Odor x Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions x Gleyed 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 redoximorphlc features present Field indicators of hydric soil present, WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES NO Hydric Soils Present? YES NO Welland Hydrology Present? YES NO Remarks: WETLAND CRITERIA MET Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? YES Western portion of project site Area apeears 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 292104-9095 /-9107 Habitat Techn 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 1D: VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an *) 1. Pseudotsu a menziesii T FACU 9. 2. Acer circinatum S FAG- 10. 3. Rubus ursinus S FACU 11. 4. Pol stichum munitum H FACU 12. 6. 13. 6. 14. 7. 15. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC-). Include species noted (*) as showing 0% mor halo lcal adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks: Western portion of site upslo a 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 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 SPIS 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 3/2 Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Remarks: : 10YR 4/6 Few/faint 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 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 slo a 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: icing State: Washington Community ID: TransectlD: VEGETATION (Note those specles observed to have morcholonical adaptations to wetlands with an*) rt .«.i---1 01-6 Cnoniae Ctrnfllm Indirntor 1 V Alnus rul,ra - - - T FAC 2. Acer circinatum S FAC- 3. Ath rium filix-femina H FAC 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAG (except FAC-). Include species noted (*) as showing 100% mor holo ical aria tations 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 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 18 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 Rhizos hares, etc. 0-6 Duff 6-18 10YR 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 List 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 h dric 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 within Wetland B Area appears to drainpoorly following seasonal storm events Field evidence of wetland hydrohogy patterns SAMPLE PLOT SPB 20 Project Site Applicant/Owner: 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 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 "} 1. Pseudotsu a menziesii T FACU 9. 2. Acer circinatum S FAC- 10. 3. Gaultheria shallon S FACU 11. 4. Rubus ursinus S FACU 12. 5. Pterldium a uilium H FACU 13. 6. Pol stichum munitum H FACU 14. 7. 15. B. 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 D% 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 moderate!y well following seasonal storm events Map Unit Name: Everett gravelly sandy loam Taxonomy (Subgroup) SAMPLE PLOT SPB 20 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 3/2 10YR 4/6 Few/prominent Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gieyed or Low Chroma Colors Remarks: : Gravelly sand loam am 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 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 Applicanttowner: 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 wlth an *) r1...,..!---F 01^"I Cnonine gfrnttir 1 Indicator 1 - - C Y isus sco anus S UPL 2. S m horicar us albus S FACU 3. Rubus ursinus S FACU 4. Pteridium a uilium H FACU 5. Poa s . H --- 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: 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 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 Rhizos heres. etc. 0-2 2-18 Hydric Soil Indicators: I OYR 3/2 1 OYR 3/3 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 appears to drain moderately well followin 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: 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 SPTT 2 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 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 *} 1. P rus spp. T ----- 9. 2. Rubus procera S FACU 10, 3. Rubus ursinus S FACU 11. 4. C tisus sco arius S UPL 12. 5. Cirslum arvensis H FACU+ 13. 6. Agropyton cristatum H ---- 14. 7. Pteridium a uilium H FACU 15. 8. Poa spp• H --- 1 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 moderate) 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 Rhizospheres, etc. 0-3 10YR 312 3-16 10YR 3/3 Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor None None Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Remarks: : 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 redoximorphic features NOT present Field indicators of hydric soil NOT present. w WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES NO Hydric Solis Present? YES NO Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? NO Remarks: WETLAND CRITERIA NOT MET Area dominated by Scots broom Area appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events No field evidence of wetland hydroiggy eatterns SAMPLE PLOT SPTT 3 Project Site Applicant/Owner: Investigator: DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Parcels 292104-9095 /-9107 Habitat Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO Is the area a potential Problem area? YES NO Date: County: State: Community ID: Transect ID: 28 OCT 08 Washington VFr.FTATION (Note those snecies 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 pond Excavated depression 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 Munsell Moist Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Rhizos heres etc. 0-1 10YR 3/1 Leaves/loam 1-16 10YR 4/1 10YR 416 Common/prominent Silty loam Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sultidic 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 redoximor hic features eresent Field indicators of h dric soil present. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES NO Hydric Solis Present? YES NO Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Remarks: WETLAND CRITERIA MET Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? YES Small depression in central pr9ject site Area appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events 'Field evidence of wetland hydrology patterns SAMPLE PLOT SPTT 4 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 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 *) 1. Cvtlsus sco arius 2. Rubus ursinus 3. Pteridium a uiliun 4. 5. 6. 7. A S UPI. 9. S FACU 10. H FACU 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC-). Include species noted (*) as showing morphological ada Cations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: 16. 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: Notre 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 Moist Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Rhizospheres, etc. 0-8 8-18 Hydric Soil Indicators: 1 OYR 312 10YR 3/3 None None _Gravelly sandy loam Gravelly sandy loam Histosol Concretions Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydrlc Soils 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 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 Area dominated by Scots broom Area appears to drain moderately well followin seasonal storm events No field evidence of wetland hydrology patterns r ATTACHMENT -SITE PLAN 25 08136 ST-FAB FEDERAL WAY SEC. 29RWP. 21/RGE. 04 E., W.M. SITE PLAN I UVVk, -L \ r f i `• '? + !uk r E E k\\ \\ L,17 \ I`�\\t L\SEFPfieT_ liE• r� •y p�' ,/ I ' - \ - n I l tr ; •"• '�fYk?l tAi� , I , yL�l\]1717 L 1� nnwaoau � •tp_ "hp - � ♦II / Jfd3a,'rat 7&Eer� � ' � k I I � 5 El "'11� �',��1/ k il• •:r `` •\` ♦..�_--`�'•\ i\ 5 1 \I'q`u,�i•'s' E {' . . •�' "�� ,, \ Ij�• � v '' ti �■ ■ 1 \ - ■' L ! 7 \ ■ t � '��,,y, ' 1 '1 kl� 1 i""'y I y Ih ♦ d+s. -. r ' ' L 1{ y 1 7■ / 1 ■ 1 \ '""i 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ik •• ^ �` .� `��� ~�` �'y 1 V 1 'S 17 '1 ■7 /\ 57 \7 ■v 7L �ti ,\.`�l 'L 1/1'i 1`Il ly 1 1 II'• .r... 1 •\ 1\ l k I }1 ■ 1 7 '■ ♦♦ '\ \ ,\ "4 \. �'F, 1 N / la gr • , ^7 1 ♦ 1 y1 1 { l 1 ti>•s v ♦ w�'r _� 1 ■1 1 7\ �t/ �\ rA417, I• .�. �. { y , ' L ' V f M�N•l� , 7 1 \l 7� i \ / / .� • • 1 4 ♦ .''�.\ . • \ !, _ raga, \ ■ ' ` / ■ •I �!• .;.. .i. \ 55 4' 7\ r ik• •`� . L♦ '7,��jd��'°jj /1 7 / 17 �� 1 I• •'` \Ir• ��,• 1` � li I _ ,~\ \\ ♦\\�.�t*♦, \\�u:7 1\fj�117\/ ` / ti eE. I { 1 \ •\ 7•S •` I .Y�Ir: .Yti1fC11 \` 1 1 11 1 1 r ■ 1 7 ■ • t LL ♦ ~♦ . •''■ 'ram i-•3'� �• a�fl L -■\ 11 'll{` , Ill\ ,\\ 7 11 1 1 i 11 ■1 /+ 17,1 \L �\ 't` �• \ • \. y\; L L_r_� �. }! j 7 1 t, 1 7 t 1 1 1■ ti '♦ 4 �I. ••�•�.••�.• / ■ L \1 'L` ��. 15 •ti \ 7 (1 =j,� 51 1 1 1 1 ■ L � '•t \L ti°, el \ L \I k 1 1 1 \ ■ sr iA. +I'�'�.'• iFctivYe•. \•■\ 11 ,' l7 \♦. 1 7 \ 11 �# ■ \ ,\ 1 5 f} \ 4 1 y' }{: / 1 ■ y l \ ` �'N rS ti ♦ �0. IT . • .117.8ra .^9 � . . 1 { 1 1 `7 7 I7r lr\t510W •' y 1 1 . 1 1 � F5\` i S r �a ♦ �\re, YTi k � • . • ipy.B FEi • ► I ± 5 \ '\ ■ ■ t 1' I ! \ ; 55 1 \ k' \\,�� Ia ce $�f .• -' .I� �r S ! Ij� / P�'i �; '' 1 ti� II� i I�. 1 11 •�L ���■�=llj! { �� ssma+vve l � • • . � . • . 1 ! r -ti• FES I 1 I i ! ■ k ■ , !) t II' •y•••••• j 1 �r £r I I ) g y`jl !• S1 r 't TIP, "<d -4 !lsCxa..Eal+.r r•.b. r : . 1 ) II i ��_��:� _ � :•_, r ! 1 ,r)1� 1 1 rs" cr sre � � � . ! } 1 k r j` ' ' = --• �� ) � �; � l I 5 . • @setoxas I ' � I � F ! i•' i f rc :PW�D I f ! r � h•.�1 � • -0 .'..:. ' • • ; kt• . •� ; + � .F ' • ; �.' f �,�,�, rrac i I ` I I s [r 1 I. - [.•• ► 1! I i�, �' �..;y I i f ": , :a I I I I y 1 I '1 5 ffI• ! ) I F ► lEOVCr>! •-``f€". ' a e' F 'ef �iRR I 1 l y , r ri.'. K r. rr i r r r nawr+�• •y•. i �r ! ! it FY•K rtit1 ■ 1 . � f r r i i rt. �L/� 'r' ,. S:ti•�''► !•r,l f{il'�,��.. I. F. I r ► , II• 1 F) r; i'` r' .'! I I I fly I ►'; 'I.•.' ! ! 1 ! } A €h S10ll J�•; 1'rl 5' I r F. I1..•.. ,• ► r r r i r ! cam~ ! Jy:Y. esY •F I 1 y' r s f l r ! I d 4 k l F IJ +i'•' .' y 1r ' i I r I // � � r 1 II 1 1 i 1'r 1 ;• 4r.' r r r k i ' ► + 1 1, ' '' ri ri' +' sluFlui �3}�Yp��p(0E I fI�O I I + 5 SS'c� . j . ' . • . FENCE {T4i i I 67 f 1 5 r 1 •3 iri f • � � ! ► , I Sr , • • • Y ) I , F ti � , sK FI�FasoN � •f - � �.,■ , ,. u �ka�a-._''- o�. •. J ' fr +� � \• byti —..1 � ►-- iSatla7aSr ! � I 1 �, ••.g' �- i ,1 r.� r .y �� �.7. Y `�� w•.r.ir . T � •w � w.�. w .w a ►ire . � ��.' t• 1 1 Sfi'3i'4YE iSA'i ~ •'Af 291019000 i Y+:NM+M I ;IssrlweM I ssxwo-]" I 2mo4 n I .oasvare II 1 ! ES-l' `: ra •yllcpyc lc ycl� • tt >�SFr•:. � i s4 21 m c f}A,krM SC= � a (rs) O :re•ra ' \ 1� BFepCrllp��� 1 I 1 + nlCr6Pm B1E \\ � I LS•'.7�!FF ill 1 �-'�, I � .�.{ �:: `..,f�sl[�5'Cr : �� \♦. SDl' 76i Y.4aY � 1 � L'' �;I �. '�_ 1 ~\` �L,R4lEl Y`�j. ' f •ir n � \ s �' .I^fti err 'PFA.'�:"5 �•� f �' ;l*���" {i • � i THAI 1 CC:-3 _tii zlarlv!t'+�.t_aoxlo{�or3��-•. -Zs7t[wsos3•� � arnolsoss I•-." #sn[aLlee I k _ N 7 ■r Ei e p if .Y.a a9 Sc a ac •--I C nU �7 V � _U ro 04) 7• � J� N < a f � Q �I M Ul) Q � M m CA � Q Q � d LL M fv Ln O In ri v ' II `! • ■ a� i If kI I l x z m 1 " W w 0 0 o N i i ST - FAB FEDERAL WAY Q SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 21 N., RANGE 04 E., W.M. LU m W a 0 Q o LU r Y - RFr ;: r+ �f ,^•`V r �� :'}ir d° +;, I N.T.S. lLLU LU :�} +fkkk i }j• mac, l a AA5. Jip is jl-lw t r +• a 1'� -- i n s .:. ! r - :j � . r -r !. cr•/ s• +��`- qr,.-r rfi� .�::.i I1 .,. C• pp 1� 4' • . e� i • • 31��.': � .?7., +� , r : sly .. i �"` 5 ",e f 1� z 0 1= C) N r :s, d� Ig •y � { lI L-D! G D 11 f ••,�F!rf.iS a � w a LL O PROP0,UO 7 LAUILDINd -; H isy, rrs 30 9 DA1i'G`Sl Rl,:. +#'f1J+L' Fr — I: .4v e u%, tlI;jL A"k. ITS . r -�''Y••t�. IT' .. •���' ,` .. .1 :7ir. j� J �.1.=�:'['_:��.� � ! �+'�l i ;r. 'I. -�.' _ �•�." 1 `. '1h :•I 31 . •Y {,. ° .J •1 ',' �� 1•a [r,+ j . • .r �r� i I I 'i�lr , N ..1"���• - 1� �f(,-�r 't. '�� '. li r ••�ti , �. r i.�. J��: � '_ ... I'.� � lill�y'. . -a7. ,,;II `:�•.., r �Y'i itir� f.,� j�. -•fi. ,R r. `l _.i\ :�:.T r•�,�,J y� jri ;' i ' - •': `1 . ; �. , vVj,�%� j v ��1, ' `i'�': ; y,,�.-..-t. _:,.- r u - ' � _ � L:' i -. iF �1•I I' ''��J "+-~ •.• i� r 't.. ��; RF�� I���S�r ram' ' •' •�• __.�. .. f1.. .k . V .,• • •• � r ?�r' •t rnA+ly�J - j1'P.) I tr •� �T.•[ fir` c-e+� .,� J J ? n Lo E wma a o 0 Q v Ur o a>, L?[L!i o J Q) IN, } go, �a o� N m 7 °' Q 0 o uMM N d Qi 1 ■ a E m n m m m O mm o w O 0 W O W W V Z. w asa w 0 K Q O 0 N 11 Park 16 Multifamily Federal Way, WA Transportation Impact Study December 12, 2012 Prepared for: DEVCO, Inc. 11100 Main Street, Suite 301 Bellevue, WA 98004 Prepared by: EXPIRES 2 / 28 / 13 RECEIVED DEC 13 2012 CriY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Transportation Engineering/Operations • Impact Studies • Transportation Planning ♦ Demand Forecasting Anacortes Office: PO Box 65254 • Anacortes, WA 98155 ♦ Office/Fax (206) 361-7333 • Toll Free (888) 220-7333 Park 16 Multifamily Federal Way, WA Transportation Impact Study Table of Contents FINDINGS& CONCLUSIONS..........................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................2 ProjectDescription......................................................................................................................2 EXISTINGCONDITIONS..................................................................................................................5 RoadwayConditions.....................................................................................................................5 ExistingTraffic Volumes..............................................................................................................5 IntersectionLevel of Service........................................................................................................7 Public Transportation Services....................................................................................................8 Nonmotorized Transportation Facilities.......................................................................................8 PlannedRoadway Improvements................................................................................................8 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS.......................................................................................9 Non -Project Traffic Forecasts......................................................................................................9 ProjectTrip Generation................................................................................................................9 Trip Distribution and Assignment ............................... ...10 Traffic Volume Impacts and Future Levels of Service .............. ...................... _.............. ........... 10 QueuingImpacts.......................................................................................................................13 Left -Turn Lane Warrants............................................................................................................13 SightDistance ............... ......... :.................................................................................................. 14 Public Transportation Impacts....................................................................................................14 Nonmotorized Transportation Impacts.......................................................................................14 On -Site Parking Supply.............................................................................................................14 PROJECT MITIGATION MEASURES............................................................................................15 Appendix A - Traffic Counts Appendix B - Level of Service Calculations at Study Intersections Appendix C - 2014 Traffic Volume Forecasts Appendix D — WSDOT Left -Turn Lane Warrant Plot Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC December 12, 2012 Page i Park 16 Multifamily Federal Way, WA Transportation Impact Study List of Figures and Tables Figure 1: Project Site Vicinity ..... Figure 2: Preliminary Site Plan ...................... �............................................................................ 3 .................. Figure 3: Existing AM & PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .................... Figure 4: Project -Generated AM & PM P 6 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ........,, � 1 Figure 5: 2014 Future Baseline & With -Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes....',,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Table 1: Level of Service Criteria at Inters ections .................................................... . 7 Table 2: 2012 Existing A.M. & P.M. Peak Intersection Levels of Service .............. g Table 3: Net Weekday Project Trip Generation.......,... ........................ Table 4: 2014 A.M. & P.M. Peak Intersection Level of Service Impacts...............................................10 Table 5: 2014 Queue Lengths Along Project Frontage Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC December 12, 2012 Page ii Park 16 Multifamily Transporution IMPact 510 Federal Way, WA FINDINGS $z CONCLUSIONS project proposal. The Park 16 Multifamily project Proposes to construct up to 301 multi -family apartment units. FuII build -out of the site is anticipated for the year 2014. ed Trip Generation. When considering removal dad , ing 122la.md peak hourses, the (15senteering and 07 generate a net increase of approximately 1,$3 y, p exiting} and 157 p.m. peak hour (111 entering and 46 exiting} vehicular trips during a typical weekday. Off -Site Intersection and Queuing Impacts. All study intersections would operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours in 2014 with and without the proposed project. Based on a detailed queuing analysis of traffic operations in the immediate vicinity, no blockage of site driveways is forecast to occur from neighboring signals. Site Access Impacts. All entering and exiting movements at the project site driveways onto S 356t' Street and 16`h Avenue S are anticipated to operate at LOS B or better with queues of 1 vehicle or less during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours in 2014. s' Nonmotorized Impacts. Sidewalks would be provided on all property frontages of S 356 Street and 16ffi Avenue S. Mitigation Measures. Stripe WS left -turn pocket on S 356t' Street at the North driveway back-to-back (separated by raised curb) with the EB Lowe's turn packet. The proponent would need to construct all proposed site driveways and frontage improvements would consist of constructing full curb, gutter and sidewalk on all property frontages of S 35& Street and 10 Avenue S and may include roadway widening or right-of-way dedication -,along S 356`h Street. To mitigate system wide impacts to planned transportation improvements within the City of Federal `Play, a traffic impact fee would be assessed by the City. Accounting for removal of ated for existing uses and current rates, a net traffic impact fee assessment o f l�ubmittal the project. Final traffic impact fees would be calculated at the timeg permit and are subject to change. December 12, 2012 Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC Page 1 Park 16 Multifamily Federal Way, WA Transportation Impact Study INTRODUCTION This study summarizes transportation impacts associated with the proposed Park 16 MMIVi Mil#. Based on discussions with the City of Federal Way and the City's Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines the following tasks were undertaken to analyze traffic impacts associated with the existing proposed action: ➢ Assessment of existing transportation conditions and operations through data collection efforts and field reconnaissance. ➢ Define existing daily and peak hour trip generation for existing light industrial and warehouse land uses. ➢ Estimation of daily, a.m., and p.m. peak vehicular project trip generation, and assignment of project trips onto the existing roadway network. ➢ Evaluation of parking demand and proposed supply. ➢ Evaluation of level of service (LOS) impacts at the following off -site and site access intersections during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours: 1. SR 161 (Enchanted Parkway) / S 356th Street 2. 16t' Avenue S / S 356`h Street 3. North Driveway / S 356th Street 4. South Driveway / 16th Avenue S ➢ Evaluation of site access safety, especially sight distance and turn lane warrants. ➢ Identification of mitigation measures to maintain acceptable levels of mobility and safety based upon City of Federal Way standards and guidelines. Project Description The mark 16YVJ&1, family development is located south of S 356th Street and west of 16'h Ave S in the City of Federal Way, Washington as shown in Figure 1. The site is currently occupied with approximately 12,100 square feet of light industrial space and 18,200 space. square feet of warehouse The project proposes to remove all existing structures and construct up to 301 multi -family apartment units. Full build -out of the site is anticipated for the year 2014. Site access is proposed via two driveways; one onto S 356t'' Street approximately 500 feet west of 16th Ave S and the other onto S 16" Ave S approximately 440 feet south of S 356`h Street. Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC December 12, 2012 Page 2 Park 16 Multifamily Transportation Impact Study Federal Way, WA Figure 1: Project Site Vicinity (Not to Scale) Park 16 Transportation Figure 1 Apartments Engineeringest Project Site Vicinity Federal Way, WA NorthW � LLC Traffic Impact Analysis December 12, 2012 Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC Page 3 Park 16 Multifamily Federal Way, WA Transportation Impact Study Figure 2: Preliminary Site Plan d D Y 3 z %o � R u 3 L a d L c U 0 on -1 �. c Ell December 12, 2012 Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC Pagege 4 4 Park 16 Multifamily Federal Way, WA Transportation Impact Stud EXISTING CONDITIONS This section describes existing transportation system conditions in the study area. It includes an inventory of existing roadway conditions, traffic volumes, intersection levels of service, public transportation services, on -site parking, nonmotortzed transportation facilities and planned roadway improvements. Roadway Conditions The following paragraphs describe existing roadways that would be used as major routes for site access. Roadway characteristics are described in terms of number of lanes, posted speed limits and shoulder types and widths. SR 161 (Enchanted Parkway) is classified as a Principal Arterial in the City of Federal Way and WSDOT. The roadway consists of five 12-foot travel lanes, curb, gutter, and sidewalk near S 356' Street. The speed limit is posted at 40 mph. S 356`h Street is classified by the City of Federal Way as a two- to five -lane Principal Arterial roadway. Near the intersection with 16`' Avenue S there are five 11-foot travel lanes and two 5- foot bike lanes, total pavement width is approximately 65 feet. Along the project frontage the pavement width transitions from approximately 60 feet to 48 feet. Reducing the number of lanes from four to five, but maintaining a center two-way left -turn lane (TWLTL) and the posted speed limit of 35 mph. 16`h Avenue S is a two- to three -lane Principal Collector roadway. At the intersection with S 356 h Street there are three 12-foot travel lanes with curb, gutter and sidewalk and total pavement width of approximately 42 feet. South of the NB right -turn pocket the section transitions to two 12-foot travel lanes with 6-foot shoulders, curb, gutter, and sidewalk with pavement width of approximately 36 feet. Along the project frontage, the sidewalk ends and the shoulder is a ditch, but pavement width remains 36 feet. The speed limit is posted at 30 mph. Existing Traffic Volumes Peak hour traffic volumes typically represent the highest hourly volume of vehicles of the average day passing through an intersection during a typical morning (7-9 a.m.) and evening (4-6 p.m.) peak commute periods. Therefore, the a.m. and p.m. peak hour volumes were used to evaluate traffic impacts that would occur as a result of the development. Figure 3 summarizes existing year 2012 a.m. and p.m. peak period turning movements at each study intersection. All Traffic Data Services Inc. conducted a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic counts at all study intersections November 28 and December 4, 2012. Traffic counts are provided in Appendix A. Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC December 12, 2012 Page 5 Park 16 Multifamily Federal Way. WA Trans rtatian Impact Study Figure 3: Existing AM 8t PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour S 356th St ! 16th Ave S / S 356th St 60 99 1 133 75 S 356th St 287� 15� a 18 155 16I a 16thgS38161�h PM Peak Hour 161 230 43 33914 Legend XX = 2012 Existing Peak Hour Volume %OTransportation Engineering Nortwest, LLC S 356th St Figu re 3 Existing AM & PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes T 561h SI0 St356fhSYr w 28 9 (Not to Scale) Park 16 Apartments Federal Way, WA TraMc Impact Analysis rTransportation Engineering Northwest, LLC December 12, 2012 Page 6 Park 16 Multifamily Transportation Impact Study Federal Way, WA Intersection Level of Service Level of service J,OS) serves as an indicator of the quality of traffic flow at an intersection or road segment. The LOS grading ranges from A to F, such that LOS A is assigned when minimal delays are present and low volumes are experienced. LOS F indicates long delays and f or forced flow. Table 1 summarizes the delay range for each level of service at signalized and unsignalized intersections. The methods used to calculate the levels of service are described in the updated 2000 14ig$way Capacity Manual (Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board). The measure of effectiveness for signalized intersections is average control delay, defined as the total time vehicles are stopped at an intersection approach during a specified time period divided by the number of vehicles departing from the approach in the same time period. Level of service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of control delay, which is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, and increased travel time. The delay experienced by a motorist is made of up a number of factors that relate to traffic control, geometries, traffic demand, and incidents. Total control delay is the difference between the travel time actually experienced and the I'eference fi-aivel time that would result during base conditions (i.e., the absence of traffic control, geometric delay, any incidents, or as a result other vehicles). LOS F at signalized intersections is often considered unacceptable to most drivers, but does not automatically imply that the intersection is over capacity. Jammed conditions could occur on one or all approaches, with periods of long delays and drivers waiting for multiple signal cycles to progress through the intersection. For unsignalized intersections, a level of service and estimate of average control delay is determined for each minor or controlled movement based upon a sequential analysis of gaps in the major traffic streams and conflicting traffic movements. In addition, given that unsignalized intersections create different driver expectations and congestion levels than signalized intersections, their delay criteria are lower. Control delay at unsignaked intersections include deceleration delay, queue move -up time, stopped delay in waiting for an adequate gap in flows through the intersection, and final acceleration delay. Intersection LOS were calculated using the methodology on Research Board and procedures outlined in the 2000 (I R$) using the Haghavay Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportati, S n� c� software program. Table 1: Level of Service Criteria at Intersections Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Delay flange (sec) Delay Range (sec) A <_ 10 < 10 g > 10to<_20 > 10to<_ 15 C > 20to<_35 > 15to<_25 D > 35to<_55 > 25to<_35 E > 55to<_80 > 35to<_50 F a 80 >_ 50 Source: "Highway Capacity Manual", Special Report 209, Transportation Research 1kard, 2000, Update. December 12, 2012 Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC Page 7 Park 16 Multifamily Federal Way, WA Transportation Impact Study The Level -Of -Service standard within the City of Federal Way is LOS E. Existing a.m. and p.m. peak hour levels of service at all study intersections are summarized in Table 2. All study intersections operate at LOS D or better under existing a.m. and p.m. peak hour conditions with v/c ratios of 0.83 or less. Detailed level of service summary worksheets are provided in Appendix B. r.1I.r,, o. nnA 42 e,.:+i.,n A M ar D M Pa:& Intarcartinn I avelc of Service '4 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Signalized Intersections Control Type LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C #1 — SR 161 / S 356' Street Signalized C 33 0.66 C 36 0.89 #2 — 161 Avenue S / S 3561' Street Signalized D 49 0.48 D 40 1 0.32 Note: Analysis based on Jync/70 v,.----------- Public Transportation Services Pierce Transit provides service to the SR 161 Enchanted Parkway corridor. Northbound and southbound stops for Route 402 are within easy walking distance of the site at the intersection SR 161 and S 356 h Street. Nonmotorized Transportation Facilities There are wide shoulders for pedestrians and bikes on 16`'' Avenue S and sidewalks and bike lanes on S 356`h Street. Planned Roadway Improvements The City of Federal Way's Six -Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP), 2011-2016, identified the following capacity -related transportation improvement projects that would be impacted by vehicular trips from the proposed development: ➢ 17: S 356" Street: SR 99 — SR 161. Widen to 5 lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks, and illumination. The total cost of the project is estimated to be $6,012,000. Project completion is anticipated for 2014. ➢ 18: S 356`' Street @ SR 161. Add 2nd NB Left -turn lane on SR 161 — support phase of Triangle Project. The total cost of the project is estimated to be $2,700,000. Project completion was recently completed in 2012. December 12, 2012 Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC Pagege 8 8 Park 16 Multifamily Federal Way, WA TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS Impact Study The following section describes transportation impacts the proposed Park 16 111srdtifcrvrsidy development would have on the surrounding roadway network in the site vicinity. The discussion includes non -project related traffic forecasts, new trips generated by the proposed development, distribution and assignment of new project trips, impacts on roadways, levels of service at nearby intersections, and impacts to site access, safety, and circulation issues, public transportation services and nonmotorized facilities. Non -Project Traffic Forecasts For the purpose of this traffic analysis, year 2014 was selected as the build -out year based upon anticipated completion of the Park 16Mults, family development. A 3-percent per year growth rate was used to estimate a "worst -case" traffic scenario. Therefore, existing traffic volumes were factored by 3-percent per year to estimate year 2014 baseline conditions without the proposed development. 2014 traffic volume forecast estimates at study intersections and the site access intersections are provided in Appendix C. Project Trip Generation This section summarizes trip generation methodology and estimates for the proposed Park 16 Multifarrrily project. Average trip rate equations compiled by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, Sty Edition, 2008, were used to estimate weekday daily, a.m., and p.m. peak hour traffic that would be generated by the proposed development with the proposed new Low -Rise Apartment (ITE Land Use Code 221) less the existing General Light Industrial (ITE Land Use Code 110), and Warehousing (ITE Land Use Code 150) uses. Table 3: Net Weekday Project Triq Generation Land Use ITE Land Use Code' Size' A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Daily Trips Enter Exit I Total Enter Exit Total Low -Rise Apartment 221 301 Units 29 109 138 114 61 175 1,984 Less Existing Light Industrial 110 12.1 SF GFA -10 -1 -11 -1 -11 -12 -84 Less Existing Warehousel 150 18.2 SF GFA 1 -4 -1 -5 -2 -4 -6 -65 Net Project Trip Generationj 15 1 107 122 111 46 157 1,835 1 - I I L 1 tip Generaftt Manual, 81" Edition, 2008. 2 — SF GFA is 1,000 Square Feet of Gross Floor Area and VFP is Vehicle Fueling Position. As shown in Table 3, the proposed project would generate an estimated net total increase of approximately 1,835 daily, 122 a.m. peak hour (15 entering and 107 exiting) and 157 p.m. peak hour (111 entering and 46 exiting) vehicular trips. Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC December 12, 2012 Page 9 Park 16 Multifamily Federal Way, WA Transportation Impact Study Trip Distribution and Assignment Based on review of previous traffic studies, model output from the City of Federal Way, and standard engineering practices and guidelines, the project trip distribution was assumed to follow these basic patterns for the proposed action: ➢ 42 percent West via S 356 h Street; ➢ 30 percent North via SR 161 (Enchanted Parkway); ➢ 23 percent Southeast via SR 161 (Enchanted Parkway); ➢ 5 percent South via 16`' Avenue S. Figure 4 illustrates these distribution percentages and assigns the trips to the roadway network for the a.m. and p.m. peak hour. Traffic Volume and Intersection Level of Service Impacts Figure 5 summarizes 2014 a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes with- and without the proposed project. Intersection levels of service impacts during the a.m. and P.M. peak hour were evaluated at study intersections assuming full completion of the Park 16 M1140ami-ly project in 2014 and are summarized in Table 4. Detailed level of service summary worksheets are provided in Appendix S, and 2014 traffic volume calculations worksheets are provided in Appendix C. In analysis of future intersection levels of service at adjacent signals, TENW was directed by the City to use existing timing (150-second cycle just sent) for existing analysis and optimized 120- second cycle length for future conditions. As shown, all, signalized study intersections would operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour in 2014 with and without the proposed project. All unsignalized intersections would operate at LOS B or better during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours in 2014 with and without the proposed project. Table 4: 2014 A.M. a P.M. Peak Intersection Level of Service Impacts A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Signalized Intersections Control Baseline With -Project Basellne Type With -Project #1 - SR 161 / S 356"' Street LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Signalized C 26 C LOS Delay #2 - 16' Avenge S / S 3561" 26 D 39 Signalized D 39 D 43 D 45 D 44 Street D 50 Control Unsignalized Intersections #3 - North Driveway / Type LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay S 3561' Street NB __ B 12 WB Left -- A 8 B 14 #4 - South Driveway / -- EB - - B A 8 161 Avenue S 13 NB Left -- _ -" A <1 A 10 -- - Note: Analysis based on SywTG G and f1CS 2000, TmS c Sr ,,,1 C.A9I711""i0N.S'*Ardre results using I IC NI 2000 control delays (seconds} A <1 zrtd LOB. Based on the intersection operations summarized above, no further intersection improvements axe required. Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC December 12, 2012 Page 10 Park 16 Multifamily Transportation Impact Study Federal Way, WA Figure 4: Project -Generated AM U PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour 15 Enter 107 Exit North Driveway / S 356th St 122 Total S 356th St Project Site PM Peak Hour 1 1 Enter North Driveway / S 356th St 46 Exit 157 Total --2 37 R S�356th St 1 I 47� 17 16 S 356th St :©-____ z_.� Project Site Legend XX = Project- Generated Peak Hour Volur MProject Trip Distribution Percentage %OTransportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC 16th Ave S / S 356th St Lt2 F-2 S35 --30- 5 21 7SP 161 / S 356th St S 356lh SI 32 - 3 25-y 16th Ave S / S 356th St F l7 20 13 �9 S 35fi1h St 15� H e 2 9 161 SR 161 / S 356th St S "sSFlh SI 14- 26 11� 16th Ave S / South Driveway y 22 Cn„Ih [7livplydy R 6 Figure 4 Project -Generated Peak Hour Traf c. Volumes (Not to Scale) Park 16 Apartments Federal Way, WA Traffic Impact Analysis December 12, 2012 Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC Page 11 Park 16 Multifamily Federal Way, WA Transportation Impact Study Figure 5: 2014 Future Baseline & With -Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour North Driveway / S 356th St E— 224 (229) L' /r 0 (5) '��` s356rhs (320) 320 —> (6)0�� 0 0 (40) (36) -�arrw S 35firh Cr Site Project PM Peak Hour North Driveway / S 356th St a-- 554 (556) 0 (37) S.ism) 5 (374) 374 r (47) 0 ( O) (6) S 356th St Project Site Legend XX = Baseline Peak Flour Yalumt (XX) = Ifth•ProJea Peak Hour Volume Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC 161 161 16th Ave S / S 356th St (67)(107) (1) 64 105 1 F 141 (143) 1, 80 (81) a S 356(h St (340) 304—i 1y 0 6) 16 ¢ 19 164 ig (24) (185) SF(I th St (1)(31517J1315 (10)1 (f I)575�1�5�(282) 250f(14) 14023 32(231) 206023){32) 71(� th Driveway t) (184) 16th Ave S / S 356th St (244) (456) ( I) F 300 (317) 1, 19 (28) i S 356th St 375 I 15 6 (112) (94) t SR 16N813 (5) (1,330) (8) 5 11330 80) 1,) a56fh St (194) 180 � (6) 6—�30(258)247�(30) 16th Ave S / South Driveway ti (22)(80) Q 0 80 r� (11)0� 161 (2) o� Figure 5 2014 Baseline & With -Project Peak Hour TrafFc Volumes rTransportation Engineering Northwest, LLC � T 0 94 (6) (94) (Not to Scale) Park l6 Apartments Federal Way, WA T: afr4c Impact Analysfs December 12, 2012 Page 12 Park 16 Multifamily Transportation Impact Study Federal Way, WA Queuing Impacts Average (50" percentile) and maximum (95`l' percentile) queue lengths are shown for intersection approaches along the project frontages. As defined in the 2000 Highway Ca In the "back of queue" is the number of vehicles that ate queued depending on arrival patterns and vehicles that do not cleat the intersection during any given green phase (overflow). existing signalized This section summarizes northbound and eastbound to determine theirengths at itnpacts, if any o the proposed Intersection #2 — 16t" Ave S / S 35 blas shown are he maximum site driveways on S 356`'' Street roadway available queue storage available for the adway segment withoutblocking the project driveway. As shown in Table 5, average and maximum northbound and eastbound queues would not exceed their storage during either peak hour under with- or without project conditions. As such no driveway blockage is anticipated during the 2014 with- or without project conditions during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. FrvI1A Table 5: 2014 queue Lengths Along Project ge Available M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Northbound 16�' Ave S @ S 356"' St Storage Baseline With -Project Baseline fee WlthTroiec 68 feet' Average 50`� Percentile Queue' ` 104 feet 145 feet 118 feet 156 feet 55 t' 124 feet 137 fee t Maximurzi 95"' Percentile Queue Yes Yes Yes Yes is Storage Sufficient? 380 feet Eastbound S 356t' St @ 16"' Ave S 134 feet 149 feet 150 feet 156 feet Average 5�`'' Percentile Queue' 95"' Percentile Queue' 165 feet 303 feet 193 feet 200 feet Maximuni Is Storage Sufficient? 430 feet Yes Yes Yes Yes 1. Volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer, queue shown is max after 2 gdcN. may be longer, queue shown is max after 2 cycles. 2.95th Percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue Left -Turn Lane Warrants The westbound left -turn into the site on S 3566 Street was evaluated using WSDDT's method outlined in Design Manual section M 22-01.07 using 2014 a.m. and p.m. peak hour with -project volumes. According to the WSDOT method, further analysis may be required for alert -turn is plotted for a 35mph posted speed, the volume packet on 356t'' Street S. Although no curve combination would likely be above the curve during the p.m. peak hour. Given the proximity to the Lowe's driveway WB left -turn pocket i to recommended ommeack h the L we s left -tam e tn�kpo separated th approximately 50 feet of storage be striped by raised curb. The northbound left -turn from 16" Avenue S into the site was not evaluated because the volume is below the 300 vehicles per hour threshold in the p.m. peak hour, and only one left - turn is anticipated in the a.m. peak hour. WSDGT Left -turn lane warrant plots are included in Appendix D. December 12, 2012 19 Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC Page 13 Park 16 Multifamily Federal Wa WA Transportation Impact Study Sight Distance Vehicular site access is proposed via one new site driveways onto S 356th Street and one new site driveway onto 16th Avenue S. The American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) A Policy on Geometric Design of Higbways and Streets was used to determine sight distance requirements at the project site access connections onto both driveways. North Driveway onto S 35611 Street For a 45 mph design speed (10 mph over 35 mph posted speed limit) on S 356th Street, AASHTO requires 360 feet of stopping sight distance and 500 feet of entering sight distance onto S 356th Street. Field -measured entering sight distance was estimated at greater than 600 feet in both directions and stopping sight distance was estimated at 485 feet to the west and over 600 feet to the east. All field -measured sight distances exceed AASHTO requirements at the North Driveway. South Driveway onto 16" Avenue S AASHTO requires 305 feet of stopping sight distance and 445 feet of entering sight distance for a 40 mph design speed (10 mph over 30 mph posted speed limit) onto 16th Avenue S. Field - measured stopping sight distance was estimated at over 400 feet to the north and greater than 500 feet south to the traffic circle. Entering sight distance was estimated at 460 feet to the north and greater than 500 feet to the south. These field measurements exceed AASHTO requirements for the South Driveway. Public Transportation Impacts The project site is well served by Pierce Transit bus stops on SR 161 which are within 1,000 feet of project driveways. This proximity will likely attract riders from the proposed project, but should not require service modifications. Nonmotorized Transportation Impacts Sidewalks and supporting frontage improvements would be provided on all property frontages of S 356th Street and 16th Avenue S. On -Site Parking Supply The project proposes to supply 483 on -site parking stalls according to the site plan shown in Figure 2. This supply provides approximately 1.6 parking stalls per apartment unit. Fitted curve parking demand rate equations compiled by the Institute of Transportation Engineers gTE) Parking Generation, 4`�' Edition, 2010, were used to estimate weekday peak parking demand that would be generated by the proposed "suburban" development with the proposed Low -Rise Apartment (ITE Land Use Code 221). Using peak demand fitted curve equations peak on -site parking demand is estimated at approximately 1.3 stalls per unit, or 390 stalls; which leaves a surplus of 93 stalls. Additional evaluation of site parking needs is provided under a separate cover in Park 16 Marlt�family — Parking Demand Analysis. December 12, 12 Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC Page 14 Park 16 Multifamily Federal Way, WA Transportation Impact Study PROJECT MITIGATION MEASURES A review of impacts to roadways, intersection levels of service, site access, safety, and circulation issues, public transportation services, and nonmotorized transportation facilities was conducted in association with the proposed development alternatives. The following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce or eliminate project impacts as a result of the proposed Park 16 Multifamily development: ➢ Construct all proposed site driveways and frontage improvements which would consist of constructing full curb, gutter and sidewalk on all property frontages of S 356th Street and 16th Avenue S. The current eastbound lane configuration on S 356th Street facilitates safe traffic operations with the project as currently constructed and no additional widening improvements are necessary. A 20-foot right-of-way dedication is proposed with the project to accommodate potential future widening improvements by the City. The City has a project in their current capital improvement program (CIP) to widen S 356th Street west of the 16th Avenue intersection. If improvements related to this CIP project are completed with the Park 16 Multifamily project as a condition of site development permits, then an equitable credit toward the project's required mitigation fees should be provided. ➢ Stripe WB left -turn pocket in median of S 356`h Street at the North Driveway back-to- back with the EB Lowe's driveway turn pocket. Provide approximately 50 feet of storage and curb separation from the existing EB left -turn pocket. ➢ To mitigate system wide impacts to planned transportation improvements within the City of Federal Way, a traffic impact fee is assessed by the City. For the proposed residential apartment uses, the City assesses a fee currently of $2,019.46 per dwelling unit. This resultant traffic impact fee would approximately be $609,850 under current rates. An impact fee credit would also be allowed to account for removal of existing uses of approximately (totaling approximately $61,950), resulting in a net assessment of $547,900. Final traffic impact fees would be calculated at the time of building permit submittal and are subject to change. Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC December 12, 2012 Page 15 Appendix A Traffic Counts Peak Hour Summary Mark Skaggs (206)251-0300 S 356th St 0 r211 M N 9 Cl 0 x a 0 F302 287 4 15 U 16th Ave S & S 356th St 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM Tuesday, December 04, 2012 0 0 F16 FO ------------------ 60 99 1 Peds 1 Peds 0 Approach PHF HV% Volume EB 0.87 3.0% 302 WB 0.80 4.3% 208 NB 0.58 10.4% 173 SB 0.51 3.1% 160 Intersection 0.81 4.9% 843 Count Period: 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM R 0 E 133 F208] 75 O N 9 N a [443] 0 0 S 356th St Total Vehicle Summary + 1 . Mark Skaggs (206)251-0300 16th Ave S & S 356th St Tuesday, December 04, 2012 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM 15-Minute Interval Summary 7.nn nee 0— 0•/11) AM Peak Hour Summary 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM Northbound Southbound Eastbound By 16th Ave S 16th Ave S S 356th St Approach in Out Total tiV In put Totat HV in Out Tote Volume 173 1 189 362 1 18 180 I 0 1 10 1 5 302 I 211 513 %HV 10.495 3.1i6 3.0% _.._ n at 1 0.87 By I 16th Ave S 16th Ave S 356th St r Movement r�r r�_� T anal i I T Rolling Hour Summary 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM Interval Northbound Southbound E: Stag 16th Ave S 16th Ave S S Time I L I T I R I HV I L I T I R I HV I L 1 In Out e n �o 160 0 > LL 60 99 1 o � ♦ HV 4.3% PHF 0.80 1 01 ° to Out 211 287 ♦ �: .- 208 In o ♦ 133 In 302 443 Out 15 S 75 0 HV 3.0% PHF 0.87 t a m 18 0 155 Out In = _ 189 173 a Peak Hour Summary 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM ind �0, St Total phi y(V �,;;, i51 9 843 S 356th St I Total Nestbound Pedestrians S 356th St Interval Crosswalk south East West T R HV Total 133 0 8 M3 0 0 3 0 6 715 PNorth 0 067 1 0 8 603 0 0 0 79 0 7 590 0 2 1690 4 592 0 0 1 Peak Hour Summary Mark Skaggs (206) 251-0300 7, S 356th St 0 506 i� N a m 0 a 0 F352 340 + 12 V 16th Ave S & S 356th St 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM Wednesday, November 28, 2012 0 f1 0 F 75 FO 220 54 1� � y y Peds 2 a Peds 0 10 0 85 F92] F95 0 0 Approach PHF HV% Volume EB 0.91 2.0% 352 WB 0.92 3.0% 302 NB 0.74 3.2% 95 SB 0.95 1.1 % 275 Intersection 0.91 2.1% 1,024 Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM R 0 E 276 F302� kit 26 0 N �o a CO Q co 426 0 0 S 356th St Total Vehicle Summary All Traffic Data tttttt� ®1� .Tfl �. i O 1 rl3 30 Mark Serencec Inc. 1. 1•11 16th Ave S & S 356th St Wednesday, November 28, 2012 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM 15-Minute Interval Summary 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM Interval Start Time 4:00 PIN 4:15 PM 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 5:00 PM 5:15 PM 5:30 PM 5:45 PM Total Surve o rn �o In 275 Out 0 >_ u_ 220 5544 1 EL � L* PHF 0.92 2 0 1 N 0 Out 506 340 —10,. t! F c 302 In 4—276 I352 n 426 Out 12 S' 26� 0 HV 2.0% PHF 2,0 ;t r o N n 10 0 85 Out In = _ 92 95 a - Peak Hour Summary 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM Northbound 16th Ave S y Southbound 16th Ave S Eastbound S 356th St Westbound S 356th St L T R HV L T R HV L T R HV L T R HV 2 0 30 1 1 0 15 54 0 0 97 0 3 7 75 0 5 4 0 17 1 D 19 53 2 0 73 4 0 9 63 0 1 1 0 19 0 0 12 1 58 0 0 89 5 2 7 66 0 2 3 0 19 1 1 B 55 1 0 81 3 2 3 72 0 1 2 0 17 0 0 11 1 57 0 0 92 2 1 8 70 0 1 3 0 25 0 1 0 12 1 60 1 0 77 4 1 0 75 0 1 3 0 24 0 0 13 51 1 0 85 4 1 5 72 0 0 0 0 19 1 0 6 61 0 0 72 1 0 5 Be 0 R 18 1 0 170 4 1 1 96 1 449 1 5 0 666 23 1 10 1 44 1 559 0 1 11 Peak Hour Summary Interval Total 280 242 257 245 259 256 257 230 2,026 �•v • •,. By Approach .v Northbound 16th Ave S Southbound 16th Ave S Eastbound S 356th St Westbound S 356th St Total Pedestrians Crosswalk In Out I Total I HV In Out Total HV In I Out I Total HV In I ut Total HV North South I East I West Volume 95 92 1 187 1 3 275 1 0 275 1 3 352 1 506 1 58 1 7 302 426 728 9 1,624 2 1 0 1 0 1 1 `YoHV 322% 1.196 2.0% 3.0 % 2.1 9/6 PHF 0.74 O.9S 0.91 0.92 0.91 ey Movement Volume PHF Northbound Southbound I Eastbound Westbound 16th Ave S 16th Ave S S 356th St S 356th St L I T R Total L I T I R ITotal L I T I R IToW I L I T a1 1D 0 85 95 1 54 220 275 0 340 12 352 26 276 Ell 0.63 0.00 0.71 0.74 0.25 0.71 0.95 0.95 0.00 0.68 0.60 0.91 0.72 0.92 00.92 Rolling Hour Summary 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM Interval Start Time 4:00 PM 4•.15 PM 4:3 —PM 4:45 PM 5 00 PM Northbound 16th Ave S Southbound 16th Ave S Eastbound S 356th St Westbound S 356th St L J T I R I IJV L T I R I HV L I T I R I HV L T R HV 10 i 0 65 3 1 54 1 220 3 0 1 340 1 12 7 26 276 0 i9 10 0 72 2 1 50 223 3 0 335 14 5 27 271 0 5 9 0 80 1 1 43 230 2 0 339 14 6 18 283 0 5 11 0 85 1 1 44 223 3 0 335 13 5 16 289 0 3 11 0 85 1 0 42 229 2 0 326 11 3 18 983 0 2 Total 1.024 0.91 Pedestrians Interval Crosswalk ]Wesl1.024 Total North South East 2 0 0 1.003 3 0 0 1 1.017 2 is 0 0 1,017 1 0 0 0 1.002 T 0 0 0 Peak Hour Summary Mark Skaggs (206) 251-0300 S 356th St 0 [208] 0 N 'O N 236 a 0 [443] 13 194 �1 Approach PHF HV% Volume SR 161 & S 356th St 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM Tuesday, December 04, 2012 0 0 303 1207 1 297 5 � y y Peds 1 Peds 3 198 964 30 501 1192 0 0 EB 0.72 4.7% 443 WB 0.59 15.4% 26 NB 0.96 1.2% 1,192 SB 0.89 2.3% 303 Intersection 0.92 2.3% 1,964 Count Period: 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM R 7 E 9 26 10 N N N IL 48 0 S 356th St Total Vehicle Summary Mark Skaggs (206) 251 _0300 SR 161 & S 356th St Tuesday, December 04, 2012 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM 15-Minute Interval Summary 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM Interval Northbound Stag I SR 161 SR o M m O In 303 Out 1,207 (V _ = 1 297 5 n , HV 15.4% PHF 0.59 1 236 1 ` 7 Out 208 13 ♦ o It c 26 In a 9 In 443 46 Out 194� y 10 3 HV 4.7% PHF 0.72 t o m Cl! W 198 964 30 - 0 Out In = _ 501 1,192 0_ Peak Hour Summary 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM St I S 356th St _j Interval t5:l5RM 6:3 -AM 45 1 252 7 1 Q 70 0 2 41 4 37 1 3 3 2 0 6 8:45 AM 42 248 3 3 2 87 0 3 38 1 1 33 1 2 3 2 1 7 460 Total SuM 377 1 1,898 48 1 25 11 611 1 15 376 26 339 1 27 23 1 16 14 5 3,740 Peak Hour Summary 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM B Northbound Souhbound Eastbound Westbound Pedestrians y SR 161 SR 161 S 356th St S 356th St Total Crosswalk Approach in put Total HV In Ou! Total NV In OOt 7atat HV In Out Total HV North South East West 303 1 207 1 510 7 443 208 651 21 26 48 74 a 1,t 1 3 2 0 Volume 1.192 501 1,893 i4 4.795 15A% 2.3 % %HV 1.2% 2.3% 0.89 0.72 0.59 0.92 PHF 0.96 Northbound Souhbound Eastbound Westbound By SR 161 SR 161 S 356th St S 356th St Tota Movement _ r,, r a Tnta1 I T R Total L T R Taml Rolling Hour Summary 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM interval Norll�bou Start SR 161 Time L I T ._' hound I 161 R I HV 1 7 1 9 1 8 1 9 n n Eastbound S 356th St L I T R HV 236 13 i94 27 200 14 J97 14 154 13 65 10 148 14 54 7 yen 13 145 6 Westbound S 3mth St L T I R HV 1❑ 9 7 4 11 8 8 3 12 6 19 3 12 7 9 2 13 7 7 1 Interval Total 1,964 1,917 1,SQ30 1.798 1.776 Pedestrians Crosswalk North I 1 1 South 3 3 1 East 2 2 0 West Q 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 Peak Hour Summa All Traffic Data �ars�c=axoxoxxo Mark Saxvicea inc. 0. 0,00 S 356th St SR 161 & S 356th St 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM Wednesday, November 28, 2012 0 I 0 0 F2921 N F a409 233 y Approach PHF HV% Volume F1267 942 5 1254 8 Peds 1 EB 0.87 1.2% 409 WB 0.78 0.0% 69 NB 0.94 1.2% 1,062 SB 0.91 1.1% 1,267 Intersection 0.96 1.1 % 2,807 Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM 0 Peds 1 R 6 F 19 69 IL 44 M N a F42 0 0 S 356th St Total Vehicle Summary All Traffic Data ServiceaInc. SkaggsMark 0.0300 SR 161 & S 356th St Wednesday, November 28, 2012 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM 15-Minute Interval Summary 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM Interval Start Tlme 4:00 PM 4:15 PM 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 5:00 PM 5:15 PM 5.30 PM 5:45 PM Total Survey In Out rn 1,267 942 o > u_ 5 1,254 8 o. HV 0.0% PHF 0.78 f * ' s 0 J Out zsz 17ss In In 409 6 ♦FF ~ 19 42 Out 233 Z 44 S' HV 1.2% PHF 0.87 101 ♦ e a N O 268 766 28 o Out In 2 = 1,531 1,062 a Peak Hour Summary 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM Northbound SR 161 Southbound SR 161 Eastbound S 356th St Westbound S 356th St L T R HV L T I R HV L T R HV L T R I HV 68 207 8 6 1 296 0 4 53 3 71 4 5 3 2 0 76 1d7 4 3 2 283 2 4 39 2 56 0 4 5 2 0 OD:184 6 5 2 320 3 i 4 43 1 53 1 12 4 4 0 64 203 12 2 1 2B3 2 1 2 50 1 67 2 9 6 1 0 82 161 9 4 0 309 0 3 42 3 57 1 13 8 1 0 62 1 218 1 2 5 342 0 5 35 1 56 1 10 1 0 0 74 ,89 5 0 3 264 1 4 64 4 59 1 11 4 0 0 77 1 179 8 2 4 263 0 1 1 24 4 45 1 8 4 1 0 563 1 1,488 53 24 18 2,360 8 27 350 19 464 11 72 1 35 11 0 Peak Hour Summary A•9n DM M 4-1n PM Interval Total 717 622 692 699 685 731 67B 617 5,441 Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound B y SR 161 SR 161 S 356th St S 356th St Total Approach In Out Total HV In I Out I Total HV In OutI Total I HV In I Out I Total LEV Volume 1,062 1 1,531 1 2,593 13 1,267 942 2,209 14 409 2921 701 1 5 69 1 42 1 111 1 0 2,807 %HV 1.2% 1.196 1.2% 0.0% 1.1% PHF O,B4 0,91 0.87 0.78 0.96 Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound 6y SR 161 SR 161 S 356th St S 356th St Total Movement L I T I R Total I L T R Total L I T I R Total I LL T I R TotaY Volume 268 766 28 1,062 8 1,254 5 1, 170 6 233 409 44 19 6 69 2,807 _ PHF 0.89 0.88 0.58 0.94 0.40 0.92 0.42 0.91 0.8$ 0.50 0.87 O.B7 0.85 0.59 0.36 0.76 0.96 Rolling Hour Summary 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM Interval Start Time 400 PM 415 PM 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 5:00 PM Northbound SR 161 Southbound SR 161 Eastbound S 356th St Westbound S 356th St L T R HV L T R HV L T R HV L T R HV 26B 141 30 18 0 1,1B2 7 14 185 7 247 7 30 18 9 0 282 695 31 14 1 5 1,195 7 13 174 7 1 233 4 38L�23 6 0 268 7$8 2B 13 8 1.254 5 14 170 6 233 5 44 8.262 771 27 8 9 1,198 3 14191 9 239 5 43295 747 23 8 721.178 1 13 165 12 217 4 42 2 0 Pedestrians Crosswalk Norlt+ 1 South East West 1 1 3 1 Pedestrians Interval Crosswalk Total Norlh South East West 2.730 3 0 4 1 2,69E 3 0 4 1 2,807 1 1 3 1 2.793 0 5 2 1 2.711 1 7 2 1 1 Appendix B Level of Service Calculations at Study Intersections Timings Existing 2012 AM Peak Hour 1: S 356th St & SR 161 Enchanted Pkwy Park 16 Apartments -►` Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT o3 Lane Configurations *' r J t� I t# Volume (vph) 236 13 194 10 9 198 964 5 297 Turn Type pm+pt Perm Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 8 5 2 1 6 3 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 Detector Phases 7 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 15.0 36.0 36.0 32.0 32.0 10.0 27.0 10.0 27.0 15.0 Total Split (s) 28.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 25.0 80.0 12.0 67.0 28.0 Total Split (%°) 18.7% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 16.7% 53.3% 8.0% 44.7% 19% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None C-Max None C-Max None Act Effct Green (s) 44.2 23.4 23.4 23.4 20.0 88.5 5.3 65.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.13 0.59 0.04 0.44 v/c Ratio 0.79 0.61 0.12 0.11 0.86 0.49 0.10 0.22 Control Delay 17.2 14.6 55.8 36.1 94.7 19.9 57.6 36.5 Queue Delay 5.7 15.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 22.8 29.8 55.8 36.1 94.7 19.9 57.6 36.5 LOS C C E D F B E D Approach Delay 25.9 43.7 32.3 36.9 Approach LOS C D C D Intersection Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 150 Offset: 142 (95%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of 1st Green Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.90 Intersection Signal Delay: 31.5 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 1: S 356th St & SR 161 Enchanted Pkwy #1 #1 42 91 #2 01 I m2 u -Sn 80s I 128s 30s #1 #I2 91 #2 441 92 #1 #2 t aE 4 a5 0l 08 c�... 25 s 28 s 38 s 12/9/2012 Synchro 6 Report EMP Page 1 Transportation Engineering Northwest HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing 2012 AM Peak Hour 1: S 356th St & SR 161 Enchanted Pkwy Park 16 Apartments Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NOT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 r 1 tT tt Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%) 1 % 0% -1 % 1 % Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1717 1493 1553 1533 1796 3559 1761 3506 Flt Permitted 0.72 1.00 0.55 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1290 1493 904 1533 1796 3559 1761 3506 Volume (vph) 236 13 194 10 9 7 198 964 30 5 297 1 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.89 0.89 0.89 Adj. Flow (vph) 328 18 269 17 15 12 206 1004 31 6 334 1 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 208 0 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 346 61 17 17 0 206 1034 0 6 335 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 3 3 1 2 2 Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 15% 15% 15% 1 % 1 % 1 % 2% 2% 2% Bus Blockages (#/hr) 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 Turn Type pm+pt Perm Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 44.2 23.4 23.4 23.4 23.9 84.6 1.2 61.9 Effective Green, g (s) 44.2 23.4 23.4 23.4 23.9 84.6 1.2 61.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.56 0.01 0.41 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 439 233 141 239 286 2007 14 1447 v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 0.01 c0.11 c0.29 0.00 c0.10 v/s Ratio Perm c0.12 0.04 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.79 0.26 0.12 0.07 0.72 0.52 0.43 0.23 Uniform Delay, d1 48.6 55.7 54.4 54.0 59.9 20.1 74.1 28.6 Progression Factor 0.18 1.16 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.79 1.34 Incremental Delay, d2 5.9 0.2 0.1 0.0 7.3 0.9 5.9 0.3 Delay (s) 14.6 64.6 54.6 54.1 67.2 21.0 64.3 38.5 Level of Service B E D D E C E D Approach Delay (s) 36.5 54.3 28.7 38.9 Approach LOS D D C D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 32.9 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 25.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 12/9/2012 Synchro 6 Report EMP Page 2 Transportation Engineering Northwest Timings 2: S 356th St & 16th Ave S Existing 2012 AM Peak Hour Park 16 Apartments Lane Grou Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Detector Phases Minimum Initial (s) Minimum Split (s) Total Split (s) Total Split (%) Yellow Time (s) All -Red Time (s) Lead/Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Recall Mode Act Effct Green (s) Actuated g/C Ratio v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length. 150 Offset: 142 (95%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of 1st Green Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum vlc Ratio: 0.90 Intersection Signal Delay: 62.4 Intersection LDS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: #1 # t11t e2 its ##1 i##2 1 ■ @6 67 s 2: S 356th St & 16th Ave S #1 #2 S EST WSL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT RRP T H *'T t 287 75 133 18 0 155 1 99 60 custom custom custom Perm Perm 4 5 58 3 6 4 8 5 58 7 7 3 7 7 6 6 6 6 5.0 36.0 3.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6 5.0 30.0 25.0 55.0 15.0 28.0 15.0 28.0 15.0 28.0 27.0 67.0 27.0 67.0 27.0 20.0% 16.7% 36.7% 18.7% 18.7% 67.0 18.7% 44.7% 44.7% 44.7% 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lag Yes Lead Lead Lead None None None None Yes Yes Yes None C-Max C-Max C-Max 23.4 0.16 43.4 20.8 20.8 65.8 65.8 0.66 0.29 0.14 0.14 0.44 0.44 65.3 0.33 0.73 0.90 0.32 0.16 0-8 6.7 85.0 105.4 30.6 117 66.1 4.8 11.5 19.8 66.4 0.2 0.0 E 104.8 171.8 30.8 11.7 66.1 B 11.5 F 143.3 F C 23.6 B E B F C #1 #2 7-1" --* u4 30 S ##1 42 o$ 30 s YJ 4 1 2 g 5.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 27.0 32.0 12.0 80.0 30.0 8% 53% 20% 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lead Lag Yes Yes None C-Max None 12/9/2012 EMP Synchro 6 Report Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 3 2012 AM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis ExistPark 16 Apartments 356th St & 16th Ave S ■-- --r I • EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBTT SBR� Movement tT+ 1900 Lane Configurations 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 190% Ideal Flow (vphpl) Grade (%) 7 % 5 0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 0 95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.85 1.00 0.85 Frt 0. 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 57 300 3427 1414 1374 1844 1540 Satd. Flow (Prot) 3357 0.60 0.87 1.00 0.75 1.00 Flt Permitted 3357 2082 1250 1374 1392 1540 Satd. Flow (perm) 3357 15 75 133 0 18 0 155 1 60 Volume (vph) 0 factor, PHF 0.87 287 0.87 0.87 0.94 0.80 0.800.58 0.588 268 0.52 51 0 94 118 Peak -hour Adj. Flow (vph) 0 330 166 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 43 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 0 260 127 171 0 196 73 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 344 0 0 1 3 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% 10% 3% Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% custom to°m° custom° Per°m° Perm Turn Type custom 5 58 3 6 Protected Phases 4 8 7 7 6 6 Permitted Phases 47.3 20.8 20.8 61.9 61.9 Actuated Green, G (s) 23.4 47.3 20.8 20.8 61.9 61.9 Effective Green, g (s) 23.4 0 32 0.14 0.14 0.41 0.41 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 1.6 2.0 3.0 3.0 n ( Vehicle Extensios 1.6 871 173 191 574 636 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 524 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 c0.05 0.05 0.10 c0.12 c0.14 0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.30 0.73 0.90 0.34 0.12 v/c Ratio 0.66 38.8 61.9 63.5 30.1 27.2 Uniform Delay, d1 59.5 0 25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Progression Factor 1.00 0 1 13.0 13 36.4 1.6 0.4 Incremental Delay, d2 2 3 9 6 . 100.0 31.7 27.6 Delay (s) 61.8 A E F C C Level of Service E 9.6 89.3 30. 2 Approach Delay (s) 61.8 A F C Approach LOS E Intersection Summary 49.2 HCM Level of Service D HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.48 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 45.6% ICU Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Synchro 6 Report 12/9/2012 Page 4 EMP Transportation Engineering Northwest Timings Existing 2012 PM Peak Hour 1: S 356th St & SR 161 Enchanted Pkwy Park 16 Apartments Lane Group EBL EST EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT o3 Lane Configurations 'T r T 0 tt Volume (vph) 170 6 233 44 19 268 766 8 1254 Turn Type pm+pt Perm Perm Prot Prat Protected Phases 7 4 8 5 2 1 6 3 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 Detector Phases 7 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 15.0 36.0 36.0 32.0 32.0 10.0 27.0 10.0 27.0 15.0 Total Split (s) 29.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 35.0 85.0 12.0 62.0 29.0 Total Split (%) 18.1 % 21.3% 21.3% 21.3% 21.3% 21.9% 53.1 % 7.5% 38.8% 18% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None, None C-Max None C-Max None Act Effct Green (s) 36.8 26.8 26.8 26.8 30.0 106.9 5.5 74.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.19 0.67 0.03 0.46 v/c Ratio 0.60 0.55 0.28 0.10 0.85 0.36 0.15 0.84 Control Delay 8.4 8.6 61.3 44.9 85.0 13.8 88.4 37.3 Queue Delay 2.0 8.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 10.4 17.0 61.3 44.9 85.0 13.8 88.4 37.3 LOS B B E D F B F D Approach Delay 14.2 55.3 31.7 37.6 Approach LOS B E C D intersection Summary_ Cycle Length: 160 Actuated Cycle Length: 160 Offset: 56 (35%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of 1st Green Natural Cycle: 130 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.85 Intersection Signal Delay: 32.4 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 1: S 356th St & SR 161 Enchanted V#1 #1 Jof t o2 1:24$5 s _ #1 #2 #1 #2 o6 E� 35s 12/9/2012 EMP Transportation Engineering Northwest #2 t� 29 s #1 #2 0 r 29 t11 #? o4 34 s #1 42 t--- #- 3 4 s os Synchro 6 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing 2012 PM Peak Hour 1: S 356th St & SR 161 Enchanted Pkwy Park 16 Apartments Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 r Vi T+ ft tt Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%) 1 % 0% -1 % 1 % Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1784 1557 1788 1822 1796 3555 1778 3540 Fit Permitted 0.71 1.00 0.63 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1327 1557 1188 1822 1796 3555 1778 3540 Volume (vph) 170 6 233 44 19 6 268 766 28 8 1254 5 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 195 7 268 56 24 8 285 815 30 9 1378 5 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 223 0 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 202 45 56 25 0 285 844 0 9 1383 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1 % 1 % 1 % 0% 0% 0% 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % Bus Blockages (#/hr) 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 Turn Type pm+pt Perm Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 36.7 26.8 26.8 26.8 34.0 102.0 1.3 69.3 Effective Green, g (s) 36.7 26.8 26.8 26.8 34.0 102.0 1.3 69.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.21 0.64 0.01 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 333 261 199 305 382 2266 14 1533 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.01 c0.16 0.24 0.01 c0.39 v/s Ratio Perm c0.10 0.03 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.61 0.17 0.28 0.08 0.75 0.37 0.64 0.90 Uniform Delay, d1 55.2 57.1 58.2 56.2 59.0 13.8 79.1 42.2 Progression Factor 0.05 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.13 0.83 Incremental Delay, d2 1.6 0.1 0.3 0.0 6.8 0.5 46.8 7.3 Delay (s) 4.3 49.9 58.5 56.3 65.8 14.3 136.1 42.2 Level of Service A D E E E B F D Approach Delay (s) 30.3 57.7 27.2 42.8 Approach LOS C E C D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 35.6 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 160.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 12/9/2012 Synchro 6 Report EMP Page 2 Transportation Engineering Northwest Timings Existing 2012 PM Peak Hour 2: S 356th St & 16th Ave S Park 16 Apartments 4\ t --Dp Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 01 o2 e8 Lane Configurations tT31 *Tt 4 if t r Volume (vph) 339 18 283 9 0 80 1 43 230 Turn Type custom custom custom Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 5 58 3 6 1 2 8 Permitted Phases 8 7 7 6 6 Detector Phases 4 5 58 7 3 7 6 6 6 Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 36.0 10.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 10.0 27.0 32.0 Total Split (s) 34.0 35.0 69.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 62.0 62.0 62.0 12.0 85.0 34.0 Total Split (%) 21.3% 21.9% 43.1 % 18.1 % 18.1 % 18.1 % 38.8% 38.8% 38.8% 8% 53% 21 % Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None C-Max C-Max C-Max None C-Max None Act Effct Green (s) 26.8 56.8 10.9 11.1 74.2 74.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.36 0.07 0.07 0.46 0.46 v/c Ratio 0.68 0.27 0.56 0.64 0.07 0.28 Control Delay 68A 3.5 92.0 98.7 27.6 4.1 Queue Delay 0.5 3.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 68.9 6.7 92.3 99.1 27.6 4.1 LOS E A F F C A Approach Delay 68.9 6.7 96.0 7.9 Approach LOS E A F A Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 160 Actuated Cycle Length: 160 Offset: 56 (35%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of 1st Green Natural Cycle: 130 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.85 Intersection Signal Delay: 38.0 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: m1 _ a2 12s Sys 2: S 356th St & 16th Ave S #2 29s #1 #? I t34s #1 #rrh i �65 62s 01 42 #1 42 m7 29s 41 U2 34s 12/9/2012 Synchro 6 Report EMP Page 3 Transportation Engineering Northwest HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing 2012 PM Peak Hour 2: S 356th St & 16th Ave S Park 16 Apartments --* *-- 4\ t /0- i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t'+ *Tt r t r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%) 7% -1 % 3% 0% Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 1.00 0.88 0.85 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3396 3512 1507 1467 1879 1576 Fit Permitted 1.00 0.94 0.92 1.00 0.81 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3396 3328 1396 1467 1531 1576 Volume (vph) 0 339 14 18 283 0 9 0 80 1 43 230 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 373 15 20 308 0 12 0 108 1 45 242 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 137 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 386 0 0 328 0 0 55 65 0 46 105 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 1 1 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 1 % 1 % 1 % Turn Type custom custom custom Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 5 58 3 6 Permitted Phases 8 7 7 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 26.8 60.8 9.9 9.9 69.3 69.3 Effective Green, g (s) 26.8 60.8 9.9 9.9 69.3 69.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.38 0.06 0.06 0.43 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.6 1.6 2.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 569 1304 86 91 663 683 v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 c0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.04 c0.04 0.03 c0.07 v/c Ratio 0.68 0.25 0.64 0.71 0.07 0.15 Uniform Delay, d1 62.6 34.0 73.3 73.7 26.5 27.5 Progression Factor 1.00 0.13 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.5 0.0 10.9 19.7 0.2 0.5 Delay (s) 65.1 4.3 84.2 93.4 26.7 28.0 Level of Service E A F F C C Approach Delay (s) 65.1 4.3 89.2 27.8 Approach LOS E A F C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 40.4 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.32 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 160.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 12/9/2012 Synchro 6 Report EMP Page 4 Transportation Engineering Northwest HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: S 356th St & SR 161 Enchanted Pkw * 1I2/12/2012 � � �-- I t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT VVBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 F 1 tl� I tR Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%) 1 % 0% -1 % 1 % Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1718 1497 1553 1541 1796 3559 1761 3506 Flt Permitted 0.72 1.00 0.54 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1288 1497 888 1541 1796 3559 1761 3506 Volume (vph) 250 14 206 11 10 7 210 1023 32 5 315 1 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.89 0.89 0.89 Adj. Flow (vph) 347 19 286 19 17 12 219 1066 33 6 354 1 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 172 0 10 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 366 114 19 19 0 219 1097 0 6 355 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 3 3 1 2 2 Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 15% 15% 15% 1 % 1 % 1 % 2% 2% 2% Bus Blockages (#/hr) 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 Turn Type custom Perm Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 3 34 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 34 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 43.2 48.2 25.2 25.2 16.7 56.1 1.2 40.6 Effective Green, g (s) 42.7 47.7 24.2 24.2 16.7 56.1 1.2 40.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.40 0.20 0.20 0.14 0.47 0.01 0.34 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 525 595 179 311 250 1664 18 1186 v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 0.01 c0.12 c0.31 0.00 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm c0.14 0.08 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.70 0.19 0.11 0.06 0.88 0.66 0.33 0.30 Uniform Delay, d1 33.1 23.6 39.1 38.7 50.6 24.6 59.0 29.2 Progression Factor 0.11 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.18 0.96 Incremental Delay, d2 2.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 26.4 2.1 3.1 0.5 Delay (s) 6.0 0.0 39.2 38.8 77.1 26.7 72.5 28.7 Level of Service A A D D E C E C Approach Delay (s) 3.4 38.9 35.0 29.4 Approach LOS A D D C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 25.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Park 16 Apartments 5:00 pm 12/4/2012 Baseline 2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 6 Report Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: S 356th St & 16th Ave S 12/12/2012 � __*' *- 4% t # Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t'+ .0 4 r + r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%) 7% -1 % 3% 0% Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 1.00 0.89 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3357 3426 1415 1374 1844 1542 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.63 0.87 1.00 0.73 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3357 2210 1247 1374 1350 1542 Volume (vph) 0 304 16 80 141 0 19 0 164 1 105 64 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.51 0.51 0.51 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 349 18 100 176 0 33 0 283 2 206 125 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 364 0 0 276 0 0 134 182 0 208 76 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 3 3 Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% 10% 10% 10% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type custom Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 5 58 3 6 Permitted Phases 8 3 3 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.7 41.9 18.5 18.5 40.6 40.6 Effective Green, g (s) 24.2 40.9 18.5 18.5 40.6 40.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.34 0.15 0.15 0.34 0.34 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 677 922 192 212 457 522 v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 c0.04 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.11 c0.13 c0.15 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.54 0.30 0.70 0.86 0.46 0.15 Uniform Delay, d1 42.9 29.0 48.1 49.5 31.0 27.6 Progression Factor 1.00 0.32 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.0 8.6 26.5 3.2 0.6 Delay (s) 43.3 9.4 56.7 76.0 34.3 28.2 Level of Service D A E E C C Approach Delay (s) 43.3 9.4 67.8 32.0 Approach LOS D A E C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 39.1 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Park 16 Apartments 5:00 pm 12/4/2012 Baseline 2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 6 Report Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: S 356th St & SR 161 Enchanted Pkw 12/12/2012 Movement EBL EBT EBR VVBL VVBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 r '� T tT ++ Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%) 1 % 0% -1 % 1 % Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1784 1558 1789 1827 1796 3555 1778 3540 Flt Permitted 0.71 1.00 0.62 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1324 1558 1175 1827 1796 3555 1778 3540 Volume (vph) 180 6 247 47 20 6 284 813 30 8 1330 5 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 207 7 284 60 26 8 302 865 32 9 1462 5 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 185 0 6 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 214 99 60 28 0 302 895 0 9 1467 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1 % 1 % 1 % 0% 0% 0% 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % Bus Blockages (#/hr) 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 Turn Type custom Perm Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 3 34 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 34 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 30.5 35.5 26.0 26.0 19.0 68.7 1.3 51.0 Effective Green, g (s) 30.0 35.0 25.0 25.0 51.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.29 0.21 0.21 0.16 0.16 0.57 0.57 .01 0.01 0.42 0.42 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 350 454 245 381 284 2035 19 1505 v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 0.02 c0.17 0.25 0.01 c0.41 v/s Ratio Perm c0.13 0.06 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.61 0.22 0.24 0.07 1.06 0.44 0.47 0.97 Uniform Delay, d1 39.8 32.2 39.6 38.2 50.5 14.7 59.0 33.9 Progression Factor 0.07 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.19 0.92 Incremental Delay, d2 1.6 0.1 0.2 0.0 71.1 0.7 5.2 15.3 Delay (s) 4.2 6.6 39.8 38.2 121.6 15.3 75.4 46.5 Level of Service A A D D F B E D Approach Delay (s) 5.6 39.2 42.1 46.7 Approach LOS A D D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 38.5 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.1% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Park 16 Apartments 5:00 pm 12/4/2012 Baseline 2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 6 Report Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: S 356th St & 16th Ave S 12/12/2012 - --w "V 4\ t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +11� 4T+ rf f r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%) 7% -1 % 3% 0% Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 1.00 0.88 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3395 3512 1508 1467 1879 1577 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.94 0.91 1.00 0.81 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3395 3302 1385 1467 1516 1577 Volume (vph) 0 360 15 19 300 0 10 0 85 1 46 244 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 396 16 21 326 0 14 0 115 1 48 257 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 148 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 410 0 0 347 0 0 62 67 0 49 109 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 1 1 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 1 % 1 % 1 % Turn Type custom Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 5 58 3 6 Permitted Phases 8 3 3 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 25.5 45.0 5.0 5.0 51.0 51.0 Effective Green, g (s) 25.0 44.0 5.0 5.0 51.0 51.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.37 0.04 0.04 0.42 0.42 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 707 1244 58 61 644 670 v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 c0.04 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.04 c0.05 0.03 c0.07 v/c Ratio 0.58 0.28 1.07 1.10 0.08 0.16 Uniform Delay, d1 42.8 26.8 57.5 57.5 20.5 21.3 Progression Factor 1.00 0.32 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 0.0 138.7 144.9 0.2 0.5 Delay (s) 43.5 8.7 196.2 202.4 20.7 21.8 Level of Service D A F F C C Approach Delay (s) 43.5 8.7 199.4 21.7 Approach LOS D A F C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 44.6 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.34 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Park 16 Apartments 5:00 pm 12/4/2012 Baseline 2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 6 Report Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: S 356th St & SR 161 Enchanted Pkw 1I2/12/2012 *-- 4\ I --I. Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT VVBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 r T fl tt Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 0) Grade (/o 1% 0% -1% 1% Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1717 1497 1553 1541 1796 3559 1761 3506 Flt Permitted 0.71 1.00 0.52 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1286 1497 852 1541 1796 3559 1761 3506 Volume (vph) 282 14 231 11 10 7 213 1023 32 5 315 1 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.89 0.89 0.89 Adj. Flow (vph) 392 19 321 19 17 12 222 1066 33 6 354 1 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 186 0 9 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 411 135 19 20 0 222 1097 0 6 355 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 3 3 1 2 2 Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 15% 15% 15% 1 % 1 % 1 % 2% 2% 2% Bus Blockages (#/hr) 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 Turn Type custom Perm Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 3 34 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 34 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 45.9 50.9 26.9 26.9 17.4 53.4 1.2 37.2 Effective Green, g (s) 45.4 50.4 25.9 25.9 17.4 53.4 1.2 37.2 Actuated g/C Ratio ' 0.38 0.42 0.22 0.22 0.14 0.44 0.01 0.31 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 557 629 184 333 260 1584 18 1087 v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 0.01 c0.12 c0.31 0.00 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm c0.16 0.09 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.21 0.10 0.06 0.85 0.69 0.33 0.33 Uniform Delay, d1 32.2 22.2 37.7 37.4 50.1 26.7 59.0 31.8 Progression Factor 0.11 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.20 0.97 Incremental Delay, d2 3.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 22.1 2.5 3.1 0.6 Delay (s) 6.8 0.0 37.8 37.4 72.2 29.2 73.6 31.5 Level of Service A A D D E C E C Approach Delay (s) 3.8 37.6 36.4 32.2 Approach LOS A D D C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 26.2 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Park 16 Apartments 5:00 pm 12/4/2012 Baseline 2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 6 Report Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: S 356th St & 16th Ave S 12/12/2012 --a. t # 41 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 0 *Tf r t if Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%) 7% -1 % 3% 0% Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 1.00 0.89 0.85 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 1.00 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3360 3427 1419 1374 1844 1542 Fit Permitted 1.00 0.62 0.85 1.00 0.72 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3360 2160 1226 1374 1329 1542 Volume (vph) 0 340 16 81 143 0 24 0 185 1 107 67 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.51 0.51 0.51 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 391 18 101 179 0 41 0 319 2 210 131 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 406 0 0 280 0 0 152 208 0 212 79 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 3 3 Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% 10% 10% 10% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type custom Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 5 58 3 6 Permitted Phases 8 3 3 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 26.4 44.3 19.5 19.5 37.2 37.2 Effective Green, g (s) 25.9 43.3 19.5 19.5 37.2 37.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.36 0.16 0.16 0.31 0.31 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 725 963 199 223 412 478 v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 c0.04 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.12 c0.15 c0.16 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.56 0.29 0.76 0.93 0.51 0.17 Uniform Delay, d1 42.0 27.4 48.0 49.6 34.0 30.1 Progression Factor 1.00 0.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.0 14.4 41.3 4.5 0.7 Delay (s) 42.5 8.1 62.5 90.9 38.5 30.9 Level of Service D A E F D C Approach Delay (s) 42.5 8.1 78.9 35.6 Approach LOS D A E D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 43.3 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Park 16 Apartments 5:00 pm 12/4/2012 Baseline 2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 6 Report Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: S 356th St & North Driveway12/12/2012 Movement Lane Configurations Sign Control Grade Volume (veh/h) Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked VC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR I T 'Y' Free Free Stop 0% 0% 0% 320 6 5 229 40 36 0.87 0.87 0.80 0.80 0.90 0.90 368 7 6 286 44 40 TWLTL 1 498 0.95 375 670 371 371 299 375 653 371 4.1 6.4 6.2 5.4 2.2 3.5 3.3 99 91 94 1173 514 675 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 Volume Total 375 6 286 84 Volume Left 0 6 0 44 Volume Right 7 0 0 40 cSH 1700 1173 1700 579 Volume to Capacity 0.22 0.01 0.17 0.15 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 13 Control Delay (s) 0.0 8.1 0.0 12.3 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.2 12.3 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 28.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Park 16 Apartments 5:00 pm 12/4/2012 Baseline 2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 6 Report Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: South Driveway & 16th Ave S 12/12/2012 -4\ I -1 - Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations ly 4 T Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 3% 0% Volume (veh/h) 26 5 1 184 201 3 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.58 0.58 0.70 0.70 Hourly flow rate (vph) 29 6 2 317 287 4 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 443 pX, platoon unblocked 0.93 0.93 0.93 vC, conflicting volume 610 289 291 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 579 233 235 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.3 p0 queue free % 93 99 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 441 747 1192 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 34 319 291 Volume Left 29 2 0 Volume Right 6 0 4 cSH 473 1192 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.07 0.00 0.17 Queue Length 95th (ft) 6 0 0 Control Delay (s) 13.2 0.1 0.0 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 13.2 0.1 0.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 20.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Park 16 Apartments 5:00 pm 12/4/2012 Baseline 2014 AM Peak Hour Synchro 6 Report Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: S 356th St & SR 161 Enchanted Pkw 12/12/2012 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 F '� Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%) 1% 0% -1% 1% Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1784 1558 1789 1827 1796 3555 1778 3540 Flt Permitted 0.71 1.00 0.62 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1323 1558 1158 1827 1796 3555 1778 3540 Volume (vph) 194 6 258 47 20 6 310 813 30 8 1330 5 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 223 7 297 60 26 8 330 865 32 9 1462 5 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 183 0 6 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 230 114 60 28 0 330 895 0 9 1467 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1 % 1 % 1 1 % 1 0% 0% 1 0% 1 1 % 1 % 3 1 % 3 1 % 1 % 1 1 % Bus Blockages (#/hr) 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 Turn Type custom Perm Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 3 34 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 31.3 34 36.3 8 26.8 26.8 19.0 67.9 1.3 50.2 Effective Green, g (s) 30.8 35.8 25.8 25.8 19.0 67.9 1.3 50.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.26 0.30 0.22 0.22 0.16 0.57 0.01 0.42 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 359 465 249 393 284 2012 19 1481 v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 0.02 c0.18 0.25 0.01 c0.41 v/s Ratio Perm c0.14 0.64 0.07 0.24 0.05 0.24 0.07 0.99 v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 39.7 31.9 39.0 37.5 50.5 50.5 15.1 15.1 59.0 59.0 34.7 34.7 Progression Factor 0.07 0.19 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.20 0.93 Incremental Delay, d2 1.9 0.1 0.2 0.0 104.6 0.7 5.2 18.5 Delay (s) 4.9 6.0 39.2 37.6 155.1 15.8 76.0 50.6 Level of Service A A D D F B E D Approach Delay (s) 5.5 38.6 53.3 50.7 Approach LOS A D D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 44.2 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Park 16 Apartments 5:00 pm 12/4/2012 With -Project 2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 6 Report Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: S 356th St & 16th Ave S 12/12/2012 } --0. --t ■-- 4\ I t 41 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tT3 0 r f r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%) 7% -1 % 3% 0% Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 1.00 0.88 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3396 3508 1509 1467 1880 1577 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.92 0.90 1.00 0.80 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3396 3230 1376 1467 1513 1577 Volume (vph) 0 375 15 28 317 0 12 0 94 1 59 264 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 412 16 30 345 0 16 0 127 1 62 278 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 162 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 426 0 0 375 0 0 69 74 0 63 116 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 1 1 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 1 % 1 % 1 % Turn Type custom Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 5 58 3 6 Permitted Phases 8 3 3 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 26.3 45.8 5.0 5.0 50.2 50.2 Effective Green, g (s) 25.8 44.8 5.0 5.0 50.2 50.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.37 0.04 0.04 0.42 0.42 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 730 1250 57 61 633 660 v/s Ratio Prot c0.13 c0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.05 c0.05 0.04 c0.07 v/c Ratio 0.58 0.30 1.21 1.21 0.10 0.18 Uniform Delay, d1 42.3 26.5 57.5 57.5 21.2 21.9 Progression Factor 1.00 0.36 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.0 186.8 183.6 0.3 0.6 Delay (s) 43.0 9.5 244.3 241.1 21.5 22.5 Level of Service D A F F C C Approach Delay (s) 43.0 9.5 242.7 22.3 Approach LOS D A F C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 50.0 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.36 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Park 16 Apartments 5:00 pm 12/4/2012 With -Project 2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 6 Report Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: S 356th St & North Driveway12/12/2012 --0- 4--- 1, Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Ta + Y Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 374 47 37 556 17 16 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.90 0.90 Hourly flow rate (vph) 411 52 40 604 19 18 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL Median storage veh) 1 Upstream signal (ft) 498 pX, platoon unblocked 0.90 vC, conflicting volume 463 1122 43 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 437 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 685 vCu, unblocked vol 463 1135 437 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4 tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 -- p0 queue free % 96 94 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 1093 327 620 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 Volume Total 463 40 604 37 Volume Left 0 40 0 19 Volume Right 52 0 0 18 cSH 1700 1093 1700 424 Volume to Capacity_ 0.27 0.04 0.36 0.09 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 3 0 7 Control Delay (s) 0.0 8.4 0.0 14.3 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.5 14.3 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Park 16 Apartments 5:00 pm 12/4/2012 With -Project 2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 6 Report Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: South DrivewaX & 16th Ave S 12/12/2012 4\ T Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y 4 1� Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 3% 0% Volume (veh/h) 11 2 6 94 80 22 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.74 0.74 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 12 2 8 127 87 24 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 441 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 242 99 111 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 242 99 111 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 98 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 742 957 1473 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 14 135 111 Volume Left 12 8 0 Volume Right 2 0 24 cSH 769 1473 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.01 0.07 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 Control Delay (s) 9.8 0.5 0.0 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 9.8 0.5 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 19.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Park 16 Apartments 5:00 pm 12/4/2012 With -Project 2014 PM Peak Hour Synchro 6 Report Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 4 Appendix C 2014 Traffic Volume Estimates Ni A 0 LL a C 3 E La O �2 O1 c d E m � LL ' O w = C be G1 � E a. as Q I to- Y LL �a �o LLN 0 a p O F d .o a OIE I-A .O a` OL c N w N N E m ELO'L 8 OE ES l'l � � 0 t oa 90L tl 0 9L EE n SOL 0 a OOL 5 DEf'L ELP " aS = 0 0 a O9 M 3 E4E L S OLE SE9 L 4ZE mgZ[ ZOL 0 0 µ EB ZOL a 9 zo � c a 4l 9Z i� 0 E LL 0 9l EE $a LL 9 0 9Z LL EE OZ L ZZ 0 L[ F9 ZZ ZZ 9 Z 6 � q � o 0 ME %EZ %o YA{ %bZ %0 96aE ML TF %bZ %S r %0 %EZ %EZ %OE %9L %S %OZ %0 f %LE 1i&x • %OZ %&Z %9 %S 6 � i € ¢ x e x o e e e m � n pRF; flm aga pp 666 9 DE LZVI ye p i SD S6 e 0 D 0 0 s 46 0 D 48 e OEE'L N FL9 q D7 0 0 0 O9 - 48 EbE'l S PBL bZ9'L L6Z 4fL Ol OB p 0 0 a 0 OB a 0 08 � 0 0 0 0 E q 0 0 0 x 0 ❑ 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 ' 0 D p 0 •- p n D ❑ 0 w0 O p 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 p e p Z.F", v vz Z90'L 0 I p m pg 09 0 0 08 69 6 � 89Z lE5'L 4LZ DFz 6 ;SL 0 0 i SL SL n p� c0 Appendix D WSDOT Left -Turn Lane Warrant Plots Intersections at Grade 25 20 15 10 5 0 % Total DHV Turning Left (single turning movement) Notes: [1] DHV is total volume from both directions. [2] Speeds are posted speeds. Left -Turn Storage Guidelines: Two -Lane, Unsignalized Exhibit 1310.12a Chapter 1310 Page 1310-26 WSDOT Design Manual M22-01,05 June 2009 Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment Face Page File No.: NCS-517821-WAI COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE Issued by FIRSTAMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY First American Title Insurance Company, herein called the Company, for valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagor of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor; all subject to the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof. This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of the issuance of the Commitment or by subsequent endorsement. This Commitment if preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six (6) months after the effective date hereof or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the fault of the Company. This Commitment shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by an authorized officer or agent. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this commitment to be signed and sealed, to become valid when countersigned by an authorized officer or agent of the Company, all in accordance with its By -Laws. This Commitment is effective as of the date shown in Schedule A as "Effective Date." FirstAmerican Title Insurance Company ' °'- ' By:� — President SEPf 111H: 7a.: i • � ' NSI •' t yy Attest: Secretary By: Countersigned ECII�!ED DEC 13 2012 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS First American Title Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment To: 1 FA ��� , F"It First American Title Insurance Company National Commercial Services 818 Stewart Street, Suite 800, Seattle, WA 98101 (206)728-0400 - (800)526-7544 FAX (206)448-6348 Mike Cooper (206)615-3107 mcooper@firstam.com DevCo, Inc. 375 118th Ave SE, Suite 118 Bellevue, WA 98005 Attn: Jack Hunden SECOND REPORT SCHEDULE A Commitment Date: October 31, 2012 at 7:30 A.M. Policy or Policies to be issued: Short Term Rate Standard Owner's Coverage File No.: NCS-517821-WAl Page No. 1 Laura Lau (206)615-3017 Ilau@firstam.com File No.: NCS-517821-WA1 Your Ref No.: 35706 16th Avenue South and 1405 South 356th Stree AMOUNT PREMIUM $ To Follow $ TAX Proposed Insured: DEVCO, Inc., a Washington corporation 3. The estate or interest in the land described on Page 2 herein is Fee Simple, as to Parcels A and B, and Easement as to Parcel C, and title thereto is at the effective date hereof vested in: Dominion Holdings, LLC, a Washington limited liability company 4. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: The land referred to in this report is described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. First American Title Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment EXHIBIT 'A' LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PARCEL A: File No.: NCS-517821-WAl Page No. 2 THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER THEREOF; ALSO EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING EAST OF A LINE WHICH IS PARALLEL WITH AND 395 FEET WEST OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION; ALSO EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY FOR ROAD BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 698891. PARCEL B: THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE EAST 30 FEET FOR ROAD AS DISCLOSED BY DEEDS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NOS. 6630398 AND 6669685. PARCEL C: A NON EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS AS DESCRIBED IN AND DISCLOSED BY THAT CERTAIN DOCUMENT ENTITLED "EASEMENT AGREEMENT" RECORDED _ AS RECORDING NO. RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. First American Title Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment SCHEDULE B - SECTION 1 RE UIREMENTS The following are the Requirements to be complied with: File No.: NCS-517821-WAI Page No. 3 Item (A) Payment to or for the account of the Grantors or Mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. Item (B) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record. Item (C) Pay us the premiums, fees and charges for the policy. Item (D) You must tell us in writing the name of anyone not referred to in this Commitment who will get an interest in the land or who will make a loan on the land. We may then make additional requirements or exceptions SCHEDULE B - SECTION 2 GENERAL EXCEPTIONS The Policy or Policies to be issued will contain Exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company. A. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. B. Any facts, rights, interest, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said land or by making inquiry of person in possession thereof. C. Easements, claims of easement or encumbrances which are not shown by the public records. D. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by public records. (1) Unpatented mining claims; (2) reservations or exceptions in patents or in acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (3) Water rights, claims or title to water; whether or not the matters excepted under (1), (2) or (3) are shown by the public records; (4) Indian Tribal Codes or Regulations, Indian Treaty or Aboriginal Rights, including easements or equitable servitudes. F. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor, materials or medical assistance theretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. G. Any service, installation, connection, maintenance, construction, tap or reimbursement charges/costs for sewer, water, garbage or electricity. H. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgages thereon covered by this Commitment. First American Title Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) File No.: NCS-517821-WAl Commitment Page No. 4 SCHEDULE B - SECTION 2 (continued) SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS 1. Lien of the Real Estate Excise Sales Tax and Surcharge upon any sale of said premises, if unpaid. As of the date herein, the excise tax rate for the City of Federal Way is at 1.78%. Levy/Area Code: 1205 For all transactions recorded on or after July 1, 2005: ■ A fee of $10.00 will be charged on all exempt transactions; • A fee of $5.00 will be charged on all taxable transactions in addition to the excise tax due. 2. Facility Charges, if any, including but not limited to hook-up, or connection charges and latecomer charges for water or sewer facilities of Federal Way Water and Sewer as disclosed by instrument recorded August 4, 1986 under Recording No. 8608041129. 3. Facility Charges, if any, including but not limited to hook-up, or connection charges and latecomer charges for water or sewer facilities of Federal Way Water and Sewer as disclosed by instrument recorded May 12, 1989 under Recording No. 8905120210. Said notice supercedes previous notice recorded June 1, 1981 under Recording No. 8106010916. 4. Facility Charges, if any, including but not limited to hook-up, or connection charges and latecomer charges for water or sewer facilities of Federal Way Water and Sewer as disclosed by instrument recorded January 19, 1993 under Recording No. 9301190272. 5. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: April 26, 1943 under Recording No. 3382778 For: Road Affects: The North 30 feet of Parcel B Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: June 12, 1974 under Recording No. 7406120648 In Favor of: Puget Sound Power and Light Company, a Washington corporation For: 3 guy wires and 1 anchor Affects: A 10 foot wide strip located within the North 35 feet of Parcel A at a point approximately 90 feet West of the East line thereof Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: January 22, 1980 under Recording No. 8001220514 In Favor of: King County Water District No. 124 For: Water line Affects: The Northerly 10 feet of Parcel B First American Title Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment File No.: NCS-517821-WAI Page No. 5 Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: April 9, 1981 under Recording No. 8104090458 In Favor of: Puget Sound Power and Light Company, a Washington corporation For: Electric transmission and/or distribution system Affects: The North 70 feet of Parcel B 9. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: August 20, 1985 under Recording No. 8508200805 In Favor of: Lakehaven Sewer District For: Sewer mains Affects: The West 5 feet of Parcel A 10. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: September 27, 1990 under Recording No. 9009270129 In Favor of: Federal Way Water and Sewer For: Water facilities Affects: The West 10 feet of the East 415 feet of the North 215 feet and the West 15 feet of the East 430 feet of the South 15 feet of the North 215 feet of Parcel B Said easement supercedes and cancels easement recorded September 23, 1987 under Recording No. 8709230889. 11. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled Agreement, executed by and between The Federal Way Water and Sewer District, King County, a municipal corporation and Federal Way School District No. 210, recorded March 18, 1992 as Instrument No. 9203182167 of Official Records. Document(s) declaring modifications thereof recorded February 19, 1999 as Recording No. 9902191058 of Official Records. 12. Conditions, notes, easements, provisions contained and/or delineated on the face of the Survey recorded May 19, 1992 under Recording No. 9205199001, recorded in Volume 87 of surveys, at Page(s) 65 through 65A, in King County, Washington. 13. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled Purchase and Sale and Option to Purchase Agreement of the 356 Property in the City of Federal Way, executed by and between Group II, LLC, a Washington limited liability company and Dominion Holdings, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, recorded January 19, 2005 as Instrument No. 20050119001832 of Official Records. 14. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled Private Pump Station Agreement, executed by and between Lakehaven Utility District, King County, a municipal corporation and Dominion Holdings, Inc., D.B.A. ST Fabrication, recorded July 25, 2005 as Instrument No. 20050725002063 of Official Records. First American Title Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment File No.: NCS-517821-WAl Page No. 6 15. Deed of Trust and the terms and conditions thereof. Grantor/Trustor: Dominion Holdings LLC, a Washington limited liability company Grantee/Beneficiary: Sterling Savings Bank Trustee: UPF Washington Incorporated Amount: $3,242,459.46 Recorded: April 28, 2011 Recording Information: 20110428000806 Document states that it is for Cross-Default/Cross-Collateralization. 16. Assignment of leases and/or rents and the terms and conditions thereof: Assignor: Dominion Holdings LLC, a Washington limited liability company Assignee: Sterling Savings Bank Recorded: April 28, 2011 Recording Information: 20110428000807 17. Evidence of the authority of the individual(s) to execute the forthcoming document for Dominion Holdings LLC, a Washington limited liability company, copies of the current operating agreement should be submitted prior to_closin . 18. Evidence of the authority of the officers of DEVCO, Inc., a Washington corporation, to execute the forthcoming instrument, copies of the current Articles of Incorporation, By -Laws and certified copies of appropriate resolutions should be submitted prior to closing_ 19. Unrecorded leaseholds, if any, rights of vendors and security agreement on personal property and rights of tenants, and secured parties to remove trade fixtures at the expiration of the term. 20. Deed of Trust and the terms and conditions thereof. Grantor/Trustor: Dominion Holdings, LLC Grantee/Beneficiary: Sterling Savings Bank dba Sterling Bank Trustee: UPF Washington Incorporated Amount: $500,000.00 Recorded: September 26, 2012 Recording Information: 20120926000195 21. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled "Easement Agreement" recorded _ as of Official Records. First American Title Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment INFORMATIONAL NOTES A. General taxes for the year 2012, which have been paid. Tax Account No. 292104-9095-05 Amount: $21,139.17 Assessed Land Value: $1,551,000.00 Assessed Improvement Value: $0.00 (Affects Parcel A) B. General taxes for the year 2012, which have been paid. Tax Account No. 292104-9107-01 Amount: $23,424.89 Assessed Land Value: $830,000.00 Assessed Improvement Value: $585,800.00 File No.: NCS-517821-WA1 Page No. 7 (Affects Parcel B) C. Effective January 1, 1997, and pursuant to amendment of Washington State Statutes relating to standardization of recorded documents, the following format and content requirements must be met. Failure to comply may result in rejection of the document by the recorder. D. Any sketch attached hereto is done so as a courtesy only and is not part of any title commitment or policy. it is furnished solely for the purpose of assisting in locating the premises and First American expressly disclaims any liability which may result from reliance made upon it. E. The description can be abbreviated as suggested below if necessary to meet standardization requirements. The full text of the description must appear in the document(s) to be insured. Ptn Sec 29 Twp 21N Rge 04E, SE Qtr NE Qtr APN: 292104-9095-05 APN: 292104-9107-01 F. According to the application for title insurance, title is to vest in DEVCO, Inc., a Washington corporation. Examination of the records discloses no matters pending against said party(ies). G. A fee will be charged upon the cancellation of this Commitment pursuant to the Washington State Insurance Code and the filed Rate Schedule of the Company. END OF SCHEDULE B First American Title Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment � •r :•r• First American Title Insurance Company National Commercial Services COMMITMENT Conditions and Stipulations File No.: NCS-517821-WAl Page No. 8 1. The term "mortgage" when used herein shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument. 2. If the proposed Insured has or acquires actual knowledge of a defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment, other than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in writing, the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act or reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclosure such knowledge to the Company, or if the Company otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter, the Company at its option, may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall not relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations. 3. Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties included under the definition of Insured in the form of Policy or Policies committed for, and only for actual loss incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the requirements hereof, or (b) to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the Policy or Policies committed for and such liability is subject to the Insuring provisions, exclusion from coverage, and the Conditions and Stipulations of the form of Policy or Policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby incorporated by references, and are made a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein. 4. Any claim of loss or damage, whether or not based on negligence, and which arises out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the lien of the Insured mortgage covered hereby or any action asserting such claim, shall be restricted to the provisions and Conditions and Stipulations of this Commitment. First American Title Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment The First American Corporation First American Title Insurance Company National Commercial Services PRIVACY POLICY We Are Committed to Safeguarding Customer Information File No.: NCS-517821-WAI Page No. 9 In order to better serve your needs now and in the future, we may ask you to provide us with certain information. We understand that you may be concerned about what we will do with such information particularly any personal or financial information. We agree that you have a right to know how we will utilize the personal Information you provide to us. Thereiare, together with our parent company, The First American Corporation, we have adopted this Privacy Policy to govern the use and handling or your personal information. Applicability This Privacy Policy governs our use of the information which you provide to us. It does not govern the manner in which we may use Information we have obtained from any other source, such as information obtained from a public record or from another person or entity. First American has also adopted broader guidelines that govern our use of personal information regardless of its source. First American calls these guidelines its Fair Information Values, a copy of which can be found on our website at www.firstam.com. Types of Information Depending upon which of our services you are utilizing, the types of nonpublic personal information that we may collect include: Information we receive from you on applications, forms and in other communications to us, whether in writing, in person, by telephone or any other means; Information about your transactions with us, our affiliated companies, or others; and - Information we receive from a consumer reporting agency. Use of Information We request information from you for our own legitimate business purposes and not for the benefit of any nonaffifiated party. Therefore, we will not release your Information to nonaffiliated parties except: (1) as necessary for us to provide the product or service you have requested of us; or (2) as permitted by law. We may, however, store such information indefinitely, including the period after which any customer relationship has ceased. Such Information may be used for any internal purpose, such as quality control efforts or customer analysis. We may also provide all of the types of nonpublic personal information listed above to one or more of our affiliated companies. Such affillated companies include financial service providers, such as title insurers, property and casualty insurers, and trust and investment advisory companies, or companies involved in real estate services, such as appraisal companies, home warranty companies, and escrow companies. Furthermore, we may also provide all the information we collect, as described above, to companies that perform marketing services on our behalf, on behalf of our affiliated companies, or to other financial Institutions with whom we or our affiliated companies have joint marketing agreements. Former Customers Even if you are no longer our customer, our Privacy Policy will continue to apply to you. Confidentiality and Security We will use our best efforts to ensure that no unauthorized parties have access to any of your information. We restrict access to nonpublic personal information about you to those Indlviduals and entities who need to know that information to provide products or services to you. We wilI use our best efforts to train and oversee our employees and agents to ensure that your information will be handled responsibly and in accordance with this Privacy Policy and First American's Fair Information Values. We currently maintain physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards that comply with federal regulations to guard your nonpublic personal information. c 2001 The First American Corporation - All Rights Reserved First American Title Insurance Company PREPARED FOR DEVCO December 11, 2012 Raymond A. Coglas Principal GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PARK 16 APARTMENTS 35703 -16TH AVENUE SOUTH FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON ES-0529.02 Earth Solutions NW, LLC 2881 —152"d Avenue Northeast Redmond, Washington 98052 Phone: 425-284-3300 Fax: 425-284-2865 ;r -.y,. , ED Toll Free: 866-336-8710 DEC 13 2012 CTTY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS � Geotechnical Engineering Report �, Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geolechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients, A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi- neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solely tor the client. No one except you should rely on your geolechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one — not even smrr st,o ild apply the report for any Purpose or project except the one originafly contemplated. Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. A Geolechnical Engineering Report Is Based on A Unique Set of Praject-Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project -specific fac- tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Uniess the gealechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth- erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: • not prepared for you, • not prepared for your project, • not prepared for the specific site explored, or • completed before important project changes were made. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect: • the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse, • elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure, composition of the design team, or project ownership. As a general rude, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes —even minor ones —and request an assessment of their impact. Geolechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study eras performed. Do not rely on a geotechniraf engineer- ing report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua- tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems. Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi- neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subs uriace conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ —sometimes significantly — from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are notfinal, because geotechnical engi- neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who de ve loped your report cannot assume responsibilily or liability for the report's recommendations it that engineer does not perform construction observation. A Geotechnical Engineering Report is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geo- technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti- nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also mislnterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. Be Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs Geotechnial engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con- tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that Ieffer, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy its [imited; encourage them to canler with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prate r. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sere contrac- tors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only them might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci- plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reparls. Sometimes labeled "Iimilations" many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsi- bilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibililies and risks. head these provisions closely. Ask questlans. You geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron- mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geolechi ical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geosnvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g„ about the likelihood at encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to ntimeroesproject failures. If you have not yet obtained your own g eoen- vi ron mental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk man- agement guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else. Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a com- prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num- ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundviater, water infiiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings are conveyed in -this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per- formed in connection with the geotechnical Engineer's study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven- tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself he sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure Involved. Rely, on Your ASK -Member Gentechncial Engineer for Additional Assistance Membership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine benefit far everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with you ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information. ASFE Too Iasi palWe in Earth 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone:301/555-2733 Facsimile:301/589-2017 e-mail: info@asfe.org www.asfe.org Copyright 2004 by ASFE, inc. Dupficafion, reproducflon, or copying of fits dOCilmant, In whose or in part, by any means whatsoever, is sttictry prohibifed, except with ASFEs specific written permission. Fxcarptlng, quoting, or ofkerwise extracfing warding from this docr rnenl is permitted only with the express written permission of ASFE, and only rot pvrposes of scholarly research or book revrav1. only members of ASFE may use lhfs documenf as a complement to of as an element at a geolechnical eng000dng report Any other firm, individual, or othar entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be comrnivaig negligenf or Intentional (fraudulent) misrepmsentatior+. IIGER06045,0M December 11, 2012 ES-0529.02 DevCo 11100 Main Street, Suite 301 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Attention: Mr. Tom Neubauer Dear Mr. Neubauer: Eaeth `i Solutions,- Earth Solutions NW LLC • Geotechnical Engineering • Construction Monitoring • Environmental Sciences Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) is pleased to present this report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Park 16 Apartments, 35703 - 16th Avenue South, Federal Way, Washington". Based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the test pit locations, the site is underlain primarily by native soils consisting of dense glacial till deposits, and isolated areas of medium dense, recessional outwash and fill extending to variable depths. Groundwater was not observed at the test pit locations during the fieldwork (December 2008). Based on the results of our study, the proposed apartment structures can be supported on conventional foundation systems bearing on undisturbed, competent native soil or structural fill. Based on the subsurface conditions observed at the exploration sites, competent soils suitable for support of foundations should be encountered at foundation depths for daylight basements and at depths of between two to four feet below existing grades elsewhere. Where loose or unsuitable soil conditions are exposed at foundation subgrade elevations, compaction of the soils to the specifications of structural fill, or overexcavation and replacement with structural fill will be necessary. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have questions regarding the content of this geotechnical engineering study, please call. Sir oerety� EARTH SOLUTI N , LL ' R ymond A. Coglas rincipal 1805 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 0 Bellevue, WA 98005 1 (425) 449-4704 • FAX (425) 449-4711 TABLE OF CONTENTS ES-0529.02 PAGE INTRODUCTION.................................................................. General..................................................................... 1 1 Pro'ect Description .................................................... SITE CONDITIONS ............................................................... 2 Surface.................................................................... 2 SiteTopography 2 .......................................................... Existing Improvements 3 ............................................... Subsurface...... 3 ........................................... 3 Topsoil......................................................................... Fill............................................................................... 3 Recessional Outwash Deposits ................................ 3 Glacial Till Deposits ..................................................... 4 GeologicSetting ................................................. 4 Groundwater............................................................... 4 CRITICAL AREAS ASSESSMENT ........................... I....... 1.6.............. 4 Landslide Hazard Assessment ............................................. 4 Erosion Hazard Assessment ................................................. 5 Setback Recommendations................................................... 5 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ 5 General...................................................................... 5 Site Preparation and General Earthwork ......................... 6 Site Stripping Recommendations ................................ 6 Temporary Erosion Control .......................................... 6 In -situ Soils.................................................................... 6 Slope Fill Placement..................................................... 7 StructuralFill................................................................. 7 Foundations............................................................... 7 Seismic Design Considerations .................................... 8 Slab -On -Grade Floors .................................................. 8 RetainingWalls........................................................... 8 Drainage................................................................................. 9 9 DetentionVaults................................................................ Excavations and Slopes ......................................................... 10 Utility Trench Backfill................................................... 10 PavementSections........................................................ 10 LIMITATIONS.............................................................. I......... 11 Additional Services...................................................... 11 Earth Solutions NW, LLC TABLE OF CONTENTS Cont'd ES-0529.02 GRAPHICS PLATE 1 VICINITY MAP PLATE 2 TEST PIT LOCATION PLAN PLATE 3 SLOPE FILL PLACEMENT PLATE 4 RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DEATAIL PLATE 5 FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL APPENDICES Appendix A Subsurface Exploration Test Pit Logs Appendix B Laboratory Test Results Earth Solutions NW, LLC GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PARK 16 APARTMENTS 36703 - 16TH AVENUE SOUTH FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON ES-0529.02 INTRODUCTION General This geotechnical engineering study was prepared for the apartment building complex to be constructed near the southwestern corner of the intersection between 16th Avenue South and South 356th Street in Federal Way, Washington. The purpose of this study was to develop geotechnical recommendations for the proposed development. Our scope of services for completing this geotechnical engineering study included the following: • Conducting subsurface explorations within accessible portions of the development envelope; Laboratory testing of soil samples obtained during the subsurface exploration; Conduct engineering analyses; and, • Preparation of this report The following documents/maps were reviewed as part of our report preparation: 0 Conceptual Site Plan prepared by Ross Deckman and Associates, November 2012; e Geologic Map of King County, Booth et al, 2006, and; i King County USDA Soil Conservation Survey (SCS). Pro'ect Description We understand that the subject site will be redeveloped with a multi -family apartment building complex and associated improvements. We anticipate the apartment structures will be on the order of three to four stories in height and may incorporate daylight basement construction at some locations. The structures will be supported on conventional spread footing foundations and will utilize conventional framing construction and slab -on -grade floors. DevCo ES-0529.02 December 11, 2012 Page 2 At the time this report was prepared, specific building load values were not available. However, based on our experience with similar developments we anticipate wall loads will range from about 4 to 8 kips per foot and column loads are anticipated to range from 100 to 200 kips. Slab -on -grade loading will likely be on the order of 150 pounds per square foot (psf). Based on the existing topography, grading will be relatively minimal across the majority of the site, and will likely require cuts and fills on the order of five feet to achieve finish floor elevations. Daylight basements may be utilized to accommodate parking and/or residential units, which will require cuts of about eight to ten feet. The remainder of the site will be developed with general landscaping and asphalt paved drive lanes and parking areas. Finalized stormwater designs were being developed at the time of this report. However, we understand stormwater vaults and possible infiltration facilities are being considered as part of the overall stormwater design. If the above design assumptions are incorrect or change, ESNW should be contacted to review the recommendations in this report. ESNW should review the final design to confirm that our geotechnical recommendations have been incorporated. ITE CONDITIONS Surface The site is located on the west side of 16th Avenue South and just south of South 356th Street in Federal Way, Washington. The approximate location of the property is illustrated on Plate 1 (Vicinity Map) included in this study. The site is irregular in shape and consists of two adjoining tax parcels (King County Parcel Nos. 292104-9095 and 292104-9107) totaling about 16.6 acres in size. The eastern parcel is occupied by a manufacturing business and associated improvements, while the western parcel is vacant. The site is bordered to the north by South 256th Street and an existing commercial property, to the south by residential parcels, to the east by 1 6th Avenue South and to the west by wetlands and open space. Site Topography The existing site topography descends gently to the west-southwest with approximately 40 feet of total elevation change. Gradients are generally less than 20 percent, except an isolated area in the south-central portion of the site, along the boundary between structural improvements and open space. Slope gradients in the south-central portion of the property range up to a maximum of about 28 percent, with a vertical relief of about 15 feet and are likely the result of past grading associated with the existing development features on the subject site. Earth Solutions NW, LLC DevCo December 11, 2012 Existing Improvements ES-0529.02 Page 3 The eastern parcel is currently developed with six manufacturing/storage structures and associated improvements, such as utilities and pavement areas. The structures are primarily single -story, metal framed buildings constructed at -grade. A detention pond is located near the southwestern corner of the development area. Minor indicators of past grading, such as areas of cuts and fills associated with existing buildings and paved surfaces, were observed during the fieldwork. Two areas of fill outside the existing development envelope are delineated on the Test Pit Location Plan (Plate 2) attached to this report. The fill area located in the north -central portion of the property consisted primarily of loose soil and contained rubble to a depth of approximately four feet below existing grades. The area of fill located to the west of the development envelope was not explored during the fieldwork because it was located outside the area of structural improvements. The western parcel is currently vacant. Subsurface An ESNW representative observed, logged and sampled ten test pits excavated by an excavator and operator contracted by ESNW. The approximate locations of the test pits are depicted on the Test Pit Location Plan (Plate 2). Please refer to the test pit logs provided in Appendix A for a more detailed description of the subsurface conditions. Below is a description of the typical soil types encountered during the fieldwork. Topsoil Topsoil was encountered at all test pit locations extending to depths of between about 6 to 12 inches. Topsoil and organic -rich soil is not suitable for foundation support, nor is it suitable for use as structural till. Topsoil or organic -rich soil can be used in non-structural areas if desired. Areas of fill were encountered in the central and western portions of the site. Pill depths encountered in the central portion of the property (TP-3) consisted primarily of silty sand with gravel (unified soil classification SM) in a loose to medium dense condition. The fill contained rubble throughout the extent explored. Recessional Outwash Deposits Outwash type soils were encountered at several test pit locations, primarily in the topographically lower areas of the site, with one exception. Poorly graded sand (SP) and sand with silt (SP-SM) was encountered at test pit locations TP-1, TP-3, TP-6, TP-9 and TP-10 extending to depths of between about six to ten feet below existing grades. Gravel (GM and GW) was encountered at test pit location TP-3 from a depth of about 9.5 to 12 and in TP-6 from about 2.5 feet to 9.5 feet below existing grades. In general, the relatively clean outwash sand and gravel deposits were in a loose to medium dense condition. Earth Solutlons NW, LLC DevCo December 11, 2012 Glacial Till Deposits ES-0529.02 Page 4 Silty sand with gravel (SM) glacial till deposits were encountered at the test pit locations underlying the topsoil, fill and outwash soils. The glacial till deposits were encountered primarily in the topographically higher areas of the site. Native silty sand with gravel soils below about five feet were in a dense condition. Geologic Setting The referenced geologic map resource identifies recessional outwash (Qvr) deposits throughout the site and surrounding areas. The King County Soil Survey (SCS) identifies Everett-Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, EwC across the eastern portions of the development envelope and Everett gravelly sandy loam EvC (5 to 15 percent slopes) to the west. These soils formed in recessional glacial outwash and till and are typically not associated with prime farmland areas within urban settings. These soil units present a slight to moderate erosion hazard and slow to medium runoff. The soil conditions described in subsurface explorations are generally consistent with the soil map designations, but also include glacial till deposits (Qvt). Groundwater Groundwater was not observed at the test pit locations during the fieldwork (December 2008). In general, groundwater can become perched at the contact between the permeable outwash deposits and relatively impermeable glacial till layer. Rates of seepage can range from slight to rapid within the outwash sands and gravels. Groundwater seepage rates and elevations fluctuate depending on many factors, including precipitation duration and intensity, the time of year, and soil conditions. In general, groundwater flow rates are higher during the wetter, winter months. CRITICAL AREAS ASSESSMENT The City of Federal Way code provides criteria for identifying and classifying critical areas and guidance for designing sites containing critical areas. Based on review of pre -application comments provided by the City of Federal Way, geologic critical areas were not identified on the subject site. Landslide Hazard Assessment The existing site topography descends gently to the west-southwest with approximately 40 feet of total elevation change. Gradients are generally less than 20 percent, except an isolated area in the south-central portion of the site, along the boundary between structural improvements and open space. Slope gradients in the south-central portion of the property range up to a maximum of about 28 percent, with a vertical relief of about 15 feet and are likely the result of past grading associated with the existing development features on the subject site. Earth Solutions NW, LLC DevCo ES-0529.02 December 11, 2012 Page 5 Based on the conditions encountered at the test sites, the slopes are underlain by relatively homogeneous, firm glacial deposits. Groundwater seepage was not observed at the test sites. Given the presence of firm native soils and the lack of a shallow groundwater table, in our opinion the site slopes would present a low landslide hazard. In our opinion, the soils observed at our test sites would exhibit slight to moderate erosion hazard characteristics, and can generally maintain high angles of repose. In our opinion, the proposed development will not increase the potential for landslide on the site or surrounding properties. In our opinion, the proposed construction will likely improve slope stability at the site due to improved soil retention via concrete foundation walls, and improved site drainage. Erosion Hazard Assessment The site soils identified across the subject property typically exhibit slight to moderate erosion hazard characteristics. In our opinion, Best Management Practices (BMPs) consistent with current City of Federal Way code regulations should be included in site designs. At a minimum, silt fencing should be placed along the entire down -slope development envelope. Construction entrances should be surfaced with quarry spalls to minimize off -site tracking of silt and soil generated during site construction. ESNW should review the proposed Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC) plans to confirm that appropriate means of controlling off -site sedimentation are implemented and to provide supplemental recommendations, as necessary. Setback Recommendations In our opinion, the subject site presents a low landslide hazard. Modification within the sloped areas is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations detailed in this report and City of Federal Way development standards are incorporated into site designs. Standard zoning setbacks are feasible and will not increase the potential for slope instability on the site or surrounding properties. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on the results of our review, construction of the proposed multi -family apartment complex is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The primary geotechnical considerations associated with the proposed development include foundation support, slab -on -grade subgrade support, and structural fill placement. Based on the results of our study, the new structures can be supported on conventional spread and continuous footings bearing on undisturbed, competent native soil or structural fill. We anticipate competent native soils capable of providing adequate foundation support will be encountered at the foundation depth for daylight basement structures and between two to four feet below existing grades, elsewhere. Slab -on -grade areas should be supported on competent native soil or at least one foot of structural fill. Earth Solutions NW, LLC DevCo ES-0529.02 December 11, 2012 Page 6 In our opinion, the soils generated from cuts throughout the majority of the site should generally be suitable for use as structural fill. However, the existing fill and native glacial till soils are moisture sensitive. Placement and compaction of these soils during wet weather conditions will be difficult. A representative of ESNW should be on -site during fill placement to confirm that adequate compaction is achieved. This study has been prepared for the exclusive use of DevCo, and their representatives. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This study has been prepared in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. Site Preparation and Earthwork Prior to construction, the development areas should topsoil. Existing structures will be removed, and function as a working surface where feasible. Site Stripping Recommendations be cleared and stripped of vegetation and existing pavement can be left in place to Topsoil and organic -rich soil was encountered generally within the upper 6 to 12 inches at the test pit locations. Due to the variable nature of these organic soils, ESNW should observe stripping operations to confirm adequate removal of organic soil. Temporary Erosion Control Temporary construction entrances and drive lanes, consisting of at least 12 inches of quarry spalls can be considered in order to minimize off -site soil tracking and to provide a stable access entrance surface, as necessary. Erosion control measures should consist of silt fencing placed along the down gradient side of the site. Soil stockpiles should be protected to reduce soil erosion. In -situ Soils From a geotechnical standpoint, the soils encountered at the test pit locations are generally suitable for use as structural fill. The soils at the majority of the test sites have a moderate to high sensitivity to moisture and were generally in a moist condition at the time of the explorations (December 2008). Soils encountered during site excavations that are excessively over the optimum moisture content will require moisture conditioning prior to placement and compaction. Conversely, soils that are substantially below the optimum moisture content may require moisture conditioning through the addition of water prior to use as structural fill. Earth Solutions NW, LLC DevCo December 11, 2012 Slope Fill Placement ES-0529.02 Page 7 In general, fill placement throughout the existing sloped areas of the site is feasible, provided the existing ground surface is benched and the toe of the fill is keyed into the existing grade. General guidelines for slope fill placement are provided on Plate 3 of this report. The project geotechnical engineer should be on -site during the fill placement to assess the slope fill construction, and to provide supplemental recommendations for the fill placement. The face of the fill slope must be compacted to 95 percent of modified proctor. Structural Fill Structural fill is defined as compacted soil placed in foundation, slab -on -grade, and roadway areas. Fills placed to construct permanent slopes and throughout retaining wall and utility trench backfill areas are also considered structural fill. Soils placed in structural areas should be placed in loose lifts of 12 inches or less and be compacted to a relative compaction of 90 percent, based on the laboratory maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor Method (ASTM ❑-1557). Soil placed in the upper 12 inches of slab -on -grade and pavement areas and face of slopes should be compacted to a relative compaction of at least 95 percent. Imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a well graded granular soil with a moisture content that is at or near the optimum level. During wet weather conditions, imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a well graded granular soil with a fines content of 5 percent or less defined as the percent passing the #200 sieve, based on the minus three-quarter inch fraction. Foundations Based on the results of our study, the multi story mixed -use structures can be supported on conventional spread and continuous footings bearing on competent, undisturbed native soil or structural fill. Based on the site soil conditions encountered at the test pit locations, competent native soils suitable for support of foundations should be encountered at foundation depths for daylight basement structures and at depths of between two to four feet below existing grades elsewhere. Where loose or unsuitable soil conditions are exposed at foundation subgrade elevations, compaction of the soils to the specifications of structural fill, or overexcavation and replacement with structural fill, may be necessary. Provided foundations will be supported as described above, the following parameters can be used for design of new foundations: • Allowable soil bearing capacity 3,000 psf (competent native soil or structural fill) • Passive earth pressure 350 pcf (equivalent fluid) Coefficient of friction 0.40 Earth Solutions NW, LLC DevCo ES-0529.02 December 11, 2012 Page 8 A one-third increase in the allowable soil bearing capacity can assumed for short-term wind and seismic loading conditions. The above passive pressure and friction values include a factor -of - safety of 1.5. With structural loading as expected, total settlement in the range of one inch and differential settlement of about one-half inch is anticipated. The majority of the settlements should occur during construction, as dead loads are applied. Seismic Design Considerations The 2009 International Building Code specifies several soil profiles that are used as a basis for seismic design of structures. Based on the soil conditions observed at the test sites, Site Class C, from table 1613.5.2, should be used for design. In our opinion, the site has a low susceptibility to liquefaction given the lack of an established groundwater table and the density of the soil underlying the site. Slab -On -Grade Floors Slab -on -grade floors for the proposed buildings should be supported on a firm and unyielding subgrade consisting of competent native soil or structural fill. Unstable or yielding areas of the subgrade should be recompacted or overexcavated and replaced with suitable structural fill prior to construction of the slab. A capillary break consisting of a minimum of four inches of free draining crushed rock or gravel should be placed below the slab. The free draining material should have a fines content of 5 percent or less (percent passing the #200 sieve, based on the minus three-quarter inch fraction). In areas where slab moisture is undesirable, installation of a vapor barrier below the slab should be considered. If a vapor barrier is to be utilized it should be a material specifically designed for use as a vapor barrier and should be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. Retaining. Walls Retaining walls must be designed to resist earth pressures and applicable surcharge loads. The following parameters can be used for retaining wall design: • Active earth pressure (yielding wall) • At -rest earth pressure (restrained wall) ■ Traffic surcharge for passenger vehicles (where applicable) • Passive earth pressure • Coefficient of friction ■ Seismic surcharge 35 pcf (equivalent fluid) 50 pcf 70psf (rectangular distribution) 350 pcf (equivalent fluid) 0.4 6H (where H equals retained height) Earth Solutions NW, LLC DevCo ES-0529.02 December 11, 2012 Page 9 Additional surcharge loading from adjacent foundations, sloped backfill, or other loads should be included in the retaining wall design, if applicable. Drainage should be provided behind retaining walls such that hydrostatic pressures do not develop. If drainage is not provided, hydrostatic pressures should be included in the wall design, as appropriate. Retaining walls should be backfilled with free draining material that extends along the height of the wall, and a distance of at least 18 inches behind the wall. The upper one foot of the wall backfill can consist of a less permeable soil, if desired. A perforated drain pipe should be placed along the base of the wall, and connected to an approved discharge location. A typical retaining wall drainage detail is provided on Plate 4. Drainage Groundwater was not observed at the test pit locations during the fieldwork (December 2008). However, perched groundwater should be anticipated in site excavations particularly during the winter and spring months. Temporary measures to control surface water runoff during construction would likely involve interceptor trenches and sumps, as necessary. Based on the soil and groundwater conditions observed at the test pit locations, extensive dewatering of excavations will likely not be necessary. In our opinion, due to the relatively free draining nature of the gravel deposits reported at the majority of the test sites, eliminating perimeter footing drains around the proposed structures can be considered. If the footing drain is eliminated, a representative of ESNW should observe the foundation excavations to confirm soil conditions. A typical foundation drain detail is provided as Plate 5. Detention Vaults Where applicable, competent native soils suitable for support of vault foundations are anticipated to be exposed at subgrade elevations for detention vault structures, For design, the following geotechnical parameters should be used: • Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity • Active Earth Pressure (Yielding Wall) At -Rest Earth Pressure (Restrained Wall) Soil Unit Weight a Active Earth Pressure Coefficient (Ka) At -Rest Earth Pressure Coefficient (Ko) Earth Solutions NW, LLC 5,000 psf (dense native) 35 pcf 50 pcf 125 pcf 0.28 0.40 DevCo ES-0529.02 December 11, 2012 Page 10 The geotechnical engineer should observe the vault excavation to confirm soil and groundwater conditions. As necessary, supplement geotechnical recommendations for foundation support will be provided. Excavations and Slopes The Federal Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA) provide soil classification in terms of temporary slope inclinations, Based on the soil conditions encountered at the test pit locations, the upper approximately four to five feet of the site soils and relatively cohesionless sand (SP) and gravel (GW) as described in the test pit logs attached to this report are classified as Type C by OSHAIWISHA. Temporary slopes over four feet in height in Type C soils must be sloped no steeper than 1.5H:1 V (Horizontal:Vertical), The glacial till soils classified as Type A by OSHAIWISHA. Temporary slopes over four feet in height in Type A soils must be sloped no steeper than 0.75H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical). If the recommended temporary slope inclination cannot be achieved, temporary shoring may be necessary to support excavations. Permanent slopes should maintain a gradient of 2HAV, or flatter, and should be planted with vegetation to enhance stability and to minimize erosion. The geotechnical engineer should observe temporary and permanent siopes to confirm the slope inclinations, and to provide additional excavation and slope recommendations, as necessary. Utility Trench Backfill In our opinion, the soils anticipated to be exposed in utility excavations will be generally suitable for support of utilities. Organic or highly compressible soils encountered in the trench excavations should not be used for supporting utilities. In general, the on -site soils should be suitable for use as structural backfill in the utility trench excavations, provided the soil is at or near the optimum moisture content at the time of placement and compaction. Moisture conditioning of the soils may be necessary prior to use as structural fill. Utility trench backfill should be placed and compacted to the specifications of structural fill provided in this report, or to the applicable City of Federal Way (or water and sewer district) specifications. Pavement Sections The performance of site pavements is largely related to the condition of the underlying subgrade. To ensure adequate pavement performance, the subgrade should be in a firm and unyielding condition when subjected to proofrolling with a loaded dump truck. Structural fill in pavement areas should be compacted as recommended in the "Site Preparation and Earthwork" section of this report. It is possible that soft, wet, or otherwise unsuitable subgrade areas may still exist after base grading activities. Areas of unsuitable or yielding subgrade conditions will require remedial measures such as overexcavation, placement of a geotextile and thicker crushed rock or structural fill sections prior to pavement. Earth Solutions NW, LLC DevCo ES-0529.02 December 11, 2012 Page 11 For lightly loaded pavement areas subjected primarily to passenger vehicles, the following preliminary pavement sections can be considered: • Two inches of asphalt concrete (AC) placed over four inches of crushed rock base (CRB), or; Two inches of AC placed over three inches of asphalt treated base (ATB). For relatively high volume, heavily loaded pavements subjected to moderate to high, loaded truck traffic, the following preliminary pavement sections can be considered: • Three inches of asphalt concrete (AC) placed over six inches of crushed rock base (CRB), or; • Three inches of AC placed over four inches of asphalt treated base (ATB). The AC, ATB and CRB materials should conform to WSDOT specifications. All soil base material should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density. Final pavement design recommendations can be provided once final traffic loading has been determined. LIMITATIONS The recommendations and conclusions provided in this geotechnical engineering study are professional opinions consistent with the level of care and skill that is typical of other members in the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area, A warranty is not expressed or implied. Variations in the soil and groundwater conditions observed at the test locations may exist, and may not become evident until construction. ESNW should reevaluate the conclusions in this geotechnical engineering study if variations are encountered. Additional Services ESNW should have an opportunity to review the final design with respect to the geotechnical recommendations provided in this report. ESNW should also be retained to provide testing and consultation services during construction. Earth Solutions NW, LLC "_ 5�.'S FT'+�r �. •�• V•f � Zt ",.F �:.1 ��_� S vY-�j�#'I IF4 xdt n u'' n E o,_ €3775Te' y; , 3Si-. r i .h rl •t y i!u '� [ ■ Is!,I aA5 � � �' _L�� ��W `�74r� �i •VJJ � ... •,�� l ,I . I �$�..� � � S �� � � I If • 5 �� .___. _ .zsn�'el - ��nr --- -- As—r�f.�.r ..� i •�— xn 3 ! 3 I ov : ` .�Y`, S1 lfi J.KY .Y �l.• � � i err+~ Sl f �3SQ la; $T ++h+ s; N yry " Y61l4SiZ r . ---- . � iti-q f'- • ,ir} ■.,i:r"r iYe'Sildr. rJ77 !~.a� rK!H ~ TSVY,F;5r1 �41' if' =, ,c.. •I+ 7' • 6Y 1 a. � •� •� � rr�7'tJi f}qi 4 ::sSTei",� �S •�•�-'�- �• ���v - � 'l: 1 ft � 15r H � {fir.• k .+wr i � '#'--�e_�� ,ram "'� '`•�='v��l •," Icy_ t, �a t 1 rk r?h4Fl r 4" p j y•• j �. __ x" • w :�,.�a f.'!fii,' Ic � �. r a,�.v c �e - k' .,'.�'LTaS.•.:�jr� S � � -r rx. F-e '�1Y. �, _ 372fxD 57��saa t '• _" _,'"�.`'�� , r d.. sv ' � � � y�777 � �� 1 .�. �"7f ;T ., :,•f- . S:qP�it � •i ,_ a ,� ,y} 1• yT{ `�r`s� • pint..g a t .rIF, f 1 I ,�c...•s� r 1 } y f- xI { ., a� , Ail r n mil► _„ ; , -, � - ' °_j r k'190:> r - o.,)54 r 'T6y x 1 .- x cr 72 3� �.- I •--�-�•—•---��-F.� �'1�'1� a Off' � ^:c ,�'i il�rfdyp'r� �" i jfkF IY11— 1?SRK w 1 L= G i r Reference: NORTH King County, Washington Map 775 By The Thomas Guide Vicinity Map Rand McNally Apartments Park 16 A 32nd Edition P Federal Way, Washington NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ESNW cannot be Drwn. GLS Date 12/11/2012 Proj. No. 0529.02 responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate. Checked RAC Date Dec. 2012 Plate 1 1 1 ___�!_-- - - _;:_-.��zr ,:-1`-rnr•'—i ^imr[`._, S. 356TH STREET ly .-.. .: �; �.' L •A• [ ILL V _ _�I —__^ •- _ rR-to- ` .� •Y w.., '. A� I kk 1 7) Apprcz4rmd2 i yr i �n1 Fiiivdble I r< I>a+ t Ye a i �� r j ��� , i• 11 Ai 11, + ' S i�r'11Kp.y r 9I r%''`L'L•LL I4 t .r * a �+r `' i i 1 e , r � �7 • ;ii'ii'' �r� -i sF� a wr i. r• ,li! s' i dr ow*,�� ram. . � � � :' � ,,�. •."y'� i 1 1 1 I I i i C m NORTH C m 3 rn d E L 0 T 1�2 Fina9 m 0 75 150 300 1'=150' MML:�Mf. &af u- LEGEND TP-1+Appra orl�te Location of ESNW Test Pit. Prof. Nc. ES-0529.01, Dac, 20011 Proposed Building 1 Subject Site I f'r�¢il Welland Area r� (Delineated 6yOthers) Approldmate Limits of Fill eYfiE rlx �Rtis ncn>he7'aR �l rd Men'.W la dr£gl `ked v=v+xie<precasd. mun�m.m. oKenkw wre Pr Checked® qrn� .aa kO bctlnm nh'w1Ae KPwr driomx.ar RAC nawg a-.11np�pou6ak re1Mdlhe rhn�.0 Aar Date n rgcy Wxdmma pvrond orNl plrlRmr aw slow fmdl eSVN ixkr mp]nsLM kc=Pap+lPl dFipr ors 72f11It01: r Werpne6wl d me d>m+r r7iex Prof. NO NOTE rneplwm rmyn,<.s of wlr.EbN1'7ralocia. 6534.02 Volkat waflftlwqffl� Plait 2 SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOTA CONSTRUCTION DRAWING Final Slope Gradient Compacted Slope Face Bench and Keyway Fill to consist of suitable granular material approved by the Geotechncial Engineer. "Key" (Minimum 2' Deep by 6' Wide) NOTES: n Slope should be stripped of topsoil and unsuitable materials prior to excavating Key Way or benches. o Benches will typically be equal to a dozer blade width, approximately 8 feet, but a minimum of 4 feet. o Final slope gradient should be 2 : 1 (horizontal : vertical). a Final slope face should be densified by over -building with compacted fill and trimming back to shape or by compaction with dozer or roller. o Planting or hydroseeding slope face with a rapid growth deep rooted vegetative mat will reduce erosion potential of slope area. o Use of pegged in place jute matting or geotechnical fabric will help maintain the seed and mulch in place until the root system has an opportunity to germinate. Existing Grade N, Typical "Bench" Keyed into Existing Slope Face Geotechnical Engineer to Verify Structural fill should be placed in thin loose lifts not exceeding 12 inches in thickness. Each lift should be compacted to no less than the degree specified in the "Site Preparation and Earth Work" section of this report. No additional lift should be placed until compaction is achieved. Earth Solutions NWLLc SLOPE FILL DETAIL Park 16 Apartments Federal Way, Washington Drwn. GLS Date 12/11/2012 Proj. No. 0529.02 Checked RAC Date Dec. 2012 Plate 3 III -III - III r NOTES: 18" Min. o D D ❑ ❑ P ❑ o vp p❑ 00 D D❑ D oD 00. tQ ❑QO❑ OD ❑ Q P❑ DQo 0❑ Q O qq ❑ O u D� n o❑ c o D V D Op ❑oD" 0 0 o Pa D 00 000 .0 ❑ QD ❑ Q ❑ O❑ QoD D P DD❑ {] P - a 00 ❑ DPP QDp❑ o ❑ ❑ d' Dp 00 Qo pP Dp oD P D❑ 0 ❑ 0 D D 0 C D V o d pO DD P D o Q n D❑ p❑ n 0D D a Ypp o pD pQ D P� 0 p P P D 0 ep Q D D Op D 8 OD❑ 0 8 D Q Qo ❑ Oo ❑ P .0 P 0 .r.f, P e Free Draining Backfill should consist of soil having less than 5 percent fines. Percent passing #4 should be 25 to 75 percent. • Sheet Drain may be feasible in lieu of Free Draining Backfill, per ESNW recommendations. • Drain Pipe should consist of perforated, rigid PVC Pipe surrounded with 1" Drain Rock. LEGEND: g oQ�-120 00 Free Draining Structural Backfill o ,.•ti•s 1 inch Drain Rock :r.r.r.r. Structural Fill Perforated Drain Pipe (Surround In Drain Rock) SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING M RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL Park 16 Apartments Federal Way, Washington Drwn. GLS Date 12/11/2012 Proj. No. 0529.02 Checked RAC Date Dec. 2012 Plate 4 Perforated Rigid Drain Pipe (Surround with 1" Rock) NOTES: m Do NOT tie roof downspouts to Footing Drain. s Surface Seal to consist of 12" of less permeable, suitable soil. Slope away from building. LEGEND: Surface Seal; native soil or other low permeability material. M1" Drain Rock SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT OT SCALE NOT CONSTRUCTION DRAWING L h ns FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL Park 16 Apartments Federal Way, Washington Drwn. GLS Date 12/11/2012 1 Proj. No. 0529.02 Checked RAC Date Dec. 2012 Plate 5 APPENDIX A SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION ES-0529.02 The subsurface conditions at the site were explored by excavating a total of ten test pits across accessible portions of the property. The subsurface explorations were completed in [December 2008, The approximate test pit locations are illustrated on Piate 2 of this report. Logs of the test pits are provided in this Appendix. The test pits were excavated to a maximum depth of ten feet below existing grades. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Earth Solutions NWLLC SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS GRAPH LETTER GRAVEL AND CLEAN GRAVELS ���� •* GW WELL -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES GRAVELLY (LITTLE OR NO FINES)ep pC�; o . Q Q ?Q C GP POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL- SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES COARSE GRAINED SOILS MORETHAN50% OF COARSE GRAVELS WITH FINES a 'a �° a 0 Q o I GM SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND - SILT MIXTURES FRACTION RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES) GC CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - CLAY MIXTURES MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL IS SAND AND CLEAN SANDS SW SANDS, LAITTLE OR DED SANDS. FINES LARGER THAN NO.200 SIEVE SIZE SANDY SOILS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) SP POORLY -GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO FINS SANDS WITH FINES ` y ? `'' = ' SM SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT MIXTURES MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION PASSING ON NO. 4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES) S+C CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY MIXTURES INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE ML SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FIN SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY FINE GRAINED SOILS SILTS AND LIQUID LIMIT CLAYS LESS THAN 50 CL INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS OL ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL SMALLER THANN N0.200 SIEVE MH INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SILTY SOILS SIZE SILTS AND LIQUID LIMIT CLAYS GREATER THAN50 CI 1 INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS a `—'' `—''"' PT 2111 L1 i1 PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS DUAL SYMBOLS are used to indicate borderline soil classifications. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the material presented in the attached logs. Earth Solutions NW 1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT A_ bbey Road Grou PROJECT NUMBER 2S29.02 DATE STARTED 12/15/08 COMPLETED t 21.15/DB EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Fxcavating EXCAVATION METHOD LOGGED BY _SSR _ CHECKED BY SSR NOTES Surface Gravel _---- W rlof U U TESTS ai IL O w g Z t, 0 Brown s MC = 8.30% Fines = 28.60% SM I IN TEST PIT NUMBER TP-1 PAGE 1 OF 1 _ PROJECT NAME Part[ 7$ Apar[menls PROJECT LOCATION Federal Wa �Washingtan GROUND ELEVATION 254 ft _ TEST PIT SIZE —_ -_ _ GROUND WATER LEVELS: _ AT TIME OF EXCAVATION _ AT END OF EXCAVATION AFTER EXCAVATION MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SAND, IoOSe, moist I VT71 Grayish brown silty SM dense, moist J gravel, dense, moist [USDA Classification: very gravelly LOAM MC = 9.20% 10�5_ Test pit terminated at 10.5 feet below existing grade. No graundwaterencauntered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 10.5 feet. Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-2 1805136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT Abbey Road Group PROJECT NAME Park 16Aggg rients PROJECT NUMBER 052R.02 PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way, Washington DATE STARTED 12/15/08 COMPLETED 12/15/08 GROUND ELEVATION 244 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION LOGGED BY SSR CHECKED BY SSR AT END OF EXCAVATION — NOTES Depth of Topsoil & Sod 8": field grass _ AFTER EXCAVATION w CL of U S ow 00 TESTS O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION az 0 U) Brown silty SAND, loose, moist SM _ 3.0 -becomes medium dense 241.0 Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist SM 5 MC = 8.30% &0 _ _ 239.0 Test pit terminated at 5.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 5.0 feet. TEST PIT NUMBER TP-3 Earth Solutions NW PAGE 1 OF 1 1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 e Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT Abbe Road Grou _ — _ _ PROJECT NAME Park 16 Apartments _ PROJECT NUMBER 0529.02 PROJECT LOCATION Federal Mt Was_hingtnrr DATE STARTED 12115108 - COMPLETED 12/151013 _ GROUND ELEVATION 248 ft _ ._ TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating— GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD _ __ AT TIME OF EXCAVATION�— LOGGED BY SSR ^-_- CHECKED BY SSR _ AT END OF EXCAVATION — NOTES g7 pth of To soil &Sod 6": field grass. —. .-- __ AFTER EXCAVATION W } U W 'j a W CO TESTS ci a O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION v J� r/A �J n a. Z C7 Q rn 0 Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist (Fill) 14.5 -trace rubble z43-5 - - Brown poorly graded fine SAND with silt, medium dense, moist - 5 - MC = 8.50% SP- SM -oxide staining 238.5 Brown Silty GRAVEL with sand, dense, moist 10 MC = 2.60% ° GM ° -contains large cobbles z3s.o SM 12.0 Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist ias.a t25 MC = 6. —U Test pit terminated at 12.5 feet be existing grade. No groundwater encountered n during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 12.5 feet. t- Vi r� 2 C► a c� a s m w x w 0 Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TPA 1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT Abbey Road GrogPROJECT NAME Park 16 Abartrhents PROJECT NUMBER 0529.02 PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way, Washington DATE STARTED 12/15/08 COMPLETED 12/15108, GROUND ELEVATION 220 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW .Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION — LOGGED BY SSR CHECKED BY SSR AT END OF EXCAVATION — NOTES Depth of Topsoil & Sod 6": field crass & scotch broom AFTER EXCAVATION — w a- W wg TESTS rn U O' MATERIAL DESCRIPTION z C9 uJ 0 gown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist -becomes medium dense MC = 11.30% Fines = 14.60% -becomes dense and gray 5 _ [USDA Classification: very gravelly LOAM] SM 10 MC=11.50% Test pit terminated at 11.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 11.0 feet. TEST PIT NUMBER TP-5 Earth Solutions NW PAGE 1 OF 1 1805136th Place N.E_, Suite 201 r Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT Abbev Road Grua _ PROJECT NAME Park 16 Apartments _ PROJECT NUMBER 0629.02 _ PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way, Washington DATE STARTED 12/15/08 COMPLETED 12/15108 GROUND ELEVATION 222 ft _ TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR _ NW Excavating __ GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD _ __ ___ _ AT TIME OF EXCAVATION LOGGED BY SSR CHECKED BY SSR _ AT END OF EXCAVATION --- —_ NOTES Depth of Topsoil & Sod 8": br@Mbles and field grass AFTER EXCAVATION - _ — w a� U C6 w 0o TESTS v a MATERIAL DESCRIPTION o~ a� 90 ov �z c.9 a 0 Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist -becomes medium dense MC = 7.90% -becomes dense SM 212.0 1a a 1 MC = 4.20% Test {fit terminated at 19.0 at below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 10.0 feet. N F- 7 i 0. L7 N J A F- 2 m W 2 LU d 0 Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-6 1805136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT Abbey Road Group PROJECT NAME Park 16APartments PROJECT NUMBER 0539.>02 PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way, Washington DATE STARTED 12/15/08 COMPLETED 12/15/08 GROUND ELEVATION 208 R TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION LOGGED BY SSR CHECKED BY SSR AT END OF EXCAVATION NOTES Field Grass AFTER EXCAVATION — ui _ - � W -i M TESTS rn U U a 00 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Lu az 03 0 Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist SM 2.5 205.5 'r Brown well graded GRAVEL with sand, medium dense, moist MC = 3.90% ; Fines = 3.40% i GW 5_ • . �• [USDA Classification: extremely gravelly coarse SAND] r ` .6.5 MC = 5.90% Gray silty GRAVEL with sand, dense, moist Fines = 15.60% ) GM o [USDA Classification: very gravelly sandy LOAM] 10 MC = 8.20% SM fpp Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist t9a.a Fines = 23.00% 1NSDA Classification: gravelly sandy LOAM] /T Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 10.0 feet. TEST PIT NUMBER TP-7 Earth Solutions NW PAGE 1 OF 1 1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT Abbey Road Group - _ _ PROJECT NAME Park 16 artrnerits PROJECT NUMBER 0529.02 PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way, Washington DATE STARTED 12/15/08 COMPLETED 12115/08 _ _ _ GROUND ELEVATION 212 ft _ TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD _ AT TIME OF EXCAVATION — LOGGED BY SSR CHECKED BY SSR __. AT END OF EXCAVATION NOTES .Depth of Topsoil &Sod B": field roes & Scotch broom AFTER EXCAVATION- w n. U N ol— M TESTS O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION z C7 co 0 t3rgvm silty SAND with gravel, loose, waist -becomes medium dense MC = 9.50% SM -becomes dense 205.0 MC = 11.20%—� Test pit terminated at 7.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 7.0 feet. N Y L7 Hl F- Z_ [7 'a V' yr N n d F z w ue x ua [7 Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-8 1805136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 lialEarth Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT Abbev Road Group _ PROJECT NAME Park 16 Apartments PROJECT NUMBER 0520.02 PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way, Washington DATE STARTED 12/15/08 COMPLETED 12/15/08 GROUND ELEVATION 206 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating, _ GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION LOGGED BY SSR CHECKED BY SSR AT END OF EXCAVATION NOTES Depth of Topsoil & Sod 12": brush _ _ AFTER EXCAVATION W a. W TESTS i X 0.0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w ° Uj QZ 0 0 Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist SM 10 2oa,o f _ Brown silty GRAVEL with sand, medium dense, moist MC = 7.90% a Fines = 12.50% s C GM 0 [USDA Classification: very gravelly fine sandy LOAM] a [ 5 � a 6.0 200.0 Brown silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist - SM 10 MC = 9.10% 10o [USDA Classification: very gravelly sandy LOAM] T98 fl _J_ Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered Fines = 13.70% during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 10.0 feet. TEST PIT NUMBER TP-9 Earth Solutions NW PAGE 1 OF 1 1805136th Place N.E., Suite 201 VABellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT Abbev Road Grouo _. _ _ _ PROJECT NAME Pa[tc 1C A nts PROJECT NUMBER 052!#.02 PROJECT LOCATION Federal Wa Waahi,_ n tQg n __.. DATE STARTED 12/15/08 COMPLETED 12115ma _ GROUND ELEVATION 250 ft TEST PIT SIZE _ EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD _ AT TIME OF EXCAVATION --- LOGGED BY SSR CHECKED BY SSR _ AT END OF EXCAVATION — -- NOTES Depth of Topsail & Sod 6": scotch broom & brambles -- AFTER EXCAVATION — _- w a� v vi a w Co TESTS v a o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION IL vi � � ov 2z c7 Q fl Brawn silty SANG, loose, moist SM LO n 2.6 -- - -- — -- Brown poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel, loose, moist SP- SM 5 MC = 6.70% -becomes medium dense 243.0 - - Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist SM MC=11.10% 241.5 _ S.5 �- Test pit terminated at 8.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encou6tered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 8.5 feet. h n N [�7 Y C7 0. U' d S a r m z z w Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-10 1805136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 imEarth � Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT Abbey Road Group PROJECT NAME Park 16 Apartments PROJECT NUMBER 0529.02 _. _ PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way, Washington DATE STARTED 12/15/08 COMPLETED 12/15/08 GROUND ELEVATION 256 It TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION -- LOGGED BY SSR CHECKED BY SSR AT END OF EXCAVATION -- NOTES Depth of Topsoil & Sod 6": scotch broom & brambles AFTER EXCAVATION — w � w tU _ wIL TESTS 'i 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Mz 0 Brown silty SAND, loose, moist SM t,s 254.5 Brown poorly graded fine SAND, loose, moist MC = 4.40% Fines = 2.00% [USDA Classification: very gravelly SAND] 5 -slight caving - Sp -becomes medium dense 10 MC = 7.00% 0 . 10246.0 Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 10.0 feet. APPENDIX B LABORATORY TEST RESULTS ES-0529.02 Earth Solutions NW, LLC s�InRC ��lmi�:� �1iC�aall, � '� ���11 CC� i0 . Jill I loin I I Ell 11 1 Mill I III, MINE 1111111 11,110 M11 Mull In .ems �' �. Earth Solutions NW, LLC 2881152nd Avenue N.E. Redmond, WA 98052 Telephone: (425) 284-3300 Fax: (425) 284-2855 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CLIENT_AbbgyRaadGroup PROJECTNAME STFahriacalionRedevelapment PROJECT NUMBER FS-529.01. PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way — — HYDROMETER I IQ CIFVP nPFNINr� IN I mr-s I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS i F- C) w Er- m w z LL F- z w U OC w d a 0 COBBLES Specimen Identification N TP-1--- 7.Oft. 9 TP-4 — 4.0ft. TP-6 3.5ft. *1 TP-6 7.Oft. 0-1 TP-6 10.0ft. Specimen Identification TP-1 7.0ft. M TP44.Or t. ♦ TP-6 3.5ft. * TP-6 —_ - 7.0ft. 01 TP-6 10.Oft. GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS GRAVEL ISAND coarse i fine I coarse I medium fine Classification USDA: Gray very gravelly loam, USCS: SM USDA: Gray very gravelly sandy loam, USCS: SM USDA: Gray extremely gravelly sand, USCS: GW USDA: Gray very gravelly sandy loam, USCS: GM USDA: Gray gravelly sandy loam, USCS: SM D100 D60T %Gravel 37.5 _5.51541.4 37.5 4.9440.8 37.511.629 64.5 37.5 13.368 50.919 1.07f 23.9 SILT OR CLAY LL i PL I PI I Cc Cu 2.36 42.19 %Sand 1 %Silt °/°Clay 30.0 28.6 44.6 14.6 32.1 3.4 33.5 15.6 53.1 REPORT DISTRIBUTION ES-0529.02 EMAIL ONLY Deveo 11100 Main Street, Suite 301 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Attention: Mr. Tom Neubauer EMAIL ONLY CPH Consultants 733 — 71" Avenue Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98033 Attention: Mr. Matt Hough Earth Solutions NW, LLC l WETLAND BUFFER MITIGATION PLAN PARK 16 MULTI -FAMILY FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON FILE #12-105564-00-UP lqor Prepared For: DEVCO, INC C) J Bellevue, Washington-- 4 QUO+ Prepared By. • t � TALASAEA CONSULTANTS INC. � � } Woodinville, Washington ] B M ITT'E D IoCIV'JULT4 2013 24 May 2013 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY Y_ CDS (revised 19 July 2013) EXHIBIT Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan Park 16 Multi -family Federal Way, Washington File #12-105564-00-UP Prepared For: DevCo, Inc. 11100 Main Street, Suite 301 Bellevue, WA 98004 (425) 453-9551 Prepared By., Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 15020 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, Washington 98077 (425) 861-7550 24 May 2013 (revised 19 July 2013) Park 16 Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROJECT NAME: Park 16 Multi -family CLIENT: DevCo, Inc., Mr. Tom Neubauer SITE LOCATION: The Park 16 property is an approximately 16.7-acre site located southwest of the intersection of 161h Avenue South and South 356`h Street in Federal Way, Washington. The property consists of two parcels and the address is 35703 16`h Ave South. The King County Tax Parcel numbers are 2921049095 and 2921049107. The Public Land Survey System location is Section 29, Township 21 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian. PROJECT STAFF: Bill Shiels, Principal; Ann Olsen, Senior Project Manager; David R. Teesdale, Senior Wetland Ecologist; Adam ❑eWolfe, Mitigation Designer/Project Planner FIELD SURVEY: Conducted on 2 April and 8 July 2013 PROJECT BACKGROUND: Previous wetland delineation work conducted by Habitat Technologies in 2009 identified two wetlands in the western % of the property. These are identified as Wetland A and Wetland B. Wetland B, 115,876 sf on -site, is a Category I wetland requiring a 200-foot buffer per Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) §19.175.020. Wetland A, 2,775 sf, is a Category III wetland requiring a 25- foot buffer per FWRC §19.175.020. The City of Federal Way's peer review consultant concurred with the delineation and the ratings of these wetlands. EXISTING BUFFER CONDITION: Talasaea conducted two site investigations to evaluate the existing buffer conditions and to locate an acceptable route for the proposed trail. We defined four unique buffer conditions. These are further described below: 1. MIXED FOREST: The entire inner approximately 100 feet of the buffer for Wetland B contains a dense mixed forest consisting of black cottonwood, red alder, western red cedar with understory of small trees, shrubs and groundcovers typical to a forested wetland buffer ecosystem. 2. MATURE CONIFER FOREST: The outer half of the buffer contains a variety of environments. The north portion contains a very dense mature Douglas fir forest with an understory of native low shrubs and groundcover species including: salal, blackcap raspberry, and sword fern. Two other patches of this same forest type are located in the central inner buffer and along the south property line (mostly on the adjacent parcel). Within the southern portion of the northern mature forest, two unique environments were found. The first was an area that only contained Douglas fir trees with some down logs and stumps. No other vegetation was present. The second contained Douglas fir trees with only blackcap dominating the forest floor. 3. SCRUB -SHRUB HABITAT: In the central inner portion of the buffer a mix of native scrub -shrub vegetation dominates but several non-native/invasive species are mixed in. Native species include willow sp., black hawthorn, red alder and bracken fern. A mix of various grasses are scattered throughout this area. Invasive species include Scot's broom, Himalayan blackberry and reed canarygrass 4. DISTURBED AREAS: Beginning at the south property line and meandering up to the mid -point of the outer portion of the buffer for Wetlands A and B, the existing buffer areas appear to have been previously disturbed. These buffer areas are primarily open and vegetated with a mix of non-native/invasive shrubs and grasses. A few small deciduous trees and one small conifer tree are located just south of Wetland A. Non-native/invasive species include: Scot's broom, Himalayan blackberry, Canada thistle, hedge bindweed and reed canarygrass. It appears that this portion of the buffer contains fill material and construction debris from previous site work. PROPOSED PROJECT: DevCo plans to develop the Park 16 project with 12 buildings of multi -family residences and 13 carriage units. Other site features will include interior circulation routes, pedestrian walkways, a recreation center, active outdoor recreation areas, and supporting utilities and stormwater facilities. Due to existing site topography, a retaining wall will be constructed adjacent to the wetland buffers to allow for the construction of a level building area. Some minor grading will occur within the first 15 feet of the buffer during wall construction. Three dispersion trenches will be constructed within the area of buffer disturbance along with one outfall from the stormwater vault. 19July 2013 Copyright © 2013 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1379 Park 16 Wetland Buffer Mit Rpt-2 (19Jull3).docx Page i Park 16 Multi -family Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan The City Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) §19.205.040 requires 400 square feet (sf) per unit of "common recreation open space useable for many activities" be provided. The proposed site plan includes 293 units for a total of 117,200 sf of required common useable open space. DevCo is requesting 69,840 sf of the required open space credit be allowed in the outer portion of the wetland buffer areas. In order to allow these buffer areas to be counted towards common recreational open space, buffer enhancements that at a minimum provide some manner of enjoyment to the residents, must be employed. Overall, approximately 10.5 acres (63 percent) of the Site will be developed with apartments, recreation facilities, open space, roads, parking and sidewalks. The remaining 6.2 acres (37 percent) of the Site will be permanently protected in a Native Growth Protection Area (NGPA) tract. ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT.IMPACTS: No impacts to the wetlands are proposed with this Project. The Project will be constructed, for the most part, outside of the buffers for Wetlands A and B. However, buffer enhancements, including a pedestrian trail and viewpoints, and temporary impacts from construction of the wall and dispersion trenches/stormwater outfall are proposed in the wetland buffer areas. These enhancements and minor intrusions are discussed below: Wetland Buffer Enhancement. Approximately 58,970 sf of the outer portion of the buffer areas will be restored/enhanced for open space credit. Enhancement measures include: 1) removal of invasive/non- native species, 2) removal of debris, 3) placement of topsoil and mulch, 4) installation of habitat features (snags, bird boxes, down logs and stumps), and 5) planting a variety of deciduous and evergreen native trees, shrubs and groundcovers. Pedestrian Trail and View alnts. A soft -surface pedestrian trail will be constructed through portions of the buffer for Wetlands A and B as part of the passive recreation open space for the Project. This trail will extend through the buffer from near the north property boundary southward to near the south property boundary. It will have one additional access point in the middle of the Site, just north of Wetland A. The trail will provide a looped walk through the southern portion of the buffer area. Three viewpoints will be constructed along the trail route. At each viewpoint, a bench and interpretive sign will be installed. The trail will be constructed of soft material, such as wood chips, and the route will be located to avoid significant trees and impacts to native vegetation. Approximately 4,775 sf of buffer area will be needed to construct the trail and viewpoints. A split -rail fence (or similar fence type) will be constructed along the western edge of the pedestrian trail to prevent human intrusion into Wetland B. Additionally, the edge of the trail adjacent to Wetland A will also be fenced. Temporary Impacts from Construction. A retaining wall will be constructed on the edge of the buffer so that a level building area can be created. The construction of this wall will require 3,320 sf of grading activities in the outer edge of the buffer from near the north property boundary southward to the proposed stormwater vault. During wall construction, three rooftop runoff dispersion trenches and one outfall from the stormwater vault will also be constructed in buffer areas that will be temporarily disturbed during wall construction. These intrusions will be located within the extreme outer 15 feet of the buffer edge and the affected area of buffer will be relatively small. PROPOSED MITIGATION: The following mitigation is proposed: Wetland Buffer Enhancement. To provide useable open space required for site development, the project will restore/enhance 58,970 sf of buffer area. Mitigation measures include: ■ Clear and grub non-native/exotic species in the buffer; ■ Remove garbage and debris; ■ Amend the soils in all cleared and grubbed areas, where necessary; ■ Install habitat features (snags, bird boxes, down logs, stumps) for wildlife habitat; ■ Place 3 inches of medium bark mulch over restored/enhanced buffer areas; and • Plant a variety of deciduous and evergreen native trees, shrubs and groundcovers. Pedestrian Trail and View oints: The project will clear and grub the proposed trail route and viewpoint areas through the buffer. Following clearing/grubbing, 6 inches of wood chips will be placed over the trail corridor. Three benches and interpretive signs will be installed at viewpoint locations in the buffer. 19July 2013 Copyright © 2013 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1379 Park 16 Wetland Buffer Mit Rpt-2 (19Ju113).docx Page ii Park 16 Multi -family Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan Temporary Impacts from Construction: To mitigate for minor buffer intrusions including construction of the retaining wall, dispersion trenches, and overflow outfall, the project will restore 3,320 sf of buffer area. Mitigation measures include: • Amend the soils with 9 inches of topsoil in all graded areas; • Place 3 inches of medium bark mulch over graded buffer areas; and • Plant a variety of native deciduous and evergreen trees, shrubs and groundcovers. Critical Area Fencing: A split -rail fence (or similar fence type) will be constructed along the western edge of the pedestrian trail to prevent human intrusion into Wetland B. Additionally, the east edge of the trail adjacent to Wetland A will also be fenced. Critical Area Signs: Following construction completion, critical area signs, consistent with City of Federal Way Design Guidelines, shall be installed at the buffer boundary every 100 feet. PERFORMANCE MONITORING: All of the restored buffer areas will be monitored for five years to ensure compliance with the stated goals, objectives and performance standards approved by the City. FINANCIAL ASSURANCES: In addition, a financial assurance guarantee will be provided to ensure that the monitoring and. maintenance is carried out as specified in the approved mitigation plan for the duration of the monitoring period. 19July 2013 Copyright © 2013 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1379 Park 16 Wetland Buffer Mit Rpt-2 (19Jul13).docx Page iii Park 16 Multi -family Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS ExecutiveSummary ..................................................................................................................... i Tableof Contents...................................................................................................................... iv Lists of Figures, Tables, and Appendices.................................................................................... v Chapter1. Introduction...-....... ................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Statement of Accuracy.............................................................................................1 Chapter 2. General Property Description and Land Use............................................................1 2.1 Project Location.......................................................................................................1 2.2 Project Background..................................................................................................1 2.3 Current Existing Buffer Conditions...........................................................................1 _l Chapter 3. Proposed Development............................................................................................2 1 3.1 Project Description. •2 3.2 Stormwater Management.........................................................................................3 1 . 3.3 Assessment of Development Impacts::::::.:.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.3 J 3.3.1 Process III Buffer Modification. .4 Chapter4. Proposed Mitigation.................................................................................................6 4.1 Wetland Buffer Mitigation ......... ........ .................. .............................................. ......:.6 4.1.1 Buffer Mitigation Area A: Temporary Buffer Impacts from Construction ...................6 4.1.2 Buffer Mitigation Area B: Full Buffer Restoration.....................................................7 f 4.1.3 Buffer Mitigation Area C: Selective Enhancement of Existing Scrub -Shrub Buffer...7 l4.1.4 Buffer Mitigation Area D: Selective Enhancement of Native Coniferous Forest Buffer. - . - . ...................... ___ ....... __ ......... ............ ............... ....... ....... ....... 8 4.1.5 Buffer Mitigation Area E: Selective Enhancement of Native Coniferous Forest Buffer.......................................................................................................................8 4.1.6 Buffer Mitigation Area F: Selective Enhancement of Native Coniferous Forest Buffer.......................................................................................................................8 -- 4.1.7 Pedestrian Trail and Viewpoints....................................................•...........•............_9 4.1.8 Critical Area Fencing. •9 4.1.9 Critical Area Signs....................................................................................................9 j 4.2 Mitigation Goals, Objectives: and Performance Standards....................................•.•9 i 4.3 Plantings . .10 4.4 Habitat Features....................................................................................................10 4.5 Temporary Irrigation..............................................................�..............................10 Chapter 5. Construction Sequencing..... .11 5.1 Mitigation Construction Sequence..........................................................................11 5.2 Post -Construction Approval....................................................................................11 J 5.3 Post -Construction Assessment..............................................................................11 Chapter6. Monitoring Methods............................................................................................. 11 6.1 Reports..................................................................................................................12 6.2 Monitoring Methods.........................................................................................12 6.3 Photo Documentation.................................................................................... .. ......13 6.4 Wildlife...................................................................................................................13 6.5 Site Stability...........................................................................................................13 -} Chapter 7. Maintenance and Contingency...............................................................................13 Chapter 8. Performance and maintenance bond.....................................................................14 Chapter9. Summary ...............................................................................................................14 Chapter10. References............................................................................................................15 19July 2013 Copyright© 2013 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1379 Park 16 Wetland Buffer Mit Rpt-2 (19Jull3).docx Page iv Park 16 Multi -family Wetland Buffer Mitiqation Plan LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Vicinity Map and Driving Directions Note: All figures are located at the end of the report before the appendices. LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Summary of Wetland Buffer Enhancements & Minor Intrusions....................................4 Table 2. Projected Schedule for Performance Monitoring and Maintenance Events ................12 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Wetland Buffer Photos Appendix B: Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plans (22"x34" Plan Sheets) Sheet W1.0: Existing Conditions Plan Sheet W1.1: Proposed Site Plan and Mitigation Overview Plan Sheet W2.0: Clearing & Grubbing & Habitat Feature Plan Sheet W2.1: Clearing & Grubbing Notes & Details Sheet W3.0: Plant Community Plan & Notes Sheet W3.1: Planting Specifications & Details 19July 2013 Copyright © 2013 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1379 Park 16 Wetland Buffer Mit Rpt-2 (19Jul13).docx Page v Park 16 Multi -family Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION This report is the result of a wetland buffer analysis for the Park 16 Multi -family property (referred to hereinafter as the Project Site or Site) located in Federal Way, Washington. This report specifically addresses mitigation measures to allow required open space credit in the outer portion of the wetland buffer areas and for minor wetland buffer intrusions resulting from the proposed project. This report will be used by the City of Federal Way through their Process III permitting review. The purpose of this report is to identify areas off buffer enhancement and temporary intrusions to the wetland buffer resulting from minor improvements on the Project Site, provide a regulatory review of the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Division V. Critical Areas, §19.175, and describe the mitigation. 1.1 Statement of Accuracy The wetland buffer analysis was conducted by trained professionals at Talasaea Consultants, Inc., and adhered to the protocols, guidelines, and generally accepted industry standards available at the time work was performed. The conclusions in this report are based on the results of analyses performed by Talasaea Consultants and represent our best professional judgment. To that extent, and within the limitations of project scope and budget, we believe the information provided herein is accurate and true to the best of our knowledge. Talasaea Consultants does not warrant any assumptions or conclusions not expressly made in this report, or based on information or analyses other than what is included herein. CHAPTER 2. GENERAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LAND USE 2.1 Project Location The Park 16 property is an approximately 16.7-acre site located southwest of the intersection of 16t" Avenue South and South 356'' Street in Federal Way, Washington (Figure 1). The property consists of two parcels and the address is 35703 16th Ave South. The King County Tax Parcel numbers are 2921049095 and 2921049107. The Public Land Survey System location is Section 29, Township 21 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian. - 2.2 Project Background Previous wetland delineation work conducted by Habitat Technologies in 2009 identified two _! wetlands in the western'/ of the property. These are identified as Wetland A and Wetland B. J Wetland A, 2,775 sf, is a Category III wetland requiring a 25-foot buffer per FWRC §19.175.020. Wetland B, 115,876 sf on -site, is a Category I wetland requiring a 200-foot buffer per FWRC §19.175.020. The City of Federal Way's peer review consultant concurred with the delineation and the ratings of these wetlands. The buffer for Wetland B encompasses all of Wetland A. The buffer for Wetland A forms an J approximate 25-foot extension beyond the 200-foot buffer for Wetland B in the southern 1 /3rd of the Site. J 2.3 Current Existing Buffer Conditions Talasaea conducted two site investigations to evaluate the existing buffer conditions and to locate an acceptable route for the proposed trail. We defined four unique buffer conditions (see Photos in Appendix A and Sheet W1.0 in Appendix B). These are further described below: I 1. MIXED FOREST: The entire inner approximately 100 feet of the buffer for Wetland B contains a dense mixed forest consisting of black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera), red 24 May 2013 Copyright © 2013 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1379 Park 16 Wetland Buffer Mit Rpt-2 (19Jul 1 3).docx Page 1 Park 16 Multi -family Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan IJ 11 IJ 11 ii alder (R1nus rubru), western red cedar (Thuja plicata) with understory of small trees, shrubs and groundcovers typical to a forested wetland buffer ecosystem. 2. MATURE CONIFER FOREST: The outer half of the buffer contains a variety of environments. The north portion contains a very dense mature Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) forest with an understory of native low shrubs and groundcover species including: salal (Gaultheria shallop), blackcap raspberry (Rubus leucodermis), and sword fern (Polystichum munitum). Two other patches of this same forest type are located in the central inner buffer and along the south property line (mostly on the adjacent parcel). Within the southern portion of the northern mature forest, two unique environments were found. The first was an area that only contained Douglas fir trees with some down logs and stumps. No other vegetation was present. The second contained Douglas fir trees with only blackcap dominating the forest floor. 3. SCRUB -SHRUB HABITAT: In the central inner portion of the buffer a mix of native scrub -shrub vegetation dominates but several non-native/invasive species are mixed in. Native species include willow sp., black hawthorn (Crataegeus douglasii), red alder and bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum)). A mix of various grasses are scattered throughout this area. Invasive species include Scot's broom (Cytisus scoparius), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). DISTURBED AREAS: Beginning at the south property line and meandering up to the mid -point of the outer portion of the buffer for Wetlands A and B, the existing buffer areas appear to have been previously disturbed. These buffer areas are primarily open and vegetated with a mix of non-native/invasive shrubs and grasses. A few small deciduous trees and one small conifer tree are located just south of Wetland A. Non- native/invasive species include: Scot's broom, Himalayan blackberry, Canada thistle (Cirsium arveose), hedge bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), and reed canarygrass. It appears that this portion of the buffer contains fill material and construction debris from previous site work. CHAPTER 3. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 3.1 Project Description DevCo plans to develop the Park 16 project with 12 buildings of multi -family residences and 13 carriage units (see Sheet W1.1 in Appendix B). Other site features will include interior circulation routes, pedestrian walkways, a recreation center, active outdoor recreation areas, and supporting utilities and stormwater facilities. Due to existing site topography, a retaining wall will be constructed adjacent to the wetland buffers to allow for the construction of a level building area. Some minor grading will occur within the first 15 feet of the buffer during wall construction. Three dispersion trenches will be constructed within the area of buffer disturbance along with one outfall from the stormwater vault. The City Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) §19.205.040 requires 400 square feet (sf) per unit of "common recreation open space useable for many activities" be provided. The proposed site plan includes 293 units for a total of 117,200 sf of required common useable open space. DevCo is requesting 69,840 sf of the required open space credit be allowed in the outer portion of the wetland buffer areas (see Open Space Plan provided by CPH). In order to allow these buffer areas to be counted towards common recreational open space, buffer enhancements that at a minimum provide some manner of enjoyment to the residents, must be employed. Overall, approximately 10.5 acres (63 percent) of the Site will be developed with apartments, recreation facilities, open space, roads, parking and sidewalks. The remaining 6.2 acres (37 percent) of the Site will be permanently protected in a Native Growth Protection Area (NGPA) tract. 19July 2013 Copyright © 2013 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1379 Park 16 Wetland Buffer Mit Rpt-2 (19Jull3).docx Page 2 IPark 16 Multi -family Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan 1 3.2 Stormwater Management The proposed project will manage stormwater runoff using several methods (see Civil Plans by CPH). Clean rooftop runoff from the three westernmost buildings on the site will be routed to three dispersion trenches within the outer perimeter of the wetland buffer. These dispersion trenches will only handle clean rooftop runoff. Stormwater from the on -site parking areas and rooftop runoff from all other buildings on site will be tightlined to a small treatment vault with storm filters south of Building AA where it will be pre-treated before being discharged into a large detention vault located behind building AA. The detention vault will have an open bottom to allow for infiltration of some of the detained stormwater. The outfall from the vault will discharge into the outer perimeter of the Wetland A buffer. 3.3 Assessment of Development Impacts No impacts to the wetlands are proposed with this Project. The Project will be constructed, for the most part, outside of the buffers for Wetlands A and B. However, buffer enhancements, including a pedestrian trail and viewpoints, and temporary impacts from construction of the wall and dispersion trencheststormwater outfall are proposed in the wetland buffer areas (Sheet W1.1). These enhancements and minor intrusions are discussed below: Wetland Buffer Enhancement: Approximately 58,970 sf of the outer portion of the buffer areas will be enhanced for open space credit. Enhancement measures include: 1) removal of invasive/non-native species, 2) removal of debris, 3) placement of topsoil and mulch, 4) installation of habitat features (snags, bird boxes, down logs and stumps), and 5) planting a variety of deciduous and evergreen native trees, shrubs and groundcovers. Pedestrian Trail and Viewpoints: A soft -surface pedestrian trail will be constructed through portions of the buffer for Wetlands A and B as part of the passive recreation open space for the Project. This trail will extend through the buffer from near the north property boundary southward to near the south property boundary. It will have one additional access point in the middle of the Site, just north of Wetland A. The trail will provide a looped walk through the southern portion of the buffer area. Three - viewpoints will be constructed along the trail route. At each viewpoint, a bench and interpretive sign will be installed. The trail will be constructed of soft material, such as wood chips, and the route will be located to avoid significant trees and impacts to native vegetation. Approximately 4,775 sf of buffer area will be needed to construct the trail and viewpoints. A split -rail fence (or similar fence type) will be constructed along the western edge of the pedestrian trail to prevent human intrusion into Wetland B. Additionally, the edge of the trail adjacent to Wetland A will also be fenced. Tem2orary Impacts from Construction: A retaining wall will be constructed on the edge of the buffer so that a level building area can be created. The construction of this wall will require 3,320 sf of grading activities in the outer edge of the buffer from near the north property boundary southward to the proposed stormwater vault. During wall construction, three rooftop runoff dispersion trenches and one outfall from the stormwater vault will also be constructed in buffer areas that will be temporarily disturbed during wall construction. These intrusions will be located within the extreme outer 15 feet of the buffer edge and the affected area of buffer will be relatively small. The dispersion trenches will be approximately 53 feet long, approximately three feet wide, and filled with riprap. All buffer areas disturbed by these intrusions will be fully restored and planted after construction is complete. Total proposed buffer enhancements and minor intrusions are 67,065 sf as shown in Table 1. 19July 2013 Copyright © 2013 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1379 Park 16 Wetland Buffer Mit Rpt-2 (19Jull3).docx Page 3 Park 16 Multi -family Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan Table 1. Summary of Wetland Buffer Enhancements & Minor Intrusions Buffer Enhancement/Minor Intrusion Area (sf) Buffer Enhancement/Restoration 58,970 Pedestrian Trail and Viewpoints 4,775 Temporary Impacts from Construction 3,320 Total: 67,065" "Total requested open space area includes vvenan(I A, z,i is sr, Tor a iota or oa,ot+u sr. 3.3.1 Process III Buffer Modification Minor improvements proposed within the wetland buffer area include: 1) buffer enhancement, 2) the pedestrian trail and viewpoints, and 3) temporary impacts from construction. These minor improvements may be reviewed and approved through Process III if the criteria found in FWRC §19.175.040(4) is met. These criteria (a through e) are reiterated below, followed by a response explaining how the proposed improvements are consistent with each criterion. Pedestrian TraH and Yew oints The following responses are provided to address the wetland buffer intrusions for construction of a pedestrian trail and three viewpoints in the Wetland A and B buffers. (a) It will not adversely affect water quality; The proposed trail and viewpoints will be constructed using wood chips as a surfacing material. By using wood chips, the trail will not be an impervious surface that could leach out pollutants or other potentially toxic chemicals. The trail will be maintained using additional layers of wood chips, as necessary or simple hand -removal of weeds. Additionally, no trees will be removed. We expect to remove some small shrubs and groundcover plants in some areas to align the trail, but no grading, excavating, or compacting of native topsoil will occur during the trail construction. The water quality functions of the buffer will not be diminished as a result of the proposed wood chip trail. (b) It will not adversely affect the existing quality of the wetland's or buffer's wildlife habitat; The proposed trail and viewpoints will not encroach upon or disturb any wetland habitat. Wildlife habitat associated with wetland areas is not likely to be adversely affected by the trail and viewpoints in any significant way. The proposed trail route avoids large trees and generally stays within areas currently vegetated with small shrubs. Avoiding damage to large trees and shrubs helps preserve the quality of wildlife habitat within the buffer. Finally, a split -rail fence (or similar fence type) will be constructed along the western edge of the pedestrian trail and viewpoints to prevent human intrusion into Wetland B. Additionally, the edge of the trail adjacent to Wetland A will also be fenced. The split -rail fence will not hinder movement of wildlife between upland buffer and wetland areas. (c) It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities; The proposed trail and viewpoints will be constructed out of wood chips and will not entail any additional grading, excavating, or compacting of native topsoil. The proposed wood chip trail is not likely to adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities of the buffer. (d) It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards; and The trail and viewpoint construction will not involve any additional grading, excavating, or compacting of native topsoil. The preliminary trail alignment shown on the plans has 19July 2013 Copyright © 2013 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1379 Park 16 Wetland Buffer Mit Rpt-2 (19Jull3).docx Page 4 Park 16 Multi -family Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan been located using a hand-held GPS unit. The alignment has avoided large trees and steep slopes and will basically follow relatively level terrain, which will also help prevent unstable earth conditions or erosion hazards. The use of wood chips as the surfacing material will prevent stormwater from becoming concentrated and directed towards hydrologic low areas. Thus, the proposed wood chip trail and viewpoint locations are not anticipated to create any erosion hazards. (e) It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor to the city as a whole. The proposed trail and viewpoints will be constructed entirely on property owned by the Client and will not directly affect any adjacent properties. As mentioned in our response to Item (d), no grading, excavation, or compaction of native topsoil will occur during construction of the trail. No existing native trees will be removed, which could increase the risk of soil erosion through loss of canopy coverage. The proposed wood chip trail and viewpoints will not alter the local hydrology or geologic stability of the immediate area, and therefore poses no real risk of damage to other properties in the general area, or to the city as a whole. Temporary Construction Impacts and Buffer EnhancementlRes#oration The following responses are provided to address the wetland buffer intrusions within the outer perimeter of the Wetland A and B buffers. These intrusions are due to proposed temporary impacts from construction of the wall construction, the installation of three dispersion trenches and one outfall for the stormwater vault, and en hancementlrestoration of previously disturbed buffer areas. a) It will not adversely affect water quality; The temporary impacts from construction and buffer enhancement measures are not likely to adversely affect water quality. These intrusions will be located within the outer perimeter of the buffer. No toxic materials will be placed in the buffer as part of this work. The proposed grading for the wall will consist of clean fill material, and the dispersion trenches will receive only clean rooftop runoff to be dispersed and infiltrated within the buffer. All clearing and grubbing work for the buffer enhancement areas will provide BMPs such as silt fencing downslope of all construction activities. b) It will not adversely affect the existing quality of the wetland's or buffer's wildlife habitat; The temporary impacts from the installation of the dispersion trenches and overflow outfall and the buffer enhancement measures are not likely to adversely affect the existing quality of the wetland's or buffer's wildlife habitat. In fact, the buffer enhancements/restoration will actually improve the existing quality of the buffers wildlife habitat. Essentially the entire area disturbed by these intrusions will be fully restored with native trees and shrubs to better than existing conditions. All areas disturbed will be fully restored, only the areas directly on top of the dispersion trenches (approximately 53 feet long x 3-4 feet w,,de each) will not be able to be planted as these areas will be surfaced with rip -rap. The restoration of the disturbed areas and the proposed supplemental enhancement will likely result in an improvement in habitat functions. c) It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities; The temporary impacts from construction of the dispersion trenches and overflow outfall and the buffer enhancement measures are not likely to adversely affect the drainage or stormwater retention capabilities of the wetland or buffer. The installation of the dispersion trenches and overflow outfall will not result in any impediments or significant 19July 2013 Copyright © 2013 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1379 Park 16 Wetland Buffer Mit Rpt-2 (19Jull3).docx Page 5 Park 16 Multi -family Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan changes to the existing drainage patterns within the wetland or the buffer. The proposed grading within the buffer perimeter will maintain the general east -to -west surface drainage patterns within the buffer (i.e., towards the wetland), and will not fill any areas that currently function as stormwater retention. The discharge from the dispersion trenches and overflow outfall will generally mimic the existing drainage patterns on the project site (i.e., east to west). d) It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards; The temporary construction impacts and buffer enhancement measures are not likely to lead to unstable earth conditions or erosion hazards. All proposed grading at the base of the retaining wall will utilize clean structural fill material with slopes not to exceed 3:1. All disturbed soil areas will be temporarily stabilized with 3-inches of mulch and will be permanently planted with native trees and shrubs once construction is complete. The dispersion trenches are designed to generally disperse outflows over an area sufficient to not create any concentrated surface flows that might cause erosion, and are designed to directly infiltrate the majority of the discharge for all but the largest of flows. Larger flows may result in some surface sheet flow from the dispersion trenches if they completely fill with water, but they are designed to be of sufficient length (approx. 5310 to ensure that any surface sheet flows will be sufficiently dispersed. The outfall for the stormwater vault will have a rip -rap energy dissipation pad to prevent erosion, and is only expected to flow intermittently (i.e., when inflow into the vault exceeds infiltration capacity during larger storm events). e) It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor to the city as a whole. The temporary construction impacts and the buffer enhancement measures will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor to the City as a whole. There will be no impacts from these proposed improvements beyond the immediate area of the work. As discussed above, the impacts will primarily be temporary and disturbed buffer areas will be fully restored and planted. CHAPTER 4. PROPOSED MITIGATION 4.1 Wetland Buffer Mitigation Talasaea has prepared the following buffer mitigation plan to address and remedy impacts to wetland buffers resulting from the proposed site development. See Sheets W1 A thru W3.1 in Appendix B. _j 4.1.1 Buffer Mitigation Area A: Temporary Buffer Impacts from Construction Mitigation Area A consists of a narrow strip at the extreme outer perimeter of the Wetland A and B buffers. Area A is approximately 14 feet wide at the widest point. From Wetland A south, this area is currently disturbed with rubble and debris and vegetated primarily with invasive species such as Scots broom, Himalayan blackberry, hedge bindweed, Canada thistle, and reed canarygrass, etc. North of Wetland A this area is primarily native conifer forest with a very Jsparse native shrub understory. Mitigation Area A will be temporarily impacted by construction, including grading for the adjacent retaining walls (located outside the buffer), installation of dispersion trenches for clean rooftop runoff, and installation of an outfall for the stormwater vault. Area A will be fully restored to better than existing conditions as follows: • From Wetland A south: 19July 2013 Copyright © 2013 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1379 Park 16 Wetland Buffer Mit Rpt-2 (19Jull3).docx Page 6 Park 16 Multi -family Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan o The invasive species and debris will be removed, o Disturbed soil will be restored with imported or stockpiled topsoil and/or compost, o Disturbed soil will be stabilized with mulch, o Habitat features such as down logs and stumps will be installed, and o The area will be revegetated with a mix of native evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs. This will also add to the viewing interest from the wetland buffer overlook in Open Space 6. From Wetland A north: o Disturbed soil will be restored with imported or stockpiled topsoil and/or compost, o Disturbed soil will be stabilized with mulch, o Habitat features such as down logs and stumps will be installed, and o The area will be revegetated with a mix of native evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs. The post -mitigation buffer condition north of Wetland A will have more species diversity and more structural diversity (i.e., low, mid -height, and tall shrub and understory tree species) than existing conditions. This will add to the viewing interest from the adjacent apartments and for pedestrians utilizing the northern portion of the trail. 4.1.2 Buffer Mitigation Area B: Full Buffer Restoration Mitigation Area B consists of both Wetland A and B buffer that is almost exclusively vegetated with invasive species such as Scots broom, Himalayan blackberry, hedge bindweed, Canada thistle, and reed canarygrass. Area B is primarily open with little tree cover; only one small native conifer and a small cluster of black cottonwoods exist just south of Wetland A. Mitigation Area B will be fully restored as follows: o The entire area will be grubbed to remove all non-native and invasive species, • Disturbed soil will be restored with imported or stockpiled topsoil and/or compost, • Habitat features such as down logs, stumps, and snags with swallow nest boxes will be installed, • Disturbed soil areas will be stabilized with mulch, and • The area will be revegetated with a mix native evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs. In addition, as part of the woodchip pedestrian trail system within the buffer, a loop of the trail will be routed through Mitigation Area B. This portion of trail will have a viewpoint that will contain an interpretive sign and bench. This will allow trail users to more directly experience the buffer restoration plantings and habitat features. The interpretive sign will explain the buffer restoration work and will describe the important role of the upland forest buffer in protecting the adjacent forested wetland and the process of succession back to mature upland forest. 4.1.3 Buffer Mitigation Area C: Selective Enhancement of Existing Scrub -Shrub Buffer Mitigation Area C consists of both Wetland A and B buffer that is currently vegetated with a mix of native and invasive non-native species. Native species include several species of native willow, Douglas spirea (Spiraea douglasii), black cottonwood, and bracken fern. Non-native invasive species include Himalayan blackberry, Scots broom, and reed canarygrass. Mitigation Area C will be selectively enhanced as follows: • Non-native invasive species will be selectively grubbed out by hand, • Habitat features such as down logs and will be installed in select locations to not disturb existing native species, • Disturbed soil areas will be stabilized with mulch, and • Areas grubbed of invasive vegetation will be revegetated with a mix of native evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs. 19July 2013 Copyright© 2013 Talasaea Consultants, Inc' 1379 Park 16 Wetland Buffer Mit Rpt-2 (19Jull3).docx Rage 7 Park 16 Multi -family Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan The portion of pedestrian trail routed through Mitigation Area C will allow the trail users to directly experience both the existing native vegetation as well as the enhancement plantings and installed habitat features. 4.1.4 Buffer Mitigation Area D: Selective Enhancement of Native Coniferous Forest Buffer Mitigation Area D consists of relatively mature Douglas fir forest with a low groundcover understory of native blackcap raspberry, with some salal near the forest edge. This area will be selectively enhanced to increase vegetation species and structural diversity as follows: A variety of shade -adapted native species will be installed which may include vine maple, red elderberry, and Indian plum. These tall shrub and small tree species will fill in the mid -story stratum in this area of forest. Pedestrians traveling along the northern portion of the trail will be able to directly experience the native coniferous forest environment. The enhancement plantings will increase the viewing experience of trail users. 4.1.5 Buffer Mitigation Area E: Selective Enhancement of Native Coniferous Forest Buffer Mitigation Area E consists of relatively mature Douglas fir forest with virtually no understory vegetation. The area does contain a large amount of down logs and woody debris of various sizes. This area will be selectively enhanced to increase vegetation species and structural diversity as follows: A variety of shade -adapted native species will be installed which may include vine maple, red elderberry, and Indian plum. These tall shrub and small tree species will fill in the mid -story stratum in this area of forest. In addition to planting enhancements, the portion of the woodchip pedestrian trail that passes through Area E will have a viewpoint that will contain an interpretive sign and bench. The interpretive sign will explain the role of large down woody debris (e.g., nurse logs, stumps) in the mature forest environment. 4.1.6 Buffer Mitigation Area F: Selective Enhancement of Native Coniferous Forest Buffer Mitigation Area F consists of relatively mature Douglas fir forest with an understory of native low shrub and groundcover species such as blackcap raspberry, sword fern, and salal. There is little mid -story vegetation. This area will be selectively enhanced to increase vegetation species and structural diversity .J and habitat value as follows: • A variety of shade -adapted native species will be installed which may include vine } maple, red elderberry, and Indian plum. These tall shrub and small tree species will fill . J in the mid -story stratum in this area of forest which will help to increase the habitat value of the forest for wildlife. • Large woody debris such as down logs and stumps will be installed in select locations along the pedestrian trail. These habitat features will further increase the wildlife habitat value and functions of this area of forest. 1 In addition to planting and habitat feature enhancements, a viewpoint containing an interpretive �l sign and bench will be located along the portion of woodchip pedestrian trail that passes through Area E. The enhancement plantings and habitat features will increase the viewing 19July 2013 Copyright © 2013 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1379 Park 16 Wetland Buffer Mit Rpt-2 (19Jul13).docx Page 8 Park 16 Multi-familv Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan experience for trail users, and the interpretive sign will explain the role of vegetation structural diversity in the mature forest environment. 4.1.7 Pedestrian Trail and Viewpoints The project will clear and grub some small shrubs and groundcover for the proposed trail route and viewpoint locations in the buffer. Following clearing/grubbing, 6 inches of wood chips will be placed over the trail corridor. The proposed pedestrian trail and viewpoints will be defined by a split -rail fence (or similar type of fence) that will discourage human intrusion into the wetlands. Use of low split -rail fencing will not impede movement of wildlife between buffer and wetland habitats. Additionally, the edge of the trail adjacent to Wetland A will also be fenced. Three benches and interpretive signs will be installed at each viewpoint. The design of the signs will provide informational/interpretive text and graphics of different aspects of forested wetland and buffer functions. 4.1.8 Critical Area Fencing A split -rail fence (or similar fence type) will be constructed along the western edge of the pedestrian trail to prevent human intrusion into Wetland B. Additionally, the east edge of the trail adjacent to Wetland A will also be fenced. 4.1.9 Critical Area Signs Following construction completion, critical area signs, consistent with City of Federal Way Design Guidelines, shall be installed at the buffer boundary every 100 feet. 4.2 Mitigation Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards The goals of the mitigation plan are 1) to provide passive recreation consistent with City guidelines, 2) restore the functions and values of the wetland buffer temporarily lost resulting from minor grading activities, 3) restore the functions and values to a previously disturbed buffer area, and 4) enhance existing buffer areas. To accomplish these goals, the proposed project will include the following mitigation elements, as detailed in previous sections of this chapter: i Provide passive recreation opportunities within the buffer through construction of a soft - surface pedestrian trail with viewpoints, benches, and interpretive signage. Restore 3,320 sf of temporarily disturbed buffer due to wall, dispersion trench, and stormwater vault overflow construction. • Restore/enhance 58,970 sf of existing wetland buffer. _1 The mitigation plan will be evaluated through the objectives and performance standards outlined below. Mitigation monitoring will be performed by a qualified wetland biologist/ecologist. _1 Ob'ective A: Restore 3,320 sf of buffer area temporarily impacted by construction and restore/enhance 58,970 sf of existing wetland buffer. J Performance Standard A 1: At least 10 species of desirable native plants will be present in the buffer restoration areas during the monitoring period. Percent survival of planted woody species must be at least 100% at the end of Year 1 (per contractor warranty), and at least 80% for each subsequent year of the monitoring period. Performance Standard A 2: Total percent aerial woody plant coverage in the restored buffer areas must be at least 35% by Year 4 and 50% by Year 5. Woody coverage may be comprised of both planted and recolonized native species, however, to maintain species diversity, at no time shall a recolonized species (i.e., red alder) comprise more than 35% of the total woody coverage. There must be at least three native species providing at least 20% each, or four native species providing at least 15% each, or five native species providing at least 10% of the total aerial woody plant coverage. 19July 2013 Copyright © 2013 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1379 Park 16 Wetland Buffer Mit Rpt-2 (19Jull3).docx Page 9 IPark 16 Multi -family Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan Performance Standard A3: Invasive weedy species shall be less than 15 percent of total areal coverage for any year during the monitoring period within the buffer restoration areas. These species include, but are not limited to, Scot's broom, Himalayan and evergreen blackberry, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, hedge bindweed, knotweed sp., and creeping nightshade. Additional species requiring control may be designated by King County or Talasaea Consultants during the monitoring period. 4.3 Plantings The surrounding mixed deciduous and coniferous forest areas will contribute to the planting palette of the enhanced buffer areas. We expect that seeds and berries from adjacent native species will be recruited by natural forces (wind, rain, birds) into the mitigation areas and will assist in achieving the performance standards for species diversity and cover. The performance standards limit the percentage cover of any single species of tree or shrub in the mitigation area. If a single native species becomes too prolific in naturally establishing itself in the mitigation area, its coverage will be reduced as required by the performance standards. A Plant Communities Plan depicts the proposed species for the buffer enhancement/restoration areas (Sheet W3.0). Plant materials will consist of a combination of cuttings, ball and burlapped, bare -root specimens, and container plants. Plant species were chosen for a variety of qualities, including: adaptation to specific water regimes, value to wildlife, value as a physical or visual barrier, pattern of growth (structural diversity), and aesthetic values. Native tree, shrub, and herbaceous species were chosen to increase both the structural and species diversity of the mitigation areas, thereby increasing the value of the area to wildlife for food and cover. 4.4 Habitat Features Snags, down logs and stumps will be incorporated into the mitigation areas to provide ecologically important habitat features for wildlife. All down woody material shall be coniferous species (western red cedar, Douglas fir, western hemlock, or Sitka spruce) from the Site development area. Snags provide perching, feeding and nesting sites for a variety of native birds. Cavity nesting bird species, such as tree swallows, violet -green swallows, chickadees, and woodpeckers, would be expected to utilize such features. A bird -nesting box will be attached to each snag to initially augment the natural habitat for swallow species. Down logs and stumps provide the slow release of nutrients as the wood decays and also provide cover for amphibians, small mammals, and other wildlife. Boulders recovered from site excavation (if available) will be placed in small piles throughout the mitigation area. These piles can provide habitat for reptiles and small mammals. 4.5 Temporary Irrigation An above ground temporary irrigation system capable of full head to head coverage of all cleared and grubbed areas will be provided for the mitigation areas. The temporary irrigation system shall either utilize controller and point of connection (POC) from the site irrigation system or shall include a separate POC and controller with a backflow prevention device per water jurisdiction inspection and approval. The system shall be zoned to provide optimal pressure and uniformity of coverage, as well as separation for areas of full sun or shade and slopes in excess of 5%. The system shall be operational by June 15 (or at time of planting) and winterized by October 15. Irrigation shall be provided for the first 2 years of the monitoring period. The irrigation system shall be programmed to provide 1/2" of water per week (one cycle with two start times per week or every three days). A chart describing the location of all installed or open zones and _1 ., _ _ - 19July 2013 Copyright © 2013 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1379 Park 16 Wetland Buffer Mit Rpt-2 (19Jull3).docx Page 10 Park 16 Multi-fami Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan corresponding controller numbers shall be placed inside the controller and given to the owner's representative. . In addition to the temporary irrigation system, a soil moisture retention agent will be incorporated into the backfill of planting pits to minimize the potential for plant desiccation in the mitigation areas. CHAPTER 5. CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING 5.1 Mitigation Construction Sequence The following provides the general sequence of activities anticipated to be necessary to complete this mitigation project. Some of these activities may be conducted concurrently as the project progresses. 1. Complete grading and stormwater facility installation in buffer areas per civil site development plans. 2. Conduct a site meeting between the Contractor, Talasaea Consultants, and the Owner's Representative to review the mitigation project plans. 3. Clear and grub existing non-native/invasive species from mitigation areas and clear/grub trail corridor and viewpoint areas. 4. Place topsoil, where necessary, per notes/specifications on plans. 5. Place habitat features where shown on mitigation plans. 6. Mulch grubbed/graded buffer restoration and enhancement areas and install woodchips in trail corridor. 7. Install benches and interpretive signs at viewpoints. 8. Complete site cleanup and install plant material as indicated on the planting plan. 9. Install temporary irrigation system per planting specifications. 10. Install split -rail fence and critical area signs at buffer boundary. 5.2 Post -Construction Approval Following construction completion Talasaea Consultants shall also notify the City in writing when the planting is completed for a final site inspection and subsequent final construction approval. 5.3 Post -Construction Assessment Once construction is approved by the City, a qualified wetland ecologist from Talasaea Consultants shall conduct a post -construction assessment. The purpose of this assessment will be to establish baseline conditions at Year 0 of the required monitoring period. A Baseline Assessment report including "as -built" drawings will be submitted to the City. The as -built plan set will identify and describe any changes in planting or other features in relation to the original approved plan. CHAPTER 6. MONITORING METHODS Performance monitoring of the mitigation areas will be conducted for a period of five years. Monitoring events will be conducted according to the preliminary schedule presented in Table 2 below. Monitoring will be performed by a qualified biologist from Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 19July 2013 Copyright © 2013 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1379 Park 16 Wetland Buffer Mit Rpt-2 (19Jull3).docx Page 11 Park 16 Multi -family Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan Table 2. Pro'ected Schedule for Performance Monitorin and Maintenance Events _7Year Date Maintenance Performance F_ Report Due to Review Monitorin Agencies Year 0, As -built and Winter 2014 X X X Baseline Assessment 1 Spring 2014 X X Fall 2014 X X X 2 S ring 2015 X X Fall 2015 X X X 3 Spring 2016 X Fall 2016 X X X 4 Spring 2017 X Fall 2017 X X X 5 Sprin 2018 X Fall 2018 X X X* "Obtain final approval to facilitate bond release from the City of Federal Way (presumes performance criteria are met). 6.1 Reports The reports will include: 1) Project Overview, 2) Mitigation Requirements, 3) Summary Data, 4) Maps and Plans, and 5) Conclusions. If the performance criteria are met, monitoring for the City will cease at the end of year five, unless objectives are met at an earlier date and the City accepts the mitigation project as successfully completed. 6.2 Monitoring Methods The following monitoring methods will be used to evaluate the approved performance standards. Vegetation_ Vegetation monitoring for buffer restoration areas shall be conducted according schedule presented in Table 2 and will include counts, photopoints, random sampling, sampling plots, transect, visual inspection, and/or other means deemed appropriate by the City. Vegetation monitoring components shall include general appearance, health, mortality, colonization rates, percent cover, percent survival, volunteer plant species, and invasive weeds. Permanent vegetation sampling plots or transects will be established at selected locations to incorporate all of the representative plant communities in the mitigation areas. A minimum of two (2) transects will be used, and each transect will be 100 feet in length and 10 feet wide. Percent areal cover of trees and shrubs will be evaluated through the use of point -intercept sampling methodology. Using this methodology, a tape will be extended between two permanent markers established 25 feet apart. Trees and shrubs intercepted by the tape will be identified, and the intercept distance recorded. Percent cover by species will then be calculated by adding the intercept distances and then expressed as a total proportion of the tape length. `j Percent survival of shrubs and trees will be evaluated in a 10-foot belt along the established J transect. The species and location of shrubs and trees within this belt will be recorded, and will be evaluated during each monitoring event to determine percent survival. J The established vegetation sampling locations will be monitored and compared to the baseline data during each performance monitoring event to aid in determining the success of plant establishment. Vegetation will be recorded on the basis of relative percent cover of the 1 dominant species within the vegetative strata (per the applicable performance standards). A . ! qualified wetland ecologist will conduct all monitoring. J 19July 2013 Copyright © 2013 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1379 Park 16 Wetland Buffer Mit Rpt-2 (19Jull3).docx Page 12 Park 16 Multi -family Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan 6.3 Photo Documentation Locations will be established within the mitigation areas from which panoramic photographs will be taken throughout the monitoring period. These photographs will document general appearance and relative changes within the plant community. Review of the photos over time will provide a semi -quantitative representation of success of the planting plan. Vegetation sampling plot and photo -point locations will be shown on a map and submitted with the baseline assessment report and yearly performance monitoring reports. 6.4 Wildlife Birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates observed in the mitigation areas (either by direct or indirect means) will be identified and recorded during scheduled monitoring events, and at any other times observations are made. Direct observations include actual sightings, while indirect observations include tracks, scat, nests, song, or other indicative signs. The kinds and locations of the habitat with greatest use by each species will be noted, as will any breeding or nesting activities. 6.5 Site Stability Observations will be made on the stability of slopes in the mitigation areas. Any erosion or slumping of the slopes will be recorded and corrective measures will be taken. CHAPTER 7. MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY Maintenance reviews will be performed according to the schedule presented in Table 2 to address any conditions that could jeopardize the success of the mitigation area. Established performance standards for the project will be compared to the monitoring results to judge the success of the mitigation project. If there is a significant problem with achieving the performance standards, the Bond -holder shall work with the City to develop a Contingency Plan. Contingency plans can include, but are not limited to: additional plant installation; erosion control; and plant substitutions of type, size, quantity, and location. Such Contingency Plan shall be submitted to the City by December 31 of any year when deficiencies are discovered. Contingency will include many of the items listed below and would be implemented if the performance standards are not met. Maintenance and remedial action on the site will be implemented immediately upon completion of the monitoring event, unless otherwise specifically indicated below. M = Regular maintenance item; C = Contingency item • During year one, replace all dead plant material. (M) ■ Replace dead plants with the same species or a substitute species that meets the objectives of the mitigation plan, subject to the approval of the wetland biologist. (M) • Re -plant area after reason for failure has been identified (e.g., moisture regime, poor plant stock, disease, poor soil, shade/sun conditions, wildlife damage, etc.). (C) • Amend soil with topsoil or compost. (C) • Remove/control weedy or exotic invasive plants (e.g., Scot's broom, reed canarygrass, Himalayan blackberry, purple loosestrife, Japanese knotweed, etc.) by manual or chemical means approved by the City. Use of herbicides or pesticides within the mitigation area would only be implemented if other measures failed or were considered unlikely to be successful and would require prior agency approval. All non-native vegetation must be removed and dumped off site (M & C). • Weed trees and shrubs to the dripline and maintain a 3' dia. mulch ring around trees and a 2' dia. ring around shrubs at a depth of three inches (M). • Remove trash and other debris from the mitigation areas twice a year (M). 19July 2013 Copyright © 2013 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1379 Park 16 Wetland Buffer Mit Rpt-2 (19Ju113).docx Page 13 Park 16 Multi -family Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan Repair or replace damaged structures including: fence, signs (M). CHAPTER 8. PERFORMANCE AND MAINTENANCE BOND The mitigation plan shall include financial guarantees to ensure that the mitigation plan is fully implemented, monitored, and maintained until deemed successful by the City of Federal Way (§19.25). The bond shall be in the amount of 120 percent of the estimated cost of implementation and monitoring of the mitigation plan (§19.25.040(2)). CHAPTER 9. SUMMARY The Park 16 project will construct 12 buildings of multi -family residences and 13 carriage buildings on an approximately 16.7-acre site located in the City of Federal Way. Two wetlands were previously identified, delineated, and rated on the project site by Habitat Technologies in 2009. These wetlands are located in the western portion of the property. No impacts to the wetlands are proposed with this Project. The Project will be constructed, for the most part, outside of the buffers for Wetlands A and B. However, some minor intrusions into the wetland buffer will occur due to proposed buffer enhancements, construction of a pedestrian trail and viewpoints, and temporary impacts for construction of a retaining wall, dispersion trenches, and stormwater vault outfall along the outer buffer edge. The proposed trail and viewpoints will be routed to avoid all significant trees and areas of dense shrub vegetation. The trail will be bordered by a split -rail fence (or similar type fence) to prevent human intrusions into sensitive wetland habitat. No grading or excavating will occur during trail and viewpoint construction. The buffer intrusions resulting from grading work for the retaining wall, dispersion trenches, and stormwater outfall will be restored by planting a variety of native trees and shrubs. An area of existing degraded buffer east and south of Wetland A will be restored/enhanced by removal of existing debris and garbage and by grubbing out non-native invasive plant species. This area will then be replanted with a variety of native trees and shrubs and several habitat features (snags, bird boxes, stumps and down logs) will be installed. Additional areas of buffer will be enhanced with the placement of down logs and stumps and plantings of native shrubs. 19July 2013 Copyright © 2013 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1379 Park 16 Wetland Buffer Mit Rpt-2 (19Jul13).docx Page 14 Park 16 Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan CHAPTER 10. REFERENCES Federal Way, City of, 2010. City of Federal Way Revised Code. Hitchcock, C.L., and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. 730 pp. Lichvar, R.W. The National Wetland Plant List. ERDC/CRREL TR-12-11, Hanover, NH: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, 2012 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2012. State of Washington -National Wetland Plant List Final Draft Ratings. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL). May 7, 2012. 19July 2013 Copyright© 2013 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1379 Park 16 Wetland Buffer Mit Rpt-2 (19Jull3).docx Page 15 Park 16 Multi-familv Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan FIGURES Figure 1: Vicinity Map and Driving Directions 19 July 2013 Copyright© 2013 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1379 Park 16 Wetland Buffer Mit Rpt-2 (19Jull3).docx Figures St Francis . Hospital iIG my T S 348th St r. T- .j 4 'Nest Hylebos Wetlands Park in SVY 386th S1 ,57ah St Q F SY n S 34cM St (EA) S U31th St SW 356th St iAi Sr •' Fi .1�:'4' Cr+a� S m n 9 R fP C PROJECT 51 TE s � C LL C S 3Sft ! 1 �a Pi f •fi e' �, w�iaR dt3ts �2�1 DRIVING DI REGTI ONS- 1) From Seattle take Interstate 5 south For approximately 25 miles 2) From Interstate 5, take exit 142B for WA-18 W toward S 348th Street 3) Turn right on to WA-18 W 4) Take the let left onto Enchanted Parkway S/Kits Corner Road S (signs For Washington 1(bl s/Puyallup) 5) Slight right onto 16th Avenue S (5) Arrive of Destination on the right 55-703 16th Avenue S Federal Way, Washington FIGURE # I TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. VIGINITI' MAP Resource & Environmental Planning PARK 16 MULTIFAMILY 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast FEDERAL NA1', WA Woodinville, Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 — Fax (425)861-7549 PROJECT DESIGN DRAWN AD ABS 13ZG SCALE T NTS t DATE 5-24-2013 I REVISED 1` Copyright — Talasaea Consultants, INC. IPark 16 Multi -family Wetland Buffer Miti ation Plan APPENDIX A Photos of Existing Buffer Conditions I I 19July 2013 Copyright © 2013 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1379 Park 16 Wetland Buffer Mit Rpt-2 (19Jull3).docx Appendix A 1 C'R a n� . T " �:,`�• -Nr Park 16 Multi -family Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan Appendix B Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan Sheets r (22"x34" full size plan sheets) Sheet W1.0: Existing Conditions Plan Sheet W1.1: Proposed Site Plan and Mitigation Overview Plan Sheet W2.0: Clearing & Grubbing & Habitat Feature Plan Sheet W2.1: Clearing & Grubbing Notes & Details Sheet W3.0: Plant Community Plan & Notes Sheet WV: Planting Specifications & Details J 19July 2013 Copyright © 2013 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1379 Park 16 Wetland Buffer Mit Rpt-2 (19Jull3).docx Appendix B ._i CPl CONSULTANTS Prepared for: DevCo, Inc. 1 1 100 Main Street, Suite 301 Bellevue, WA 98004 Prepared by: w;i' CPH Consultants, LLC mow° Jamie B. Schroeder, PE y r 733 Seventh Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland, WA 98033 OVAL 'e%-'All December 12, 2012 C�M CONSULTANTS 733 7TM AVENUE KIRKLAND, WA 98033 P. (425) 285-2390 1 r- (425) 285-2389 www.cpbcon,juitcints.com PARK 16 MULTi=FAMILY FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON LEVEL 1 OFFSITE ANALYSIS December 12, 2012 Prepared For: DevCo, Inc. Prepared By: CPH Consultants Jamie Schroeder, PE CPH Project No. 0024-11-010 Site Planning Civil Engineering Project Management Land Development Consulting CP H CONSULTANTS LEVEL 1 OFFSITE ANALYSIS FOR PARK 16 MULTI -FAMILY CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WA TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION—— ........... -------- .......... I I ........ -.............. _-_.............................. ..._. _r_:------ ::--------- I? SECTION 1 — STUDY AREA DEFINITION AND MAP ........................................................... ............. .... ............... SECTION2 — RESOURCE REVIEW. ..................... ................. ................................................................ ......... ...4 SECTION 3 — FIELD INSPECTION------------------------------------------------------------- �-----•--- -•- - ............... _W_ ....::._..... SECTION 4 — DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND PROBLEM DESCRIPTIONS ....................................................... 9 SECTION 5 — MITIGATION OF EXISTING OR POTENTIAL PROBLEMS____________________________________________________________________ 1.1. APPENDICES............................................................................. APPENDIX A — FIGURES APPENDIX B — OFF -SITE ANALYSIS DRAINAGE SYSTEM TABLE APPENDIX C — NRCS SOILS MAP AND DATA Site Planning Civil Engineering Project Management Land Development Consulting Park 16 Multi -Family Level I Offsite Analysis INTRODUCTION The Park 16 Multi -Family project area includes improvements over portions of two parcels (KC APN 292104-9095 and 292104-9107) totaling approximately 16.63 acres. The project is located at 35703 16fh Avenue S. in Federal Way, Washington. More generally, the site is located in the SE 1/4 of the NE'/a of Section 29 of Township 21 North, Range 4 East, in King County, Washington (see Vicinity Map below). It is in the Hylebos Creek Watershed, Puyallup River Basin. Parcel No. 292104-9095 is an 11.87 acre parcel that is currently undeveloped and forested. This parcel contains a category 1 wetland with a 200ft buffer and a category 3 wetland with a 25ft buffer. Wetlands and associated buffers account for approximately 6.19 acres of the parcel. Parcel No. 292104-9107 is approximately 4.76 acres and consists of an existing manufacturing facility which will be demolished as part of the project. Vicinity Map 4. _q I� r� FCT SITE 00 r� VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE CPH Project No. 0024-1 1-010 CPIH CONSULTANTS December 12, 2012 Page 3 Park 16 Multi -Family Level 1 Offsite Analysis The project proposes to construct 26 multi -family residential buildings, a community recreation center, onsite parking and internal access, utilities, landscaping, common areas, and stormwater facilities. Approximately 7.3 acres of impervious area will be produced by the development of the project resulting in 44% of the total site area as impervious surfaces. The stormwater runoff generated by new impervious surfaces, with the exception of the roof area of three westerly buildings, will be collected by a series of catch basins connected by underground pipes that flow westerly along the proposed access roads. The runoff will be conveyed to an on -site infiltration vault located at the southwest portion of the developed site. Runoff from the three westerly buildings are not conveyed to the infiltration vault and will be fully dispersed in to the wetland buffer via dispersion trenches. A site visit was performed on November 14, 2012 to observe the upstream and downstream drainage conditions. The following analysis is based on this site visit and related research of available records. CPH Project No. 0024-1 1-010 CPIH CONSULTANTS December 12, 2012 Page 4 Park 16 Multi -Family Level 1 Offsite Analysis SECTION 1 - STUDY AREA DEFINITION AND MAPS Existing Site Conditions The total site area consists of two separate parcels (KC parcel No: 292104-9095 and 292104- 9107). The 4.76 eastern parcel is currently developed and contains six existing manufacturing buildings and storage warehouses, all of which will be demolished prior to development. The 1 1.87 western parcel is currently undeveloped and contains both forest and wetland with second growth trees. See Figure 2 - iMAP's 2009 Aerial in Appendix A. The remainder of the site is forested with thick brush and a portion of pasture in the northwest corner of the site. The majority of the existing topography falls westerly at slopes between 0 and 10% with the eastern most 0.99 acre having easterly slopes between 0 and 10%. The existing site has 2 drainage basins, one to the west and one to the east, having areas of 15.64 and 0.99 acres respectively. The West basin drains westerly to Hylebos Wetland and Creek system and is then conveyed south approximately 3.5 miles to the Hylebos Waterway. The East basin drains easterly toward the property line along 16"' Avenue S. where it enters a 12inch storm drainage pipe and discharges approximately 65 feet east of the site within a closed depression/infiltration pond. ] Developed Site Conditions The project proposes to construct 26 multi -family residential buildings and a community recreation } center, onsite parking and internal access, utilities, landscaping, common areas, and stormwater facilities (see Figure 3 — Developed Conditions in Appendix A). Approximately 7.3 acres of impervious area will be produced by the development of the site bringing the percent impervious to �} 44% of the site. The majority of the stormwater runoff generated by new impervious surfaces will be collected by a series of catch basins connected by underground pipes that flow westerly along the proposed access roads. The runoff will be conveyed to a Stormfilter vault for water quality treatment and then continues to an underground infiltration vault. Detained flows which are not infiltrated will be released to an outfall location within the adjacent wetland buffer. } J CPH Project No. 0024-1 1-010 December 12, 2012 J CPIH CONSULTANTS Page 5 Park 16 Multi -Family Level 1 Offsite Analysis SECTION 2 - RESOURCE REVIEW The following is a summary of the resources that have been reviewed for the Level 1 Off -site drainage analysis. Please see Appendix A for maps and figures. Sensitive Area Folios King County iMAP sensitive area mapping was reviewed to identify any potential sensitive areas in the proximity of the project site. • Wetlands: iMap does not identify any wetlands on the project site; however, the assessment of critical areas within the site has identified a category 1 and category 3 wetland on site. • Streams and 100-year Floodplains: There are no streams or floodplains identified within or near project site. • Erosion Hazard Areas: iMap identifies no erosion hazard areas on the project site. ■ Seismic Hazard Areas: No seismic hazard areas were identified on the project site. ■ Coal Mine Hazard Areas: No coal mine hazard areas are identified on the project site. • Critical Aquifer Recharge Area: The project site is not within a critical aquifer recharge area. ■ Basin Condition: iMap shows the project site basin condition as low. • Areas Susceptible to Groundwater Contamination: iMap does show the project site as being medium for susceptibility to groundwater contamination. Soils Survey The soils on the site are characterized per the Natural Resources conservation service (NRCS) soil Survey for King County as: • Everett gravelly sandy loam (EvC), 5% - 15% slope ■ Everett-Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (EwC), 6% - 15% slope ■ Kitsap silt loam (KpB), 2% - 8% slope • Bellingham silt loam (Bh), 0% -2% slope A detailed soils exploration was also completed by Earth Solutions NW and summarized in their Geotechnical Engineering Study, dated December 11, 2012 Basin Map According to the King County Water Features map, the site is located within the Puyallup River Basin and more specifically within the Hylebos Creek Watershed. CPH Project No. 0024-1 1-010 December 12, 2012 CPIH CONSULTANTS Page 6 Park 16 Multi -Family Level 1 Offsite Analysis SECTION 3 - FIELD INSPECTION A field inspection was performed on Wednesday, November 14, 2012 on an overcast, dry day with a temperature of approximately 55 degrees. Below are the descriptions of the onsite, downstream and upstream drainage basins. Onsite Drainage Basins The site consists of two drainage basins, one draining to the east and one draining to the west. The east basin is approximately .99 acres of primarily lawn and paved driveways. This basin has a slope of 0% to 10% with stromwater draining easterly to a ditch along 16'h Avenue South. Stormwater is then conveyed via a 12in. CMP pipe approximately 65 feet across 16rh Avenue to a type 2 catch basin and then discharged to an adjacent closed depression/infiltration pond on private property known as Crosspointe Apartments. The pond appears to completely infiltrate runoff, as no outlet structure was observed and the depth of facility would not allow a practical bypass conveyance system. The west basin is approximately 15.64 acres and consists of 3.77 acres of previously developed commercial property and 11.87 acres of undeveloped forest and wetland. The basin has a slope of 0% to 15% and drains westerly to the Hylebos Wetland on the lower portion of the property. From this wetland stormwater flows to Hyelebos Creek and ultimately the Puyallup River. } Upstream Drainage Basin y The site is expected to have minimal to no drainage from upstream sources entering the site. This is due to the upstream portions of the site being bound by S 356rh Street and 161h Avenue S both of which employ a public collection and conveyance system. Downstream Drainage Basin j Stormwater from the east basin is captured in a ditch along 16'h Avenue South, then conveyed across the street to a closed depression/infiltration pond where it is believed to be fully infiltrated. Runoff from the existing roadway improvements are also conveyed to this pond. } The west basin drains in to Hylebos Wetland which then drains to Hylebos Creek. Hylebos Creek has one drainage structure within 1/4 mile of the site. The structure is located at the S 359th Street crossing and consists of a large outlet control structure and a 60 inch CMP traveling approximately 75 feet across the roadway. The outlet control structure itself consists of an approximately 14 foot tall cement concrete type 2 storm drainage structure with an 8 foot diameter. The intake consists of a 24 inch diameter core at the base of the structure. The outlet is a 60-inch CMP traveling north to _J south beneath the roadway. The structure is topped by an 8 ft diameter bird cage. `) The creek both upstream and downstream of the structure was flowing approximately Aft wide with a depth of 6in to 12in. The banks of the creek primarily consist of gravel, sand and organic soils. . T) There was some evidence of erosion along the banks of the creek. Evidence of erosion in the form of deposited sand and gravel was noted in the bottom of the drainage structure. Garbage dumping was also noted in the area of the drainage structure. CPH Project No. 0024-1 1 -0 10 December 12, 2012 J CPIH CONSULTANTS Page 7 J J Park 16 Multi -Family Level 1 White Analysis Drainage structure from upstream. Note 24in inlet at bottom of structure, 8ft diameter birdcage, and evidence of garbage dumping. Drainage structure looking up stream toward wetland. CPH Project No. 0024-1 1-010 December 12, 2012 CPIH CONSULTANTS Page 8 Park 16 Multi -Family Level 1 Offsite Analysis SECTION 4 - DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND PROBLEM DESCRIPTIONS The proposed storm water collection, conveyance, and water quality systems supporting this project will be in accordance with the provisions of the King County Surface Water Design Manual. The project is required to adhere to conservation flow control standards and basic water quality standards. Roof runoff from the westerly three buildings will utilize trenches to provide full dispersion through ' the adjacent native vegetation and the remainder of the developed site will be conveyed through a StormFilter water quality treatment vault near the southwest corner of the development. The treated runoff then flows to an infiltration vault to meet conservation flow control standards. Overflow from the vault will outfall to the wetland buffer. The proposed on -site infiltration vault was sized using the King County Runoff Time Series program (KCRTS). Historic site (i.e., fully forested) conditions were considered in the analysis of the pre - developed conditions for all on -site targeted developed surfaces in accordance with KCSWDM standards for Conservation Flow Control. Tahle 4.1 - Existina Drainaae Area Summary Basin ID Total Area (acres) Land Cover (acres) Impervious Till Grass Till Forest Outwash Grass Outwash Forest East 5.49 0 0 5.49 0 0 West 4.95 0 0 2.475 0 2.475 The site will be accessed by 2 entry ways, one from 16t' Avenue South and one on S 3561h Street. All access roads and parking lots within the site will utilize on site conveyance and stormwater facilities. Two methods of storm water mitigation will be utilized in the project. The majority of the site, 9.72 acres, will utilize an infiltration vault to meet conservation flow control requirements. Also full dispersion by use of dispersion trenches will be used as a method of stormwater mitigation for roof areas of the westerly buildings with an area of approximately 0.72 acres. For vault sizing the entire 10.44 developed acres was routed through the infiltration although the 0.72 acres of impervious for these were modeled as till and outwash forest due to utilizing full dispersion. Table 4.2 summarizes the Basin areas and KCRTS input parameters for the developed site conditions. Tahip A_2 - Develnned Drainaae Area Summary Basin ID Total Area (acres) Land Cover (acres) Impervious Till Grass Till Forest Outwash Grass Outwash Forest East 5.49 3.70 1.79 0 0 0 West 4.95 2.89 1.03 0.36 1.03 1 0.36 CPH Project No. 0024-1 1-010 December 12, 2012 CPIH CONSULTANTS Page 9 Park 16 Multi -Family Level 1 Offsite Analysis The preliminary calculations for the storm drainage facilities are provided in the preliminary Technical Information Report. The detention and water quality pond has been sized and shown on the conceptual Grading and Drainage Plans. Stormwater facility sizing will be confirmed during the Engineering Design phase of the project. CPH Project No. 0024-1 1-010 CPIH CONSULTANTS December 12, 2012 Page 10 Park 16 Multi -Family Level 1 Offsite Analysis SECTION 5 - MITIGATION OF EXISTING OR POTENTIAL PROBLEMS The Off -site Analysis Drainage System Table provided in Appendix B lists the components of the downstream drainage system and conditions of each individual reach. Development of the proposed site will be in accordance with current King County and City of Federal Way Standards. The proposed stormwater collection, conveyance, and water quality systems will provide adequate measures to collect, convey, detain and treat increased surface water runoff and mitigate potential downstream systems. The existing downstream conveyance system appears to have adequate capacity, with no observed problems such as significant erosion or overtopping. In addition, there were no drainage complaints along the downstream. Therefore, there are no plans for mitigation at this time since the existing system appears to be functioning adequately. Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC) measures will be installed during the construction phase to further mitigate any erosion problems. These measures will be continually monitored and maintained in accordance to King County and City of Federal Way Standards. CPH Project No. 0024-1 1-010 December 12, 2012 CPIH CONSULTANTS Page 11 CPJH CONSULTANTS APPENC FIGURE 1 - IMAP - 200, FIGURE 2 - EXISTING SITE FIGURE 3 - DEVELOPED SI FIGURE 4 - IMAP - SENSITIVE AREAS MAP Site Planning Civil Engineering Project Management Land Development Consulting i.--.'41'i� rirl:.e.ljl rrea !1 u0016 � i � .. �. i. ' *�' W'{f lkµ rir.•Yti1► r.' � '+id'�. J •� ' � . ., fti o ` m v 0 AM t � r Ewo �IFlit r� Wr CL c aKti 'w �.F—� ILL . �. 41 - .8 U v> SV r fir. or. � +•'� 4.. �_� .�..�� ���� Y •! s ue:.-,IK', � f f' •� m e `• # see � {}y f 52 �• c O gi . A C � 4 N X= 0 p - � •. } . •..; �' � � C 7 0 V CN 019 ro rnti } c a� �2 m E 0 o W 4� �m C U5N - �w ti o� a �mg C .0 !� _n WO M a =3 e� as 1 a ❑e°,-'a CE y N L y 4 7 ° °tea � ro°ate a 7 M c E 0 0 5o5 S! p 4 �i m �' O C c 0=�W o a o 13. a Ho ° c c ��pxjq y F- a � N be a �f n ... � rs a, x � a � a �+ ae 7� ae �?• ;,�•- _ duo II �•va o ��� I E O"'C E 11 $E a y c�i�o 4 w ammw `• c :;3 o 0 N �� � t4 � moH4 rn c rJ e' 4 ry y m � ro Y c C a C wmy o n r ELG[� �1 - �Ecc t°n L7 ko w ` JA U Cl sue+ L �+ qy �¢" m _ 92.6N QI Ci n' C.� L4 C SP ['1 :O g O N Ul L3 S lL j5 G fn J J c] F�xmS o PARK 16 MULTIFAMILY C�•'•1i = a • •r1, "•. IECEE ti" P(E)=2a3 r - V (•L •_'l�r :! r; 4 i Ci 3+N• :A'"�'!.' � IE 1 2• CPEP(N'w)=2,3 9J Cae I.I=2705J r'rl'�-� , CBA-25b 05 1 i 2.' CO`IC(:1J=36i 6S I-wzYs 4o a>' { - • . r+.s nor; „y,vf�w•.], ••�� - - .'� , i a a•, of ,•=l1' ' �I•' y ' �. - - - -� "� — ti" _ _. � —7,l�lll1 _-, _ - •JrO , _ - / 59831'29,E 767.65' `/ , �y 1 �� `� iY�-�.� ham--•• •y T .. _ _ __ ` s^� - '�� r, �_ ' ' % :1%I].i H.0 7 12-CPEP(5W)-26925 - �_ .•y �_ - _ ! •' I( 7'gal L E t2"CP EP(E)=269 15 ti� ,"'':- _ _•; _ 'r �S356TFlSTRL_ tio-� +; `s3� - ~ �1'L 1 '1 I •� ti. . 1 ` +la•,]•.,e o - 1- Y3_'�`= ` _ G�!_ar-r l L w Ci''•.ac �s Ir f • \ `'�- + ._ 1 . , Y G6((C1-[+a.H vAUL j S:. — Y,�i- .. a•U%Ils. r.I M. af' Ci R1. n225 t f E t 2"CPE (YE) 2fi9 60 • � � M �t RN•]S/.��L ; 0"CPEPIEJ-269 <5 K iY aro'[rs+fl p(1 r IC 4Z°I[1•:, • ._ ' �. 2 �^ E 8'CPEP(Sw)=26415 •� ti T + , - r ,r [.m(a1-a>y.r iY+wawFR 'c�n>»ka rc z w)=2v 12 m,w. H&S4 I` �6 T. .. sou8 w•:csu� w K 1z•CPEP(N)-2s32z 1YO.inxvtl _ ^ ' '`[4 alu=z;l4a 1 , ( 11 1 • • S + . I[ 12 YEP(E)=25322 i 2a CCNC(N)=265 20 - . . - ` `\ L 1 + y 1 , '� ,+ `I i + ` 3 ' E 24•CCNC(5)=265 0 11 I IE 12"ccNc(sE)-265 as _ _ _ ■ Il � • k _ >. 1 l r 4 IYd1�iw 1', aufz ' n 4yp. Tz}m E 12•CC.Y C(PE)= 05 3 -,fix IE 12-CPEP(NE)=269 4S 1 I + l \ L 't � � � � ` ■ 1 I L lI t + •`I s.� K 1iYKr(a1.. :a L ++ 1 L 11 I <:aYacMT•. 1 _ _ _ _ 1 I 'i + "'.. �` •� ~ , � t : 11 , • -• .' I ti 1 + II 1 1 ' + ■ L _ I + .� c, } � � 11 � � 4 L I . u\ 11 , ■1 L\ y 5 \ � t L I • . _ , . _ • ... • . +\. 1 '�I � wI 1 ' � 1 E + � t '+ :� +L L 1 >< + It �} I t a `I:> _ � I 1 I _ _ , `� � , `, •4� ■ 'y •'■ \ ■ tit � ,'_'•'_ .•. _ .-_•.- Pj ( 3 Y �� , 1 1 .'�5111 LI IIL gib'•• `_ -- ..R R I - 3 � �l 1 _ - • 1 I 1 + I 1 1 + 1'�w. *G � � ~ k ••I �., - u21G. ��s - _I_. � ' ' I ff _ al�u N ssc.sl 1 WE-TLAND B. _ 1 51 s _ IE 8" $ja 2i711. CATEGORY - - _ �- IE G'E]R 115.8 (ON -SITE) - •.• ■t ,+1 1} .. - RY. �• 1 LA00 K 11 WATER LINE - •F' ' • - / '' fl —. x - X` EXISTING 8" CL, SEB' '26�E -`ASEMENT� • !t' -f r /. r1 rN11 _ + ,1 i.li P P P — P ri \ . a II• _ BLOCK BLDG f • III \ _ T + , xF FF 238 90 III I FF 244.74 GRAVEL VrR4l '' I i• SEE SS - �2.775.405F .•� I - -=q,'at.. il3!!',;-�� Sn � .. ---� ,�. - - rl. �� i L .l "I cl ;E,i_•:i1C� - ,," �r. b 'I _ FF 238 99 RIMS 244 42 31 . r 1 0o FF 245.71 a IE 8•{( )) - 2Ko o• o ••c1 IE e" Ikl - 775.33 f 3 \ 1r :c�u+ p,r ' Imu.'-.a 1 1111f • " . . ' .� . • .' ,y" f � ss � �1r7.[n) - rr 7110 '1 . i / �c� • WfSTSSFB•HAS)N ■ ! rrsy 737.7/ .�= I 10/1= WATER EASEMENT 9A&A(7t�S TTLVWR�'ASN ( , REC. JNO 9009270129 �25', SOBBkS(M• . _L .. . f , tx tr' a FlG 3G - "r f 1 LL 1 1 L r - f CB • 2 f I / - 2 , r T I 1y' Lin _ , - `_a'e" - _ RIM - (SE) 1 TT71 �s� _ `� j It+' # .�� iz' (sE) = z3aa7 �- { §S _ I ! 1 ! . ( Y r (T� CEJZ �.�C c= 237.39 -.� RIM H 2a221 _ + ! I i 4 1 + _ J..lI`_ IE 12" (N, S) = 237.31 \ 1 ) o I 1 f IE 12" (lY) = 23736 r� 1 L �y,�� + 7 r 1 FF 240,02 A 91, i111 R ` S88'31'221 U=11117' f J , % I i 'x IF 12" (NE) 4= 237.97 x' x' x x x , x I x x x \ X 1 \/ 100 !1 y 11 C 1 _ r k..-.::.Y' ^�71 CnPGS° "a21o•.�72 /1 �V■" H�t..'t [>>•11 .� j�p,� �+1s,w __21c:,�s; t37.3t , 67�• QvEAL AP / + FHO RE9�f[. na _. :,1 • : an__- ". f PLAN IN FEET AN t•) _ / C'7 CORNER BO' E OF LLC1'i" L !' RIM = 24- EXISTING CONDITIONS i ❑ 1,ARCEL CI E=2S9.Sa 3 ,¢ Es ( N SSMH IE 8' (s) a Rra = 2azn r CITY OF FEDERAL WAY KING COUNTY. WA IE B- (KQ = 234 57 �` - 1 ONY(iA1 UEWA INF APP1x1aR 11100 MAIN STREET, SUITE 301 NO DATE REVISION BY CK. PHONE. ( 5) 98004 L I-9551 1215112 OWNER REVIEW JBS M1H PIT JECT PHONE: H CON ULTWN TS CONSULTANTS gp[Igxr�! i ENGINEER 733 7TH AVENUE, SUITE 100 f t KIRKLAND, WA 98033 Site Planning • Gull Engineering PHONE: (425)285-2390 (and Use ConsuNng • PrManagement -Project CARPORT/It. III 7a371h Arenueeu'aa1001 KNM� Lw49e0a3 SCALE PROTECT NO SHEEP t 3 PmrB: west zasza9olruc wzsJ 2eszaa9 AS NOTED 0024-11-010 2 OF S \ o w.�PnconameanH.com I � Ir- raP,�1��2�w�aan�u�Nlw�se� PARK 16 MULTIFAMILY LON iNG CLA.SSIFILATPON: CE E 12" —(E)- — COINPF.EHEN5IVE PLAN CLASSIFICA-..ON:lCE iE I2- CPEv(uvry=.4]a9 /� ZGYV 8G CLAi1,11CAT10N: CE • '' 4 ♦ 41 \ 2 C{`WPENEHPF� PLAN CLASSIFICATION: CE 2921049036 ♦ \ =' u'•1' L+ -�)ti \ '• 3 71 s"' '� •� 4� 2921049035 1.J 2921049091 I 2921049091 �I I 1 292104SCZ2/ 'y L- I .=.Ti•%'��;u:11 1 • /I u 4f I I42sW9Vr➢. I II ..-�. ra S I \ I \ 1 I � 1 — I !\ 214- 1 J — l aS --- CP H CONSULTANTS SBe Nlanddng • CM Ergnmdng Land Use Cms bg • Nmject Management 733 M Avenue, SAe 1001 XNd" W 9M P (425128nMI FAM(ep5(gs2 I 1 1 I I.. dll• i�i I I 1 I I I4 b LAND USE SUMMARY TOTAL AREA 16.63 AC TOTAL DEVELOPED AREA 10.44 AC UNDISTURBED AREA 6.19 At Iml BUILDINGS• 6.52 At 244 AC PARKING 3.09 AC SIDEWALKS 0.96 AC TRAIL 0.10 AC TILL GRASS 2-46 AC OUTWASH GRASS 0.67 At FULL DISPERSION CREDIT, 0, 72 At TILL FOREST 4236 AC OUTWASH FOREST R36 AC s ROOF AREAS FOR BUILDINGS L, M, AND M ARE FULLY DISPERSED AND MODELED AS FOREST. a � iao GUM PLAN IN FEET CITY OF FEDERAL WAY KING COUNTY. WA OWNER/ DEVCO, INC. APPLICANT 11100 MAIN STREET, SUITE 301 BELLEVUE, WA 98004 PHONE." (425)453-9551 PROJECT CPH CONSULTANTS ENGINEER 733 7TH AVENUE, SUITE 100 KIRKLAND, WA 98033 PHONE: (425)=-2390 I5�y� O F-� - OIan :l -y Oiti IU'1 �r �� R N,r S' p CI :7 J7 -�%! v '� ul �� 5=�V I fia h � :iri HJR7 261HF'LS i _ L 'III- £7 CIA IT_ a :_ - - • S HAV Nlm _ - O y CJ O - S Hem IiJSi'�-' LJ - •YJ i,l I" - - F - U7 " ��� C N o w O PU rub S-2AV Ifl� - -. - [�, �'IIV_�IdS+: -_$. -. a Y N y Sld1S1e. tom. mow_r E'mo Shd1SlL r.r :F _•� wmw _ �cn a_ Lo Cc aoo❑ c7 }` 41 ! C��Y li SJMVIYlfl� =- _ - mEmo 2,02O t O E I �� a E 'C n p0.3 U.E�n _ Is. =:, a SjiV.Ylii y o s m 0 E N� a Qc_m Q �.caE d _ "i f� . yr S37V.1i113 5 ow iyayc c G N 0 _ 1 rr 7 � pG C a o 3, -- EEo Co n2cc 3 a�P m g5 S 3A,V i U7 V3 _ .. - .. E E E Vim. rh mc � c 7 S A"� rr,Z �x m Inc E 2 �7 E O q Zr p O a E C C U) r Ul m W O _ cu ❑ D c V iOW C� m C JJ 0Cm JC N 2Nr] AVE 5 !i to m Pi N 7.wm a�❑m z'- C G 7,d CAE r,�S.�r,V��r z E ' W E M$ Id i1J4 w JI V O g t {p c° m 4 U F 3 0.6 0 CPJH CONSULTANTS APPENDIX B OFF -SITE ANALYSIS Site Planning Civil Engineering Project Management Land Development Consulting x u a V y d o E w C'a am O O N m f/J d Q v ° 'Q+ O G s >. 0 L 4) y y c m Q a N •' m o 0C�a� o E c c 6o C d c rntmo GI ,w O a° o m j y N a° CL _Q U.� C O m-� CL c Us �y N Ol U v O ' O w 0 o c o °- O O N a � w +- wa 0a)-0 m c c U) 0 A C W 00 d CL o ° N a o ` � U N �c O'C cC 04)•.0-0 �6E cc C O 6'2 O 06 Cd CD on �00 �,c Dtn O- N_ na`� C mm :O N U •� O d °• t t c' cn t to a� o E ow Co - ci Z >yn O o- E N N CPJH CONSULTANTS APPENDIX C NRCS SOILS MAP AND DATA Site Planning Civil Engineering Project Management Land Bevelopment Consulting m eoe EZs aSLnEZS a�ta£Z5 a?9 EZs MOP 'DO 9 ,L4 ,8L eZZL 00 ,.L4,BL,M _ N� r m lot IL is N 7 ' � 1 J, iS — N M m 11 1T C N N v f0 t ) m E O C N TQ .il� (D U) > C T �N O ?> n a (i n .00 m l6 u� N U l ILL - - _ - O m v Z A O o U] O o AV co AL cli co CD k N. m J� 7c O O � f0 © A f0 O Tl A.6L eZZL .,B ,BL oZZL 009 £ZS 0099M oss CZ9 cn *�ij v C O C L w y cc.. af6i r Q a c m 02 U — rn � c a) 2-0 L m 2 O U O CD- C O. (p w O to m C -i N 'O U E cc � a) a W N U O C O U 0) '00 N 7 C N O C U U U U Z a) O O C O L a) a U N .` U 0-0 a7 U N 7 i O N - Y a) - U Z " CL Cf U ca O U U C O V N (0-0 O U O x E O_ a) a) a) f6 C >T U U m L 11 r O O LO O U N O C-0 E tv � a) y alp N N Z a) O C) E m Q w O C H E a3 Z O U Z Q N N L w a) N N O ¢ _ O a) a 0 O U E L U .O Z a) N o. O_ C N N p O Q �y LL (' Q .(0 (a0 .L- yE3�0 m N 2� O Z m Q� 2 0) O aay'> O o O a) a) p C w o N O N 3N0 Y 21, L a) n a) E� LL Z a) aa)) U L O N O w o a) E o 0� �� U O a) E� L a N C Q E O C C C N a m a) U L a) ~ -O ` O) a) a) L O a a) E a a U N O 9 -0 a) N N O C; 3 t V Y N Q .LO,. U U e=3 J= u� Y rn a) c. G a) E p E L y >: rn �6 6 E p c) > N CLU C N N a) �, a) N a0 .O c O� 0E. 0 O C a) ~ p7p O C O (/� f0 — L b N « N a) a) 7" L) UJ N OC) a) L O) CE +.' (OA 1 O p c ` L 0 E N N a) 7 T U N N � � N O_ O p_ Vi a) N L (a C N m 'p N a) 0 0 L L 0 7 (O t p g � w E am a E UCO) �.. UU O H p.— o w N a) c m 6 O_ o U L a U CL C rn S W N m C O a O w N m O m O U 6 U al >, L_ LL w to �_ E l0 m '(0 al 0 K O .� ;Q > j L O c C7 to L_ O U N m C U O 0 J 1oQ� 'i) IL @ N LL L G Z <t < w rn w 'o y n, 0 a 3 � W J Q CO cn S ¢ o o _ rh C ` = ... d O. m N a1 7 O N O O O O` W O. p la 0 .... C O a m a O 0 y a U > 30 `o d C m (a .U_. 7 a U (C T N `o D_ U N a ¢_ U 0 a O O a m O N —_ LL L O O c C O Y C a) o L m U C LL 3 U t T w > > N N U N U ._ C > Y -O V O O d Q U 'O m m U U C7 C7 J J d R U f/J m CO _ m U (n [A a� a c � @ OO > + .. ICI o fi� fli 47 a _N 0 O co Q N CO 00 N N N N co a a� z 7 U cc Z Soil Map —King County Area, Washington Map Unit Legend Federal Way Apartments King County Area, Washington (WA633) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI AgC Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 0.0 percent slopes Bellingham silt loam 3.0 Everett gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent 9.9 slopes 0.1% i Bh 17.1% EvC 56.0% 9.3% EwC Everett-Alderwood gravelly sandy loams, 6 to 15 percent slopes 1.7 KpB Kitsap silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes 3.1 17.4% Totals for Area of Interest 17.7 100.0% Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 3/12/2012 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 Map Unit Description: Kitsap silt loam, 2 to S percent slopes —King County Area, Washington King County Area, Washington KpB—Kitsap silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Mean annual precipitation: 37 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 degrees F Frost -free period. 160 to 200 days Map Unit Composition Kitsap and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Description of Kitsap Setting Landform: Terraces Parent material: Lacustrine deposits with a minor amount of volcanic ash Properties and qualities Slope: 2 to 8 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Moderately well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 18 to 36 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity. High (about 11.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability (nonirrigated): 3w Typical profile 0 to 5 inches: Silt loam 5 to 24 inches: Silt loam 24 to 60 inches: Stratified silt to silty clay loam Minor Components Alderwood Percent of map unit: 10 percent Bellingham Percent of map unit. 3 percent Landform: Depressions Tukwila Percent of map unit: 1 percent Landform: Depressions Seattle Percent of map unit: 1 percent Park 16 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 11/12/2012 0111116 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 2 Map Unit Description: Kitsap silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slope"ng County Area, Washington Landform: Depressions Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: King County Area, Washington Survey Area Data: Version 7, Jul 2, 2012 Park 16 UMA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 11/12/2012 id" Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 2 Map Unit Description: Everett-Alderwood gravelly sandy loams, 6 to 15 percent slopes —King County Area, Washington .� King County Area, Washington EwC—Everett-Alderwood gravelly sandy loams, 6 to 16 percent slopes 1 Map Unit Setting Elevation: 50 to 800 feet Mean annual precipitation: 25 to 60 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 52 degrees F 1 Frost -free period: 180 to 220 days Map Unit Composition Alderwood and similar soils: 45 percent Everett and similar soils: 45 percent Minor components: 5 percent Description of Everett Setting Landform: Terraces Parent material: Glacial outwash with a component of volcanic ash in the upper part Properties and qualities Slope: 6 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layerto transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity. Low (about 5.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability (nonirrigated): 3e Typical profile 0 to 17 inches: Gravelly ashy sandy loam 17 to 32 inches: Very gravelly sandy loam 32 to 60 inches: Very gravelly coarse sand Description of Alderwood Setting Landform: Moraines, till plains Parent material: Basal till with some volcanic ash .J Properties and qualities Slope: 6 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 24 to 40 inches to densic material J Drainage class: Moderately well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr) USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Park 16 11/12/2012 Page 1 of 2 Map Unit Description: Everett-Alderwood gravelly sandy loams, 6 to 15 percent slopes —King County Area, Washington Depth to water table: About 18 to 37 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity: Very low (about 2.5 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability (nonirrigated): 4s Typical profile 0 to 12 inches: Gravelly ashy sandy loam 12 to 27 inches: Very gravelly sandy loam 27 to 60 inches: Very gravelly sandy loam Minor Components Norma Percent of map unit: 2 percent Landform: Depressions Seattle Percent of map unit. 2 percent Landform: Depressions Tukwila Percent of map unit: 1 percent Landform: Depressions Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: King County Area, Washington Survey Area Data: Version 7, Jul 2, 2012 Park 16 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey y 11 /12/2012 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 2 Map Unit Description: Everett gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes —King County Area, Washington King County Area, Washington EvC—Everett gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Mean annual precipitation: 30 to 45 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 degrees F Frost -free period: 180 days Map Unit Composition Everett and similar soils: 100 percent Description of Everett Setting Landform: Terraces Parent material. Glacial outwash with a component of volcanic ash in the upper part Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity: Low (about 5.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability (nonirrigated): 3e Typical profile 0 to 17 inches: Gravelly ashy sandy loam 17 to 32 inches: Very gravelly sandy loam 32 to 60 inches: Very gravelly coarse sand Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: King County Area, Washington Survey Area Data: Version 7, Jul 2, 2012 Park 16 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 11/12/2012 aiiiiiiiiiiiii Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 1 Map Unit Description: Bellingham silt loam —King County Area, Washington King County Area, Washington Bh—Bellingham silt loam Map Unit Setting Mean annual precipitation: 35 to 60 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 degrees F Frost -free period: 150 to 210 days Map Unit Composition Bellingham and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Description of Bellingham Setting Landform: Depressions, drainageways Parent material. Alluvium Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 0 to 12 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding. None Available water capacity. Very high (about 12.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability (nonirrigated): 5w Typical profile 0 to 11 inches: Silt loam 11 to 60 inches: Silty clay loam Minor Components Seattle Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Depressions Alderwood Percent of map unit. 5 percent Everett Percent of map unit: 5 percent Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: King County Area, Washington Survey Area Data: Version 7, Jul 2, 2012 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 11/13/2012 � Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 1