05-104980CITY OF
Federal Way
October 28, 2005
Mr. Craig Deaver
CES NW, INC
5210 12t' Street East
Fife, WA 98424
CITY HALL
33325 8th Avenue South • PO Box 91`18 '
Federal Way, WA 98063-9718
(253) 835-7000
www.cityoffederalway.com
RE: File #05-104980-000-00-PC; PREAPPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
Soundview Manor Subdivision, King County tax Parcels 112103-9060 and 112103-9119
Dear Mr. Deaver:
Thank you for participating in the preapplication conference with the City of Federal Way's Development
Review Committee (DRC) held October 20, 2005. We hope that the information discussed at that meeting
was helpful in understanding the general requirements for your project as submitted.
This letter summarizes comments given to you at the meeting by the members of the DRC. The members
who reviewed your project and provided comments include staff from the City's Planning and Building
Divisions and Public Works Department, and representatives from Lakehaven Utility District and Federal
Way Fire Department. Some sections of the Federal Way City Code (FWCC) and relevant information
handouts are enclosed with this letter. Please be advised, this letter does not represent all applicable
codes. In preparing your formal application, please refer to the complete FWCC and other relevant codes
for all additional requirements that may apply to your project.
The key contact for your project is Deb Barker, 253-835-2642, deb.barker@cityoffederalway.com. For
specific technical questions about your project, please contact the appropriate DRC representative as
listed below. Otherwise, any general questions about the preapplication and permitting process can be
referred to your key contact.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Preapplication for formal subdivision of two existing parcels, totaling 9.19 acres into 28 lots. Site has
erosion hazard slopes in NE corner, and regulated Category II wetland and stream west of the site.
Previous 1990 preliminary plat approval of a 1988 King County Interlocal application expired in 1994.
MAJOR ISSUES
Outlined below is a summary of the major issues of your project based on the plans and information
submitted for preapplication review. These issues can change due to modifications and revisions in the
plans. These major issues only represent comments that the DRC consider most significant to your project
and do not include the majority of the comments provided. The major issues section is only provided as a
means to highlight critical requirements or issues. Please be sure to read the entire department comments
made in the next section of this letter.
f.'Peiver
October 28, 2005
Page 2
Planning Division
1. A wetland biologist shall delineate the eastern edge of the wetland west of the subject site and
verify the wetland classification to determine applicable setbacks.
2. A stream biologist shall classify the stream category to determine applicable setbacks.
• Public Works Development Services Division
The City has documented that there is a Type 2 downstream severe erosion problem. Therefore, a
Level 2 downstream analysis will be required with the Technical Information Report. This site will
also be required to provide Level 2 flow control for the on -site detention system.
Public Works Traffic Division
1. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) will need to include a very detailed neighborhood impacts
analysis and provision for traffic calming on and off site. The Traffic Division will provide the
areas of impact to contact for a neighborhood meeting. Additionally a safety analysis and
provisions may be required for the 440' Avenue SW and SW Dash Point Road intersection.
2. There is a requirement for additional street access to SW Dash Point Road and safety analysis.
3. Frontage improvements on SW Dash Point Road (SR 509); cross section `K', which is 78 feet
of right-of-way, and additional right-of-way will be required.
4. Proposed SW 310 Street needs to be a cross section `S' Street. Transitions to existing street
sections will also impact lot sizes. The impact is 60 feet of right-of-way instead of 58 feet as
shown.
5. Easements and improvements possible for access to the school property as well as the
pedestrian connections and cul-de-sacs.
6. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) approval for channelization and
TIA is required for any improvements and/or impacts to SW Dash Point Road (SR 509). Please
note this is a long lead item and part of the critical pathway of the TIA.
DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Outlined below are the comments made by the representatives of each department present at the
preapplication conference. Each section should be read thoroughly. If you have questions, please contact
the representative listed for that section.
PLANNING DIviSION (Deb Barker, 253-835-2642, deb.barker@cityoffederalway.com)
Zoning, Use and Review Process — The site is zoned RS-9.6 (Single -Family Residential, one unit/
9,600 square feet). Proposed lot sizes must meet or exceed the minimum lot size of the zone.
A subdivision requires review of and recommendation on the preliminary plat application by the
City of Federal Way Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner makes a written recommendation
based on criteria listed under FWCC Section 20-126.Once the Hearing Examiner's review is
complete, his recommendation is presented to the City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee
(LUTC) at a public meeting. The LUTC makes a recommendation on the application to the City
Council, who then makes the final determination on the preliminary plat, based on the criteria listed
under FWCC Section 20-127. A preliminary plat checklist and master land use application are
enclosed along with applicable code sections from the subdivision code.'
1 Pursuant to FWCC Section 22.31(1)(k), preliminary plat applications are exempt from RCW 36.70B.060 through 36.70B.090,
and 36.7013.110 through 36.70B.130. The City elects to provide a letter of complete application and public notice of application
and decision notwithstanding this decision.
05.104980 Doc.1.D. 33413
Mr. Deaver
October 28, 2005
Page 3
The 2005 preliminary plat application fee is $6,801.50, plus $68.50 per acre. The application must
be prepared in accordance with the submittal requirements listed in the subdivision code and the
enclosed information bulletin. Separate fees are required for Public Works engineering review and
inspection. Please be advised that all fees will increase in January 2006.
2. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) — The proposed subdivision will be subject to SEPA review.
As such, an environmental checklist must be submitted and reviewed prior to the City issuing an
environmental threshold determination. Public notice of the environmental determination is also
issued, which includes a 14-day comment and 14-day appeal period. A SEPA checklist is enclosed.
The 2003 SEPA checklist application fee is $832.50.
1 Critical Areas — According to the City's critical areas map, the subject site is east of a Category II
wetland, adjacent to a stream, and contains erosion hazard soils. In addition, slopes in excess of 30
percent may be evident.
Category H wetlands contain 100-foot buffers.'Any stream defined as major requires 100-foot
buffers, while minor streams require 50-foot buffers.'
Pursuant to FWCC Section 22-1356, the formal application must include a wetland delineation
prepared in conformance with FWCC Section 22-1356(b). Any portions of the wetland buffer that
extend onto the subject site must be set aside in a separate tract to be owned and maintained by the
Homeowners Association.
Minor intrusions into the wetland buffer may be administratively reviewed by the Director of
Community Development Services pursuant to FWCC Section 22-1359(d). If proposed, the formal
subdivision application shall include a report prepared by a qualified wetland biologist to analyze the
proposed intrusions, address intrusion criteria and appropriate mitigation measures. Depending on
the extent of the intrusion and resulting wetland categorization, the City may opt to have the City's
contract wetland consultant review proposed trail intrusions at the expense of the applicant. In this
case, an estimate of the consultant review costs would be forwarded to the applicant for payment in
advance of wetland intrusion review.
The formal application must include a stream determination, and corresponding stream setback
depicted on the preliminary plat. Any intrusions into stream buffers are regulated under FWCC
Section 22-1312.
In addition to the wetland and stream issues, the formal application must include an inclusive soils
report to address the erosion hazard soils pursuant to the requirements of FWCC Section 22-1286.
On- and off -site impacts must be analyzed, and appropriate mitigation measures proposed.
4. Open Space Requirements — Pursuant to FWCC Section 20-155(b), a subdivision must provide open
space in the amount of 15 percent of the gross land area of the subdivision site. On -site open space
must include a minimum of 10 percent usable area, and must comply with the open space types and
quantities specifically described in FWCC Section 22-155(a) through (c). The proposed use of
adjacent property owned by the school district for Soundview Manor open space does not meet the
intent of the on -site open space requirement. As no open space areas are depicted on the
Z FWCC Section 22-1357
3 FWCC Section 22-1306
05-104990 Doc.1 D. 33413
Mr. Deaver
October 28, 2005
Page 4
preapplication documents, fee -in -lieu is assumed. A fee -in -lieu payment may be made to satisfy
open space requirements at the discretion of the City's Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services
(PARCS) Director after consideration of the City's overall park plan, quality, location, and service
area of the open space that would otherwise be provided within the project. The fee -in -lieu of open
space shall be calculated on 15 percent of the most recent assessed value of the property at time of
final plat. Usable open space design or fee options, along with provisions for access, improvements,
ownership, and maintenance, will be reviewed in conjunction with review of the preliminary plat.
5. Buffers — Pursuant to FWCC Section 20-178, a ten -foot -wide Type III landscape strip is required to
separate the proposed plat from the SW Dash Point Road right-of-way. The landscape area shall be
set aside in a separate tract to be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association. Any
perimeter fencing shall be located on the interior side of the landscape strip.
6. Significant Trees, Vegetation, and Grading — All existing significant trees and natural vegetation
must be retained and protected on the site to be subdivided, except that which will be removed for
improvements or grading as shown on approved engineering plans. Clearing and grading of
individual future lots is not permitted during construction of the plat infrastructure, except in
locations to be determined by the City that present topographic or other unusual conditions. Any
such requests for clearing beyond that approved under code require additional information and
analysis. A preliminary clearing and grading plan shall be submitted as part of the preliminary plat
application 4 It is the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the grading limits are the
minimum necessary to accommodate infras i ucture improvements, and that the grading limits create
reasonable and "buildable" lots for development.
Trees defined as significant by the FWCC shall be identified and retained using approved protection
measures as provided in FWCC Section 22-1568(c) or replaced at the rate of at least 25 percent of
the significant trees on the site. Removal of significant trees that are located within areas to be
developed for rights -of -way or other plat utilities are exempt from the 25 percent retention
calculation. The formal application must include an inventory of significant trees presently on the
site, and plat design shall accommodate existing significant trees to the maximum extent possible.
A landscape plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect, and consistent with FWCC Section 20-
186, must be submitted with the preliminary plat application. The plan shall identify the following:
significant trees to be removed and retained; tree protection measures; street trees along the internal
plat streets; and landscaping around all sides of the proposed detention pond.5
7. Lot Design — Street and access easement improvements must meet the requirements contained within
FWCC Sections 20-176 to 20-187. Included within these requirements are provisions for
landscaping, utilities, and storm drainage. The minimum lot frontage is established at 30 feet unless
shared access easement provided.' Structural setbacks are 20 feet front yard, and five feet side and
rear yard. Corner lots shall only have one front yard setback requirement, with the other yards
established as side or rear.
8. Drainage — Drainage facilities, including above ground conveyance ditches, must be established in
formal tracts and shall not be part of an easement associated with a parcel. Any formal storm
4 FWCC Section 20-179
5 FWCC Section 20-178
6 This provides for a 20-foot-wide driveway with five -foot -wide side yard setbacks.
05-104980
Doc. I.D. 33413
Mr. Deaver
October 28, 2005
Page 5
drainage tracts shall be screened from adjoining lots and right-of-way with vegetation to be
maintained by the Homeowners Association.
Public Notice — With the application, provide three sets of stamped, addressed envelopes for
property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. Include the City of Federal Way return address
on all envelopes.r For our records, provide lists of the owners within 300 feet of the subject site and
provide a corresponding parcel map showing the 300-foot radius from the subject site.
With notice of complete application, applicant will be required to install three large notice boards on
the north, east, and west portions of the project site.
10. School Mitigation Fees — Payment of a school impact mitigation fee is required for each single-
family residence at the time of issuance of individual residential building permits. The current
single-family residential mitigation fee is $3,011.50. The school mitigation fee is reviewed annually
by the Federal Way School District and City Council.
11. School District Comments — A copy of the application packet has been forwarded to the Federal Way
School District for review of school pedestrian access and circulation. A memo from the school
district will be forwarded to you upon receipt. A school access analysis is required in conjunction
with the preliminary plat application.
12. Final Plat — The City currently requires a $2,512.50 application fee for final plat. The final plat fee
in effect at time of final plat application is required to process the final plat. Substantial completion
of the plat infrastructure must occur prior to submittal and processing of the final plat. The City
allows bonding of only minor improvements identified in FWCC Section 20-135 in order to process
the final plat. FWCC Section 20-136 requires City Council review of the final plat.
PUBLIC WORKS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION (Sean Wells, 253-835-2731,
sean.wells@cityoffederalway.com)
Land Use Issues — Stormwater
Surface water runoff control and water quality treatment will be required per the 1998 King County
Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM), and the City of Federal Way Addendum to the 1998
KCSWDM. This project meets the requirements for a Full Drainage Review. The project lies within
a Level 1 flow control area, thus the applicant must design the flow control facility to meet this
performance criteria. The project also lies within a Resource Stream Protection Water Quality Area.
Water Quality Treatment shall be designed to meet the treatment criteria of the Resource Stream
Protection Menu.
2. The City has documented that there is a Type 2 downstream severe erosion problem. Therefore, a
Level 2 downstream analysis will be required with the Technical Information Report. This site will
also be required to provide Level 2 flow control for the on -site flow control facility.
3. At the time of land use site plan submittal, a preliminary Technical Information Report (TIR),
addressing the relevance of the project to the eight core and five special requirements of the
7 City of Federal Way, Department of Community Development Services, PO Box 9718, Federal Way, WA 98063-9718
05-104980 Doc 1 D. 33413
Mr. Deaver
October 28, 2005
Page 6
KCSWDM will be required. A Level 2 downstream analysis shall also be provided in the
preliminary TIR. The City has 1" = 100', five-foot contour planimetric maps that may be used for
basin analysis.
4. Soil logs will need to be provided to verify infiltration suitability, if proposed.
5. For subdivisions within the City of Federal Way, the detention and water quality treatment facility is
required to be an open pond within a separate storm drainage tract, dedicated to the City for future
maintenance. The water quality treatment system shall also be within a tract to be dedicated to the
City. Both detention and water quality facilities may be within the same tract. For private
commercial developments, the flow control and water quality facilities may be placed underground.
Show on the preliminary plans, with dimensions, the proposed location of the detention and water
quality facilities.
7. Hydrologic recharge of the western wetland will be required, based on matching peak volumes for
the anticipated storm event. Work with a wetland biologist for recommendations.
Right -of -Way Improvements
1. See the Traffic Division comments for traffic related items.
2. If dedication of additional right-of-way is required to install street frontage improvements, the
dedication shall be conveyed to the City through a statutory warranty deed. The dedicated area must
have clear title prior to recording.
3. All stormwater treatment and detention requirements outlined above will be applied to new
impervious area within the public right-of-way.
4. Frontage improvement requirements apply to the parcel's entire street frontage, not just the portion
of the site that is being developed.
5. FWCC Section 16-47 requires that overhead utility lines be relocated underground if over 500 feet,
or three spans are affected by a Public Works project. This condition will be applied to Dash Point
Road (SR 509).
EN Approval Issues
1. The Federal Way Development Standards Manual (including standard detail drawings, standard
notes, and engineering checklists) is available on the City's website at www.cityoffederalway.com to
assist the applicant's engineer in preparing the plans and TIR.
2. A final TIR shall be prepared for the project and submitted with the permit application. The final
TIR will require the signature/seal of a professional engineer registered/licensed in the State of
Washington.
3. The applicant shall provide a geotechnical report that addresses design pavement thickness for the
roadways.
05-104980
Doc.1 D. 33413
Mr. Deaver
October 28, 2005
Page 7
4. The applicant shall reimburse the City for the cost of all required regulatory, warning, and street
name signs that are installed, prior to acceptance by the City of all other required improvements.
5. Bonding is required for all improvements associated with the project. The bond amount shall be 120
percent of the estimated costs of the improvements. An administrative fee deposit will need to
accompany the bond to cover any possible legal fees in the event the bond must be called. Upon
completion of the installation of the improvements, and final approval of the Public Works Inspector,
the bond will be reduced to 30 percent of the original amount for a two-year maintenance period.
6. The developer will be responsible for the maintenance of all storm drainage facilities (including the
detention and water quality facilities) and street systems for the two-year maintenance period.
During that time, the Public Works Inspector will make periodic visits to the site to ensure the
developer's compliance with the maintenance requirements.
7. When topographic survey information is shown on the plans, as may be required, the vertical datum
block shall include the phrase "DATUM: N.G.V.D.-29" or "DATUM: K.C.A.S.," on all sheets
where vertical elevations are called out.
8. All final drawings shall be drafted/plotted on 24" x 36" or 22" x 34" mylar sheet with permanent
black ink. Drawings submitted for plan review shall be printed on 24" x 36" or 22" x 34" paper. Site
plans shall be drawn at a scale of 1" = 20', or larger. No architectural scales are permitted on
engineering plans.
9. Provide cut and fill quantities on the clearing and grading plan. Erosion control measures, per
Appendix D, 1998 KCSWDM, must be shown on the building set plans.
10. The site plan shall show the location of any existing and proposed utilities in the areas affected by
construction.
PUBLIC WORKS TRAFFIC DIVISION (Maryanne Zukowski, 253-835-2742,
maryanne.zukowski@cityoffederalway.com)
Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation 6`" Edition Land Use Code 210
(Single Family), the project is expected to generate more than 10 weekday PM peak hour trips. A
traffic impact analysis (TIA) prepared by a traffic engineer is required to assess project impacts and
determine mitigation measures. The TIA study shall also include the following analysis:
❑
Sight Distance per AASHTO
❑
Queuing
❑
Neighborhood Impacts
❑
WSDOT approvals
❑
Left/Right Turn Lane Warrant
❑
Safety
2. Per FWCC Section 22-1474, the applicant/owner would be expected to construct half -street
improvements consistent with the planned roadway cross -sections as shown in Map III-6 of the
FWCP and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) shown as Table III-19. Based on the materials
submitted, staff conducted a limited analysis to determine the required frontage improvements in
meeting FWCC. Based on the analysis and FWCC, the applicant would be expected to construct
half -street and full -street improvements on the following streets:
05-104980 Doc. I.D. 33413
Mr. Deaver
October 28, 2005
Page 8
a) SW Dash Point Road (SR 509) is a proposed Type K street, consisting of a 44-foot street with
curb, gutter, six-foot planter strip with trees, eight -foot sidewalk, and streetlights in a 78-foot
right-of-way; additional right-of-way will be required. The TIA, as reviewed by staff and the
WSDOT review, may determine additional channelization requirements. (Half Street)
b) SW 310 Street is a proposed Type S street, consisting of a 36-foot street with curb, gutter,
four -foot planter strip with trees, five-foot sidewalk, and streetlights in a 60-foot right-of-way.
(Full Street)
c) Cul-de-sac off of SW 314'' Street shall be a Type W street, consisting of a 28-foot street with
curb, gutter, four -foot planter strip, five-foot sidewalk, and street lights in a 52-foot right-of-
way. (Full Street)
3. Tapers and transitions beyond the project frontage may be required as deemed necessary for safety
purposes. Taper rate shall be based on WSDOT Design Manual; WS^2/60 or AASHTO as directed
by the Public Works Director.
4.. - ROW dedication shall be conveyed to the City through a Statutory Warranty Deed and must have
clear title prior to recording.
5. The applicant may make a written request to the Director of Public Works to modify, defer, or waive
the requirements improvements.
6. An additional cul-de-sac will be required at the south end of SW 314'' Street (School District
Property). All cul-de-sac terminuses shall be 106-foot diameter with 26-foot center island (optional
as approved by the Public Works Director). Please see enclosed drawing 3-2Z.
7. Minimum lot frontage should be 22 feet in width to accommodate 12-foot driveway and five-foot set
back on each side.
8. Traffic calming devices such as speed humps, traffic circles, chicanes, etc. should be incorporated in
internal street design as well as off street improvements as required by the TIA and the
neighborhood meeting and approval.
9. Per FWCC Section 20-151, no streets, or combination of streets, shall function as a cul-de-sac longer
than 600 feet.
10. FWCC Section 20-151 and Federal Way Comprehensive Plan Policy TP21, require block perimeters
no longer than 1320 feet for non -motorize, and 2640 feet for streets. The application is required to
provide the pedestrian connections.
11. Per FWCC Section 22-1543, only one driveway for each 330 feet of lot frontage is permitted.
Additionally, driveways must be located no closer than 150 feet to any street intersection, whether
on or off the subject property. Furthermore, the Washington Department of Transportation
(WSDOT) requires 250 feet separation between access points on state highways. The City may
further limit or prohibit access to or from driveway onto arterial streets.
05-104980 Doc I.D. 33413
Mr. Deaver
October 28, 2005
Page 9
12. Driveways serving a single-family dwelling unit abutting two streets should be at least 25 feet from
the beginning of the street radius.
13. The applicant/owner will need to send the TIA and Channelization plan to WSDOT for review,
comment, and approval.
14. Please provide photo documentation within the report of the sight distance analysis. The photo must
show the location of the sight distance standard in the picture as well as the location of the viewer. If
a photo cannot be provided, plan sheets with plan and profile within the report can also provide the
site distance documentation. If this method is used, place the distance requirements as met on those
documents and provide this information within the appendix of the report.
LAKEHAVEN UTILITY DISTRICT (Brian Asbury, 253-946-5407, www.lakehaven.org)
Water - This property is located within the water service area boundary of the City of Tacoma.
Sewer - A developer extension agreement will be required to construct new and/or abandon existing
sewer main necessary for the proposed development. Additional detail and/or design requirements can be
obtained from Lakehaven by submitting a separate application to Lakehaven for either a pre -design
meeting or a developer extension agreement (application copies enclosed). Lakehaven encourages the
owner to apply for either of these processes early in the pre-design/planning phase to avoid delays in
overall project development.
Copies of D.E. Predesign Application -Checklist and the D.E. Agreement Application -Checklist are
enclosed.
FEDERAL WAY FIRE DEPARTMENT (Greg Brozek, 253-946-7241)
Water Supplies for Fire Protection
A Certificate of Water Availability shall be provided indicating the fire flow available at the site.
Fire hydrants shall be spaced 700 ft. or less apart. Every building lot shall have a fire hydrant within 350 ft.
All measurements shall be made as vehicular travel distance.
Fire hydrants shall be in service PRIOR to and during construction.
Fire Apparatus Access Roadway
Fire apparatus access roadways shall be required for every building when any portion of an exterior wall of
the first story is located more, than 150 ft. from fire apparatus vehicle access. Fire apparatus access roads:
1) Shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not
less than 13 feet 6 inches.
2) Shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of a 25-ton fire apparatus and shall be
provided with a surface so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities.
3) Shall be not less than a 20-foot inside turning radius and not less than a 40-foot outside turning radius.
05-104980 Doe. 1.D 33413
Mr. Deaver
October 28, 2005
Page 10
4) With a dead-end in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with a cul-de-sac or Fire
Department approved alternative at the dead end. All such cul-de-sacs shall be not less than 80 feet
in diameter.
5) Gradient shall not exceed 15 percent.
6) Serving a single residential property which have a dead end in excess of 150 feet in length shall be
provided with a turn around approved by the chief. (KCFD #39 Administrative Policy Guideline No.
1006)
EXCEPTION: When buildings are completely protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system,
these provisions may be modified by the chief.
Fire apparatus access road gates shall comply with KCFD #39 Administrative Policy Guideline No.
1001.
Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems
An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed in Group R, Division 3 occupancies:
1) When the occupancy exceeds 2,500 square feet (including attached garages) without adequate fire
flow.
2) Without approved fire department access.
3) When the occupancy exceeds 10,000 square feet.
4) When the building is classified as an over -water structure.
Project Specific Comments: The minimum fire flow for one- and two-family dwellings shall be 1,000
gallons per minute. If the slope of a building lot does not allow the building(s) on the site to comply with the
"life safety/rescue access" requirement, the building(s) shall be provided with an approved automatic fire
sprinkler system. Life safety/rescue access shall mean an unobstructed access to all floor levels and each
roof level of a building on not less than 20 percent of the building perimeter by utilizing a 35-foot ladder.
An alternate method would be at least one stairway enclosure with exit doorways from each floor level and
with a door opening onto each roof level which conforms to the requirements of the International Building
Code.
*Developments of one- or two-family dwellings where the number of dwelling units exceeds 30 (total of
new and existing dwelling units) shall be provided with separate and approved fire apparatus access roads.
THESE FIRE DEPARTTMENT COMMENTS ARE VALID FOR 180 DAYS FROM REVIEW AND
ONLY FOR THE PLANS REVIEWED.
CLOSING
This letter reflects the information provided at the preapplication meeting and is intended to assist you in
preparing plans and materials for formal application. We hope you found the comments useful to your
project. We have made every effort to identify major issues to eliminate surprises during the City's
review of the formal application. The completion of the preapplication process in the content of this letter
05-104980
Doc. I.D 33413
Mr. Deaver
October 28, 2005
Page 11
does not vest any future project application. Comments in this letter are only valid for one year as per
FWCC Section 22-1657.
As you know, this is a preliminary review only and does not take the place of the full review that will
follow submission of a formal application. Comments provided in this letter are based on preapplication
materials submitted.
Modifications and revisions to the project as presented for this preapplication may influence and modify
information regarding development requirements outlined above. In addition to this preapplication letter,
please examine the complete FWCC and other relevant codes carefully. Requirements that are found in
the codes that are not addressed in this letter are still required for your project.
If you have questions about an individual comment, please contact the appropriate department
representative noted above. Any general questions can be directed towards the key project contact, Deb
Barker, 253-835-2642. We look forward to working with you.
Sincerely,
Deb Barker
Interim Senior Planner
enc: Sign In Sheet
Master Land Use Application
FWCC Chapter 20 — Subdivisions
Preliminary Plat Handout
SEPA Checklist
FWCC Article XIV - Critical Areas
FWCC Section 22-1568 - Significant Trees
Mailing Label Handout
Cross Section K
Cross Section S
Cross Section W
Drawing 3-2Z
Right-of-way Modification
D.E. Pre -design Application -Checklist
D.E. Agreement Application -Checklist
c: Sean Wells, Senior Engineering Plans Reviewer
Maryanne Zukowski, Senior Traffic Engineer
Brian Asbury, Lakehaven Utility District
Greg Brozek, Federal Way Fire Department
05-104980 Doe. I.D. 33413
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (CDRC)
Preapplication Conference Sign In Sheet
Soundview Manor Plat Preapplication
05-104980-00-PC
October 20, 2005
Name
3. 601-, �",. wut.v
4. [arc=-ice<�
s. �� f�rLGGr
6.
11.
With
CAS
Gv€ 57�/�DoK IN6E STlul"173
Telephone Number
2 53 - S3S - 24 fZ
a5-3 - e 3,�-' 2,i21 (
Va - l532
q-Z a ls'3 Z 7-
2z-7-77Y0
2 S � - r5 \( .--? -L (
;2S3 8 � 273p
9-3.5 �-731
z 74 2
C—eml Legend:
- - - - — - - - -- . - -- - City
Urnits
ing
Map
� � PAABoundary
Y Parcels
Subdivisions
..• Sections
Cdtlol Area+ Legend:
f '. Federal Way Stream Classification Points
Streams
� «
,>rRS9.6 mwrma m _ Lake
. Wderak la9g8—mc0ey]
Fedaral VMy Snorennc fdana0emerd plan
RlOng Covilty Sho2e5no Management Pt --
lion
NI ], Icmmm wr m n�•m - no�rn IW �V 1 Year Wellhead Protection Zone
:..p r. �'z11DUt•AAS PALISADES $ ,l X rtF pr 04�S Year Wellhead Protection Zone
6 ••u w. n w] SYI 311TLt ST u ti 10 Year Wellhead Protection Zone
FIS7.2 '� Sjy
a,tSW 312TH PL ,w],�nomo 1 n•w nMt� w «n - 2 c '?79 Property Leper]d.
'gym :;: 01f° �]�'I G•m City of F e deal W, S'M't P,*,,, ies
nv°1n �'" f1 ; ni°mbw ; ��������~•� Q ` rr'• �yX City, County ono State Par% Properties
u1.2"", p01N'f R57.2: m City al Federal Way P1Werl6cs
nuktns nnr n_ d n .w.w SW ppSH
n
r FTATCS I•r]e' S 'Na 1 IGng County Properties
id, Landmarks
R5 X 1 RS9.6 e
aeon h n;,mvaa ry
nr< "ru,n School Properties
TraclslPrivale Open Space
n,lanw SW 313TH PL !1„rm�r l Federal Way Zoning Desginations
n. �' re Rr.p r ■! en�nmw
psr=e. as12 � Q IQt s O Federal Way Zoning Boundary
.aeon . n„p.nn;m RS9.6 _ Commercial Zones:
mwl>W. Re Community Business
1'�:'� !w^ .n rernnaesniYsatw ese "" „„, at. RR Neighborhood Business
wwn'iywr]u]�e. n.ev
eusinassPark zer]es:
naaemn'w IP Business Park
t r- SW 314TH PL SW 31AFH PL Mixed -Use Zones:
n eieww • '' rmyhiXebbie+ nt� u t eb "„ -iln an a City Canter Core
non nn.. .,re „i �► I,
a]. w IF City Center From
' nnr]ar 'pi" Q "ITIr RS7 2 Office Zones:
'n'wmr ynpWMA*SPAY s'nl "' i
1„n�nms J nrI«r ESTATES n �a J nnr >•q] DURfiI=.> 1 op Corporate Park-1
o , NO 3 aw. 1 e nMr O s' aw �. "]nnr op Office Park
mrdbX R atw CL naenael V OP-1 Office Park-1
I=. ' °m° RS5.0 nlm " NO 5 z ; .I op-2 Office Padc-2
°� w n ww mmw anon • r �" a,m 1 sru 0p.3 Office Park-3
].gulp. 0P4 officePark-4
n �ew� �,M ... fiu 7,2 RS9.6 r -tom Iw Professional Office
' a ^SW 315TH PL 3r rrs. nw S* -
.vew pie [[�w�w �i g� MuBi-Family Residential Zones:
a ' ' r .. weein�xbatnnevw > Ia w ri n]trw : RS7.2 R/dlees 1 uniV1,800 Sq Feel
ny,n. RM24ee 1 unit2,4o0 Sq Feet
" 1'.. "irs LF ierxrn ° f'�w Q�t nY ] um
60o S Feel
snel. rre roe Ringe11mily, q-
YI, F� n -'s,"r ,w Single Family Residential Zones:
ti ]' eeel nts°pma
w i, . • uw , • c nnr mu RSSst 1 und15,000 Sq- Feet
R51.2 1 uniV7,200 Sq Feet
mTrN wl
Q� n n am znmma + p7e.i 1 uniV9,600 Sq Feet
nn R515J Iunitilspoo Sq Feet
SW3 mio XXP]at nwhY1 wn 0005
J R535J 1 und/35, q-
Feet
_1u oywaa SE nN5os oc[
r, 11• Ne' nnmr 1",,w,n w� i o �r Nn Governed Ey Development Agreement
m �,s R02400
momaW. w]1.t . 1 R(a7.2 w - �,w. iT n ]�»mAa King County Zoning Designations:
. • 1 J7 •," "w n,Wa,� AAAA1 "� i„ O King County Zoning Boundary
a. 4 ew
]tt�e.� �°�1f1ire 1 A9r(clHmar2anns:
i,
!!I ,,r ,'• • Y •'rwn rtpeX1 a>< AID AgftwLOR[a1,1 UniVlOAmes
ffice Zones:
SW 317TH PL Commercial and O
la , € ,»X >ra • n19 °�°�.— RS9.6 CR Community Business
1 9� RR Neighborhood Business
,aa]crow • - e .aa 'Fl 0 Office
RestidenWZones:
R.I Residential, 1 UniVAcre
ai DaPal RS7.2
• Tew�omr tl ] RA Residential, 4 UnifslAcre
R 6
' __ - -1 Residential, 6 urfWAcre
RS9.6
N s..
RM3600 „�„ nW n R1 Residentiel,BUnRslAcre
12 Residential, 12 UnilslAcre
le 2t.11
MR—1
City of Federal Way
33325 Bib Ave S
N PO BOX 9718
eat Federal Way. WA 98063
(253):35-700D
www.cdyattedaralway corn
.. ._ ..
Residential, 16 Units/Acre
p.24 Residential, 24 UnWAcre
-IT..
I- i--.--_-
Roe Residential, 48 Un-WAcre
,
.p Spedal Development Requirements
-1f1 r T WOO _
�'~nA
Rene HDIr.THE Sr•17-E mlNPr156 oFTHI5 MAP 1510
Mof any
'TWIN . X,i
lDPJ7rIPY I f.Y Dx adg-
preuaerr o,d'oy O uV.-fl
U'VES ` £
ura
asta >�4 7nr+q-are
nl].wr
rX
w
CONDO e A
Twin Lies
Ttw IFreanpaelaPn el naNrsavonaem ewmddepv
aouleaT tnpw].]Wmap leelure"I
B�
€ - -
Flrnelrt+iY
auli.
-
a4d..ns"1
NOygaFre]teed Nw"M FS wtwn� °mow raa.ln�o
• ...rrw��bw�
f
pwFdMi.s aen In FpA'r tK%
to wak+a•PtaE N'a cctFeY za�+rm
SW 32@TH'ST
1 SW €i
Tis AOM etwo.Fe+e run a-Lhemn
to wtey llie;rdnrmeaen,natfCH
in,mew
yiorgtyrr,eeueged
uX+uet
anr��
Wellendswere.rd.N� be taae eq n[ Fadenll'+r
yid aK IaMYd>.9D� tlrlf d nnnNr and rsmg
.---`.-
QshiR xhq Co,.ay
navvy-
eenam+wve d...]OFd eaa2rf03 L'ty era+rY. M'd
L6Ned wnt 0*41 ld endn 11X. v.d lRw'+rP ar
aou,n: Cay e]Fedeml weY•Lablrren UtaX
Z
eomewtMP�.yI]4t ae.n tw.ucd. YNr:.
mop" semw a+P• uxi:4nu�.r
1�.]�,,
L'llY Of Federa[ ••P/
Regional 2arngAUas
CITY OF
Federal Way
dwse AOWFda
arts mL✓eI d. LY
ku°""P� id rrnlwastle
wblaad0R4F0$Tpuarter
StcoOgka l Spres WAY
.OleN
as
Awrno1+LsEhsYiKAA
Map 27
SW 17-21fi3 .E
mrm.PX...rw.a m,w"a eP�>alac.lteP.s,.br.
•sme.
Map 27 - SW 11-21-03. SW quarter of Kroll 71
SW quarter o{Kroll MAP 771 a5
m. cerenw„i w.v •^,... ee rat•ve2
3111•II
s
CoEeSe NWInc.
Civil Engineering & Surveying
August 23, 2005
FICEIVED
SEP 2 7' 2005
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
BUILDING DEPT.
Department of Community Development Services
33325 8's' Avenue South
PO Box 9718
Federal Way, WA 98063-9718
Project: Soundview Manor Plat
CES Project Number: 05170.0
Subject: Pre -application meeting
5210 — 12th Street East
Fife, WA 98424
Phone: (253) 922-1532
Fax: (253) 922-1954
This project proposes to develop 9.19 acres into a 28-lot housing development in the City
of Federal Way. As you will see from the attached schematic site plan, the project contains
category II wetland buffers in the vicinity of the northwest corner of the site. Habitat
Technologies has performed an initial reconnaissance to determine the wetland
classification and its approximate location (see attached map from Habitat Technologies).
Once a formal wetland delineation is performed, our survey crew will precisely locate the
extent of said wetlands so that appropriate buffers can be established.
From our records, it appears that there was a preliminary plat approved for the site with the
name of Soundview Manor, dated March 17, 1993. Judging from the 1993 drawings, the
existing submittal no longer conforms to the site's current zoning of RS 9.6. The lots
appear to be smaller than would be required under current zoning. As such, lot size for the
currently proposed plat that our firm will be submitting requires a different basic layout. In
order to minimize grading and accommodate for larger lot size, we have removed access to
Dash Point Road. Instead, we propose to connect to the existing stub at the end of
Southwest 314'h Street.
The proposed site consists of a two parcels (112103-9060 & 112103-9119) zoned RS 9.6.
The site is currently undeveloped and forested (see attached aerial photo). All significant
trees will be located by our survey crew and a tree plan will be submitted with the
preliminary plat. The proposed lots all exceed 9,600 square feet (see site plan). Our
research indicates that a 52-foot local internal road right-of-way is required with a cul-de-
sac right-of-way radius of 53 feet (see attached City of Federal Way road sections W and
Z). The proposed plan uses these sections for the site plan. All the parcels surrounding
the site are zoned residential of varying density, including RS 7.2 to the east and southwest,
RS 9.6 to the south and west, and RS 15.0 to the north (see attached zoning map).
Our intent for the storm water from the site will be to collect and convey it to an onsite
storm water infiltration facility located in the north portion of the site adjacent to Dash
Point Road. At the pre -application meeting we would like to discuss the specific
stormwater issues and possible solutions. A geotechnical study will be needed to
determine the infiltration rate. In the event that infiltration is not viable, one issue that we
would like to discuss is the discharge point of the proposed storm tract. We would like to
discuss the possibility of discharging treated stormwater runoff at predevelopment rates to
any existing stormwater drainage that may run along Dash Point Road.
Residential and emergency vehicle access is another issue that we would like to discuss.
We propose connecting to the surrounding road system where Southwest 314th Street dead -
ends adjacent to the site's east boundary. Because using this location would minimize
roadways entering onto Dash Point Road within the surrounding area, we believe this to be
the most favorable access point. We propose to provide for future access to the public
school property to the south using a stub road. This would provide pedestrian access for
Twin Lakes Elemetary School students living in the large residential development to th
east, should the school choose to make necessary improvements to its property. We nee
to know if this road layout would be acceptable from an emergency vehicle access
standpoint.
Another issue we would like to cover is open space/recreation requirements for a 28-lot
plat. We would like to know if any space will need to be set aside in addition to the
wetlands and the buffer area to provide for recreation on a plat of this size, considering the
fact that school property is immediately adjacent to the site's south boundary. t�r,
¢
Finally, we want to discuss the possibility of grading within a portion of the site that
appears to have slopes in excess of 30 percent (see attached GIS topographic map). This
area runs along the east side of the property, and would require some filling from higher
points on the site to accommodate the proposed single-family lots.
We are aware that there are existing applications for this site in the form of preliminary plat
drawings and documentation. It is our understanding that preliminary plat approval was
obtained, and that site development documents were created but not approved.
Please call with any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
1�kCIT
Federal Way
October 3, 2005
Craig Deaver
CES NW, Inc.
5210 12`h Street East
Fife, WA 98424
FILE
CITY HALL
33325 8th Avenue South • PO Box 9718
Federal Way, WA 98063-9718
(253) 835-7000
www.cityoffederalway.com
RE: File #05-104980-000-00-PC; PREAPPLICATION MEETING NOTICE
SoundView Manor, Federal Way
Dear Mr. Deaver:
The above -referenced proposal has been assigned to me as project planner. At this time, the application
and preliminary site plan have been routed to the members of the Development Review Committee. A
meeting with the project applicant and Development Review Committee has been scheduled as follows:
Thursday, October 20, 2005 -- 9:00 AM
Hylebos Conference Room
City Hall, 2°d Floor
33325 81h Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003
We look forward to meeting with you. Let me know if you will have more than five people attending the
preapplication meeting so we can make arrangements for a larger room. This is the only notice sent out,
so please coordinate directly with anyone else you would like to attend the meeting. Please call me at
253-835-2642 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Deb Barker
Interim Senior Planner
05-104980 Doc CD. 33411
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE TRANSMITTAL
DATE: September 30, 2005
TO: Will Appleton, Development Services Manager
Scott Sproul, Assistant Building Official
Brian Asbury, Lakehaven Utility District
Greg Brozek, Federal Way Fire Department
Geri Walker, Federal Way School District
FROM: Deb Barker
FOR DRCMTG. ON: October 13, 2005 - Internal
October 20, 2005, 9:00 - with applicant
FILE NUMBER(s):
05-104980-00-PC
RELATED FILE NOS.:
Pervious application for site under Interlocal ILA90-PP 12: was proposed single
family subdivision of 30 lots on 9.7 acres. The application was submitted to King
County on 05/01/89 prior to the. incorporation of City. Following incorporation,
City granted prelim. plat approval based on King County code standards
(Resolution 90-32). On 6/27/94, City denied extension requests as no progress
had been made and application expired. Refer to archived files for additional
information.
PROJECT NAME:
SOUNDVIEW MANOR PLAT
PROJECT ADDRESS:
No Address: Located at SW Dash Point Road south of 44 h Avenue SW if
extended.
ZONING DISTRICT.- RS 9.6
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Preapplication for formal subdivision of two existing parcels (9.19 acres) into a 28
lots. Site has erosion hazard slopes in NE corner, and regulated category II
wetland and stream west of the site.
LAND USE PERMITS.
PROJECT CONTACT:
Preliminary Plat, SEPA
Craig Deaver, CES NW, INC
5210 le Street East
Fife, WA 98424
(253) 922-1532
MATERL4LS SUBMITTED: Preliminary Plat conceptual drawing, August 23, 2005 cover letter describing
proposed improvements, Habitat Technologies memo and map dated September 23, 2005, Contour map,
vicinity/zoning map
09/26/2005 10:03 2534461015
SHP/22/2005/THU 04:23 PM
CANTERWOOD
PAGE 02
F. 002
FI
OF
Federal Way
nASTER LAND USE AYFLICA TIO
EC E I V E L,"AR'►� oiP coMrnrur�xx n».ol ����
33325 $ Avmuc somth
FD Box 9718
Federal Way WA 98t753.9718
5EP 2 ZDu 253-835-2607;FsL.253-$35-260A
CITY QF FEDERAL WAY .
�yBUILDINQ DEPT /
• �.� G `7 _•Date� •�` �,/� �
AppmcAuoxv No(s)
OL "
FrojectName
, n .) ❑
Prop" ,A,ddr,bSs/LOcat10t1
)Pat'cel Nnmber(s) I I.2- i r,'3 — 9p 6 a I ! 1
pmJect Descripflon
'L$A5K YHIi� A
'hype of permit Rewired
��,�atiop
Boring Site Plaa '
�B-uunftry I.ineAdjustmenr
rr C.U111) Fjwj%AezQ;in
Land Surface Modificativr
�•/K� Lot Litte)?limraa4ar
.eftappiwa[ioli C8i]�t[TtiL�
10cess l (airectox=gAfrX0 )
—?M0899 n (sitepianReview)
Process M (ProjectAppraysl)
�Praceas iireatin$ ExeimineYslwiaiaga)
�Procesa V (QuasiJUd 691 Nf=e)
Fracnss VI
SEPA WIPM ect
—_ SEPA Only
Sltorcline: Vatiance/COA&icitd'U80
She Subdivlalon.
Subdivision
Vatitttco: Co:mtrle davR aiidentied
Required bdormtkQA
$' `ld Oning Drsim alive
zt IImmprchensive Plea Designation
��vdue of tsxiam lnMvrments
��Valttt afFrvposedlmpreVeMonts
IntcmatlaAAnal BaildiM Code (MC):
Nn aacu mry Type
L
�C.obatruction Type
Bulletin 003 — August 18, 2004
,A,ppAcs,mt
name,• 1,I6fifL'ok T' VCZ-tAY"i%l LL(,
Address: Z-77 �ag 5t� NE
Laity/6taic: Pu, g11vp■ WA -
Zip: 753-7:Z
'hone,
V(i
I�
k &= Applic=t)
Address;$ 7,.trJ " ! a'T�+ S� 'Kasb
Gitylti#ate; F►�r! 1 W,4
Zip:
phone: 53—
&nail:
Ciyftahlre: Imo., � /f �
Owner r%
Name: C
Zip:
pazt,: Q5.3 • 5 a
Emgnattue�
Fnge 1 of I
011anda-&\Master Laud-Ulle Applicatio:a
1
•?
\ r -
CCD
CD
f.............� i
z� !
•
�
1
I S [
i
kk
! f 1I
CD —
ZCD
0
o
00
N
O
O
cA
Fes- 1
0
e
x
CD
n
O
CD
CD
H=i
M
W
•J
CD
n
CD
CD
9
m
00
J
N
O
O
Uh
Deb Barker - Fwd.-Re: Herons in Federal W ay --- - Page 1
From: Greg Fewins
To: Cary Roe; CD-BL; devspec; John Mulkey; Ken Miller; Marwan Salloum; Paul Bucich;
planners; PW-DS
Date: 4/4/2007 5:02:40 PM
Subject: Fwd: Re: Herons in Federal Way
FYI for those reviewing development plans in the area cited below. I am researching out jurisdictional
obligation to condition construction activities (public and private) in the vicinity of documented Heron
nesting.
Greg
>>> "Christopher D Anderson" <andercda DFW.WA.GOV> 4/4/2007 4:47 PM >>>
Greg,
Here is the information discussed via our phone correspondence -
I visited the heron colony at the corner of 295th and 2nd Avenue SW to confirm activity on 03/28/07,
documenting 1 pair of adults actively building a nest and performing pair bonding. I also had one other
pair in the same stand of alders, checking out the stand and acting as if they were in the process of
nesting in the stand, but not as far along as the other pair. Currently, this small colony at Redondo Beach
appears to have one pair active and building a nest with at least one other pair investigating the site.
Attached is WDFW's standard management recommendations for great blue herons (more information
regarding Priority Species is available at: htt ://wdfw.wa. ov/habl hslist.htm). I also attached Seattle's
recent Director's Rule, which is utilized in the case of heron colonies within city limits, with the assistance
of WDFW in times of further biological consultation needs. Great blue herons are considered a Priority
species by WDFW due to their colonial behavior. Heron colonies are categorized as a vulnerable
aggregation. They are considered a State Monitor species and are therefore managed by WDFW, as
needed, to prevent them from becoming endangered, threatened, or sensitive. Great blue herons and
their nests are protected under RCW 77.15.130, Protected Fish or Wildllfe. It appears that Federal Way
Municipal Code incorporates this in Chapter 18, Environmental Protection; under 18-28, Additional
definitions; in the mention of fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, listing (2): Habitats and species
of local importance.
Due to calls I've received from local public regarding heron presence and use of that area and related
concerns regarding construction activities, I followed -up with Rex Karington, the contractor heading up the
construction project to the northwest of the stand of alders that the birds are utilizing. Rex said they have
some outside siding to complete as well as some grading at the property that is under construction. Rex
relayed that he would be willing to voluntarily keep the compressor inside the building when putting up the
siding, which would assist in keeping the noise level down. He also mentioned that he would be willing to
hold off on grading until August, after the nesting period for the birds, if they end up staying and nesting for
good this season. Rex can be contacted at 253-951-5409.
Also, the stand of trees that the birds are in seems to have some larger alders cut down recently. WDFW
recommends that this stand of trees not be cleared, at this time, due to the ecological value it provides as
nesting habitat for herons both historically and in the current nesting season.
WDFW is available for consultation if there is a need for any management assistance regarding heron
colonies within the City of Federal Way. Feel free to contact me, I'd be happy to help out if needed.
Regards,
Chris
Deb Barker - Fwd: Re: Herons in Federal Way
Page 2
Chris Anderson
Wildlife Biologist
WDFW Region 4
16018 Mill Creek Blvd.
Mill Creek, WA 98012
425.775.1311 ext 111
andercda(d].wdfw.wa.pov
htt :Ilwdfw.wa. ov
>>> "Greg Fewins" <Gre .Fewins cit offederalwa .com> 04/04/07 2:02 PM >>>
Hi Chris:
I listened to you last voice mail. Thanks for the offer to email me the information and citations you went
over. That will give me a chance to do some jurisdictional research on our end.
At some point I believe the city would be interested in working through a Heron management plan for the
city. That would help us be proactive in managing this important wildlife resource.
I need to first fully understand the jurisdictional issues regarding what authority we have to condition or
otherwise regulate Heron nest sites.
I look forward to receiving your email.
Greg Fewins,
Deputy Director of Operations
Community Development Services
City of Federal Way
33325 8th Avenue South
PO Box 9718
Federal Way, WA 98063-9718
253-835-2611 (phone)
253-835-2609 (fax)
r .fewins ci.federai-wa .wa.us or,
re .fewins cit offederalwa .com
Director's Rule 5m2OO7
Applicant:
City of Seattle
Department of Planning and
Development
Subject:
Great Blue Heron Management Plan
Index:
Environmentally Critical Areas
BACKGROUND & PURPOSE:
Page Supersedes:
1 of 3 N/A
Publication: Effective:
2/5/07 3/29/07
Code and Section Reference:
Seattle Environmentally Critical
Areas Ordinance SMC 25.09.200.0
Type of Rule:
Code Interpretation
Ordinance Authority:
SMC 3.06.040
Approved Date
(signature on file 3/27/07
Diane M. Sugimura, Director, DPD
Great blue herons can be vulnerable because of their tendency to aggregate during the
breeding season. They are colonial breeders that nest in a variety of deciduous and
evergreen tree species. Nests are usually constructed in the tallest trees available,
presumably to reduce the risk of predation by mammals. The availability of suitable
great blue heron breeding habitat is declining as human population increases. Great
blue herons and their nests are protected under RCW 77.15.130 (Protected fish or
wildlife -- Unlawful taking), and great blue heron nesting colonies are listed as a WDFW
Priority Species.
Statewide, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) recommends a
permanent, year-round buffer of 300 meters (984 ft) from the perimeter of the great blue
heron colony. These management recommendations can be found in Washington's
Priority Species, Volume IV.Birds prepared by the Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife. This can be viewed by going to http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phs/vol4/gbheron.htm or
City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development Diane M. Sugimura, Director
700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000, PO Box 34019, Seattle, WA 98124-4019
DPD Directors Rule 5-2007
Page 2 of 3
by contacting Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. The WDFW recommends
that local land use planning should when possible protect existing great blue heron
colonies using colony site -specific management plans that consider the colony size,
location, relative isolation and the degree of habituation to human disturbance.
Definitions:
Great Blue Heron Nestin_I Season: February 1 st through July 31 st
Colony Nestin Areas: Areas that are known to be great blue heron nesting areas as
determined by WDFW. For the Kiwanis Ravine and North Beach colonies this includes
the entire ravine areas as mapped.
Great Blue Heron Management Area: All areas within 500 feet of a colony nesting area.
RULE:
As heron colonies within the City of Seattle are in part habituated to urban conditions, a
152 meter (500 ft) Great Blue Heron Management Area is considered appropriate by
WDFW. Typically in Seattle it is not physically possible to greatly restrict development
within these areas due to existing development and buildable lots in closer proximity to
colonies. If development is proposed within a Great Blue Heron Management Area as
mapped by WDFW and/ or the City of Seattle, the development conditions found in the
appendix to this rule apply. Prior to development the applicant must have a Great Blue
Heron Management Plan approved by DPD.
GREAT BLUE HERON MANAGEMENT PLAN
1. Conditions:
Within the Great Blue Heron Management Area and Colony Nesting Area:
❑ Any clearing, grading or outside construction shall be done outside of the nesting
season.
❑ All 22 inch diameter breast height (dbh) or larger screening trees shall be
retained during the nesting season so as to block visual disturbance to the
colony. Screening trees are those trees that are within direct line of sight of the
nesting area or block line of sight to the structure.
❑ If the parcel abuts the colony nesting area there shall be a minimum 15 foot
building setback. The setback shall be vegetated in a manner that screens
activities on the parcel from the colony nesting area.
2. Alternative:
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife may be willing to approve an alternative
site -specific plan. To request a site -specific plan contact the Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife Urban Biologist at (425) 775-1311.
If the standard conditions set forth above in the Conditions section are acceptable, please
sign below and this will serve as your Great Blue Heron Management Plan. Activities will be
periodically monitored and failure to comply with the Plan constitutes a violation as set forth in
the Environmentally Critical Areas Regulations (SMC Chapter 25.09).
I have read and understand the above conditions placed on parcel #
located at
(Property address)
(Signature)
(APN number)
(Date)
DPD Director's Rule 5-2007
Appendix
Great Blue Heron
Ardea herodias
Last updated: 1999
Written by Timothy Quinn and Ruth Milner
GENERAL RANGE AND
WASHINGTON DISTRIBUTION
Great blue herons are found throughout most of North
America south of 55 north latitude and into much of
Central and South America. Breeding pairs on the Pacific
coast occur only to about 52 north latitude. Distribution of
great blue herons within Washington is state-wide (see
Figure 1).
RATIONALE
Great blue herons can be vulnerable because of their
tendency to aggregate during the breeding season. The
availability of suitable great blue heron breeding habitat is
declining as human population increases in Washington
State. In addition, great blue herons may abandon breeding colonies or experience reduced reproductive success
when disturbed by humans.
HABITAT REQUIREMENTS
Great blue herons occur near most types of fresh and saltwater wetlands including seashores, rivers, swamps,
marshes, and ditches. They are found throughout Washington but are most common in the lowlands.
Nesting
Great blue herons are colonial breeders that nest in a variety of deciduous and evergreen tree species. Nests are
usually constructed in the tallest trees available, presumably to reduce the risk of predation by mammals (Butler
1992, Carlson 1995), but may also be located in bushes and in artificial structures (Bruce 1986, Blus et a]. 1980)
when trees are absent (Henny and Kurtz 1978). In King and Kitsap counties, great blue herons nested at heights
Volume IV: Birds. 3-1 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
ranging from 9-26 m (30-85 ft) in the tallest trees available (Jensen and Boersma 1993). A British Columbia study
found that most great blue heron nests occurring in trees were located > 14 m (46 ft) in height. No nests were found
under 10 m (33 ft) (Mark 1976). Great blue herons in western Oregon nested at heights ranging from 7-25 In (23-82
ft) (Werschkul et al. 1976).
Feeding
Great blue herons feed on a wide variety of aquatic and marine animals found in shallow waters. Great blue herons
also feed on mice and voles (Calambokidis et al. 1985, Butler 1995), which were an important food for nestlings in
Idaho (Collazo 1981) and may be an important food for British Columbia great blue herons during winter (Butler
1995).
At large spatial scales (e.g., great blue heron home range), the location of great blue heron colonies is probably best
explained by the distribution of foraging habitat (Gibbs 1991, Jensen unpublished data, see human disturbance
below for smaller scale considerations). Although great blue herons may forage up to 29 km (18 mi) from a colony,
most forage within 2-5 km (1-3 mi) of the colony (Short and Cooper 1985, Butler 1995). The number of nests per
colony in British Columbia (Butler 1991), Oregon (Werschkul et al. 1977, Bayer and McMahon 1981), Maine
(Gibbs 1991), and Washington (Jensen unpublished data) were positively correlated with the amount of nearby
foraging habitat, and in Maine were negatively correlated with the costs of foraging at greater distances (km
flown/ha of wetland visited).
Feeding territory size and location may vary from year to year (Hoover and Wills 1987). The availability of
alternative foraging and nesting habitat within close proximity of known foraging sites is probably critical to great
blue heron reproductive success. Butler (1995) suggested that food availability strongly affects great blue heron
survival, the spacing of their colonies, and their use of habitat. Moreover, great blue heron food supply may be
limiting, particulary in areas where foraging areas freeze during winter (Butler 1992).
Colonies usually exist at the same location for many years, and productivity (number of fledglings/nesting herons)
may be positively related to the number of years colonies have been in use (Butler 1995). Great blue herons may
relocate their colonies in response to increased predation on eggs and young by mammals and birds such as eagles
(Jensen unpublished data), declines in food availability (Simpson et al. 1987), or human disturbance. Jensen
(unpublished data) suggested that 2 of the 5 King County colonies monitored in 1991 were abandoned in late spring
due to bald eagle predation, but Butler (1995) found that there was no relationship between the location of great blue
heron colonies and the location of areas with high densities of nesting eagles. Thus, abandonment of colonial nesting
areas due to predation pressure from eagles may be regionally specific. Great blue heron colonies built in spruce or
Douglas -fir trees may damage host trees over time, which may also influence colony relocation (Julin 1986).
LIMITING FACTORS
The availability of nesting habitat in close proximity to suitable foraging habitat limits great blue herons. The
availability of alternative foraging sites could be critical to nesting success.
Great blue herons are generally sensitive to human disturbance and are frequently the target of vandalism (Parker
1980, English 1978). The type and extent of human disturbance can affect great blue heron colony site selection
(Gibbs et al. 1987, Watts and Bradshaw 1994). In Virginia, great blue herons chose colony sites further from roads
and human structures than would be expected by chance; a pattern that was apparent up to 400-800 m (1312-2625
ft) from colonies (Watts and Bradshaw 1994). Great blue heron colonies have been abandoned in response to
housing and industrial development, highway construction, logging, vehicle traffic, and repeated human intrusions
(Leonard 1985, Parker 1980, Kelsall and Simpson 1979, Werschkul et al. 1976). In King and Kitsap counties, Jensen
(unpublished data) found that great blue heron colony size decreased as distance to the nearest human disturbance
within 300 m (984 ft) decreased, and as the amount of human development within 300 m (984 ft) of the colony
increased. Nests occupied first in each of 3 King County colonies in 1991 were furthest from development and had
more than twice as many fledgling than nests closer to development (3.13 versus 1.51 young/nest) (Jensen
unpublished data).
Volume IV: Birds. 3-2 Washington Department offish and Wildlife
Other studies suggested that great blue herons may habituate to nonthreatening repeated activities (Webb and
Forbes 1982, Vos et al. 1985, Calambokidis et al. 1985, Shipe and Scott 1981). Thus, different great blue herons
may have different tolerance levels to disturbance depending on disturbance history and type (Simpson 1984).
Although the effects of visual and auditory buffers have not been well studied, topographic or vegetation
obstructions may ameliorate some types of disturbance (Webb and Forbes 1982).
MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
We suggest that the most effective way to conserve great blue herons in Washington is through comprehensive land -
use planning that considers the needs of all species. In the absence of comprehensive land -use plans, we recommend
the protection of existing great blue heron colonies using colony site -specific management plans. Colony site -
specific management plans are based on general recommendations from current research, knowledge of the colony,
surrounding land uses, and landowner goals. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife can assist in
development of these management plans. All plans designed to conserve great blue heron colonies should consider
the following factors, among others:
The colony's size, location, relative isolation, and the degree of habituation to disturbance (Henny and Kurtz 1978,
Bowman and Siderius 1984). Colonies located in close proximity to existing human activities may tolerate more
disturbance than colonies located in undisturbed areas (Simpson 1984, Webb and Forbes 1982, Bowman and
Siderius 1984). While it is currently unclear how colony size affects reproductive success (Butler 1995), larger
colonies may be more stable and are probably indicative of more or better foraging habitat and higher productivity
(number of fledglings/nesting herons) than smaller colonies. Should priorities need to be set, larger colonies should
receive more protection than smaller colonies.
Great blue herons are less tolerant of disturbance during the pre -nesting and courtship periods, becoming
progressively less likely to temporarily leave or abandon nests after laying eggs (Kelsall 1989, Bowman and
Siderius 1984, Rodgers and Smith 1995). To protect colonies from human disturbance, most studies reviewed by
Butler (1992) recommended a minimum 300 in (984 ft) buffer zone from the periphery of colonies in which no
human activity occurs during the courtship and nesting season (15 February to 31 July). Many authors of these
studies, however, make recommendations in the absence of data showing the effects of human disturbance on
nesting great blue herons. Moreover, colonies in Washington have been established or continue to persist within 300
in (984 ft) of human disturbance. Following experimental work on the disturbance of nesting great blue herons in
Ontario, Canada, Vos et al. (1985) recommended that a 250 in (820 ft) buffer zone (their greatest flushing distance)
plus 50 in (164 ft) for a total of 300 in (984 ft) would be suitable to minimize disturbance to nesting great blue
herons. In a similar study on flushing distance in Florida, Rogers and Smith (1995) recommended a distance of 100
in (328 ft) to avoid disturbance to nesting great blue herons from motorboats and humans on foot.
In the absence of comprehensive land -use and/or colony site management plans, we recommend the establishment
of permanent, year-round minimum protection areas (buffers) of 250-300 in (820-984 ft) from the peripheries of
colonies (Bowman and Siderius 1984, Quebec 1986 in Kelsall 1989, Vos et al. 1985, Buckley and Buckley 1976,
Pullin 1988, Short and Cooper 1985, Parker 1980). All human activities likely to cause colony abandonment should
be restricted in this buffer year-round. All human activities likely to cause disturbance (flushing and other behaviors
that may reduce fitness) to nesting great blue herons should be restricted in this buffer area from the beginning of
courtship behavior through fledging (15 February to 31 July) unless site specific nesting chronology is known (J.
Kelsall, personal communication) in which case timing of restrictions should reflect this knowledge. In addition, we
concur with Butler's (1991) recommendation that activities such as logging or construction should not occur within
1,000 in (3,281 ft) of a colony and no aircraft should fly within a vertical distance of 650 in (2,133 ft) during the
nesting season unless those activities can be shown to have no effect on great blue heron fitness.
Since the proximity of nesting habitat to foraging habitat is important to great blue heron fitness (Butler 1995), the
loss or degradation of nesting habitat may be a problem if alternative great blue heron nesting habitat becomes
limited. We recommend that several alternative forested stands at least 4 ha (10 ac) in size with dominant trees at
least 17 in (56 ft) in height be left in the vicinity of existing great blue heron breeding colonies (Parker 1980, Jensen
Volume IV: Birds. 3-3 • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
1
and Boersma 1993). Large colonies (>50 nests) would likely require more alternative nesting habitat. J. Kelsall
(personal communication) suggested leaving large nesting trees in the center of an area having 300 in (984 ft) or
more of isolation during the breeding season.
Important foraging areas within a minimum radius of 4 km (2.5 mi) of colonies should be protected from
development (Hoover and Willis 1987). In addition; each foraging area, particulary those that are intensively used,
should have a surrounding buffer zone of at least 100 in (328 ft) (Short and Cooper 1985). Human activities that
reduce the value of foraging sites should be minimized in these buffer zones. Buffer zones may be critical for
foraging areas that are surrounded by intense human development (Short and Cooper 1985, Hoover and Wills 1987).
Organochlorine, organophosphate, and carbamate insecticides can be highly toxic to birds, mammals, and fish, and
their use should be avoided near great blue heron colonies and upland/wetland foraging habitat (McEwen et al.
1972, Grue et al. 1983, Grue et al. 1986, Smith 1987). Synthetic pyrethroids (e.g., permethrin) are low in their
toxicity to birds and mammals and may be used as alternatives. However, they are highly toxic to fish and should be
kept out of water systems (Grue et al. 1986, Smith and Stratton 1986). The use of any insecticide (Smith 1987) or
herbicide (Santillo et al. 1989) should be avoided in great blue heron nesting or foraging habitat unless it has been
shown to have no effect on great blue heron fitness. Appendix A provides useful contacts to help assess the use of
pesticides, herbicides, and their alternatives.
Buffer zones around great blue heron colonies (300 in [984 ft]) and foraging areas within 4 km (2.5 mi) of colonies
(100 m [328 ft]) should be free of pesticides (Brown 1978, Smith 1987). Suggested buffer widths for insecticide
spray application near foraging areas range from 31-500 in (102-1,640 ft) (Kingsbury 1975, Payne et al. 1988,
Terrell and Bytnar-Perfetti 1989), but in general buffer widths should increase as the toxicity of the treatment
compound increases. Determination of buffer widths should account for pesticide droplet size and volume and
meteorological conditions (Kingsbury 1975, Brown 1978, Payne et al. 1988).
Efforts to increase awareness of great blue heron nesting colonies should concentrate on inventories, information
exchange, and education. Used and abandoned colony sites should be inventoried regularly and mapped by local and
state agencies. Reproductive success should be monitored, particularly if it is likely to be affected by bald eagles
and/or human disturbance.
REFERENCES
Bayer, R. D., and E. McMahon. 1981. Colony sizes and hatching synchrony of great blue herons in coastal Oregon.
Murrelet 62:73-79.
Blus, L. J., C. J. Henny, and T. E. Kaiser. 1980. Pollution ecology of breeding great blue herons in the Columbia
Basin, Oregon and Washington. Murrelet 61:63-71.
Bowman, I., and J. Siderius. 1984. Management guidelines for the protection of heronries in Ontario. Ontario
Ministry of Natural Resources, Wildlife Branch, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Brown, A. W. A. 1978. Ecology of pesticides. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York, USA.
Bruce, A.M. 1986. Nesting of great blue herons in young managed forests of western Washington. Unpublished
Report, Weyerhaeuser Corporation, Federal Way, Washington, USA.
Buckley, P. A., and F. G. Buckley. 1976. Guidelines for the protection and management of colonially nesting
waterbirds. U.S. National Park Service, North Atlantic Regional Office, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Butler, R. W. 1991. A review of the biology and conservation of the great blue heron (Ardea herodias) in British
Columbia. Technical Report Number 154. Canadian Wildlife Service, Pacific and Yukon Region, British
Columbia, Canada.
1992. Great Blue Heron. No. 25 in A. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America.
American Ornithologists Union and Academy of Natural Science, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
1995. The patient predator: foraging and population ecology of the great blue heron (Ardea herodias) in
British Columbia. Occasional Paper Number 86. Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Calambokidis, J.' S. M. Speich, J. Peard, G. H. Steiger, J. C. Cubbage, D. M. Fry, and L. J. Lowenstine. 1985.
Biology of Puget Sound marine mammals and marine birds: population health and evidence of pollution
effects. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Technical Memo NOS. OMA 18.
Volume IV: Birds. 3-4 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Carlson, B.A. 1995. Nest site characteristics of great blue herons (Ardea herodias) in Northeast Ohio. Ohio Journal
of Science 95:312-315.
Collazo, J. A. 1981. Some aspects of the breeding ecology of the great blue heron at Heyburn State Park, Benewah
County, Idaho. Thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, USA.
English, S. M. 1978. Distribution and ecology of great blue heron colonies on the Willamette River, Oregon. Pages
235-244 in A. Sprunt IV, J. C. Ogden, and S. Winckler, editors. Wading birds. National Audubon Society
Research Report Number 7.
Gibbs, J. P. 1991. Spatial relationship between nesting colonies and forging areas of great blue herons. Auk
198:764-770.
S. Woodward, M. L. Hunter, and A. E. Hutchinson. 1987. Determinants of great blue heron colony
distribution in coastal Maine. Auk 104:38-47.
Grue, C. E., W. J. Fleming, D. G. Busby, and E. F. Hill. 1983. Assessing hazards of organophosphate pesticides to
wildlife. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 48:200-220.
L. R. DeWeese, P. Mineau, G. A. Swanson, J. R. Foster, P. M. Arnold, J. N. Huckins, P. J. Sheehan, W. K.
Marshall, and A. P. Ludden. 1986. Potential impacts of agricultural chemicals on waterfowl and other
wildlife inhabiting prairie wetlands: an evaluation of research needs and approaches. Transactions of the
North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 51:357-383.
Henry, C. J. and J. E. Kurtz. 1978. Great blue herons respond to nesting habitat loss. Wildlife Society Bulletin 6:35-
37.
Hoover, R. L., and D. L. Wills, editors. 1987. Managing forested lands for wildlife. Colorado Division of Wildlife,
Denver, Colorado, USA.
Jensen, K. E., and P. D. Boersma. 1993. Land development and human disturbance as factors in determining great
blue heron (Ardea herodias) colony size and location in the Puget Sound Region. Unpublished Report,
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
and P. Dee Boersma. Unpublished data. Land development and human disturbance influence great blue heron
(Ardea herodias) colony size and location. Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Washington,
Seattle, Washington, USA.
Julin, K. R. 1986. Decline of second growth Douglas -fir in relation to great blue heron nesting. Northwest Science
60:201-205.
Kelsall, J. P. 1989. The great blue herons of Point Roberts: history, biology, and management. Unpublished Report.
Point Roberts Heron Preservation Committee, Points Roberts, Washington, USA.
and K. Simpson. 1979. A three year study of the great blue heron in southwestern British Columbia.
Proceedings of the Colonial Waterbird Group 3:69-79.
Kingsbury, P. D. 1975. Effects of aerial forest spraying on aquatic fauna in M. L. Prebble, editor. Aerial control of
forest insects in Canada. Department of Environment, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Leonard, W. 1985. Inventory of great blue heron nest colonies in southern and western Puget Sound. Unpublished
Report. Washington Department of Wildlife, Olympia, Washington, USA.
Mark, D. M. 1976. An inventory of great blue heron (Ardea herodias) nesting colonies in British Columbia.
Northwest Science 50:32-41.
McEwen, L. C., C. E. Knittle, and M. L. Richmond. 1972. Wildlife effect from grasshopper insecticide sprayed on
short -grass range. Journal of Range Management 25:188-194.
Parker, J. 1980. Great blue herons (Ardea herodias) in northwestern Montana: nesting habitat use and the effects of
human disturbance. Thesis, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, USA.
Payne, N. J., B. V. Helson, K. M. S. Sundaram, and R. A. Fleming. 1988. Estimating buffer zone widths for
pesticide applications. Pesticide Science 24:147-161.
Pullin, B. P. 1988. Letter to Ms. Linda George, Point Roberts Heron Preservation Committee. On file with
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Nongame Program, Olympia, Washington, USA.
Rogers J. A. Jr., and H. T. Smith. 1995. Set -back distances to protect nesting bird colonies from human disturbance
in Florida. Conservation Biology 9:89-99.
Santillo, D. J., D. M. Leslie, Jr., and P. W. Brown. 1989. Response of small mammals and habitat to glyphosphate
application on clearcuts. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:164-172.
Shipe, S. J., and W. W. Scott. 1981. The great blue heron in King County, Washington. Unpublished Report.
Washington Department of Wildlife, Mill Creek, Washington, USA.
Short, H. L., and R. J. Cooper. 1985. Habitat suitability index models: great blue heron. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Biological Report 82(10.99).
Volume IV: Birds. 3-5 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Simpson, K. 1984. Factors affecting reproduction in great blue herons (Ardea herodias). Thesis, University of
British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
J. N. M. Smith, and J. P. Kelsall. 1987. Correlates and consequences of coloniality in great blue herons.
Canadian Journal of Zoology 65:572-577.
Smith, G. J. 1987. Pesticide use and toxicology in relation to wildlife: organophosphorous and carbamate
compounds. Research Publication Number 170. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., USA.
Smith, T. M., and G. W. Stratton. 1986. Effects of synthetic pyrethroid insecticides in nontarget organisms. Residue
Review 97:93 -120.
Terrell, C. R., and P. Bytnar-Perfetti. 1989. Water quality indicators guide: surface waters. SCS-TP-161. U.S. Soil
Conservation Service, Washington, D.C., USA.
Vos, K. K., R. A. Ryder, and W. D. Graul. 1985. Response of breeding great blue herons to human disturbance in
north central Colorado. Colonial Waterbirds 8:13-22.
Watts, B. D., and D. S. Bradshaw. 1994. The influence of human disturbance on the location of great blue heron
colonies in the Lower Chesapeake Bay. Colonial Waterbird 17:184-186.
Webb, R. S., and L. S. Forbes. 1982. Colony establishment in an urban site by great blue herons. Murrelet 63:91-92.
Werschkul, D. F., E. McMahon, and M. Leitschuh. 1976. Some effects of human activities on the great blue heron in
Oregon. Wilson Bulletin 88:660-662.
Werschkul, D., E. McMahon; M. Leitschuh, S. English, C. Skibinski, and G. Williamson. 1977. Observations on
the reproductive ecology of the great blue heron (Ardea herodias) in western Oregon. The Murrelet 58:7-
12.
PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS
John P. Kelsall, Wildlife Biologist
Retired
Delta, British Columbia
Volume IV: Birds. 3-6 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
KEY POINTS
Habitat Requirements
• Great blue herons are colonial breeders that nest in tall (>7 in [23 ft]) deciduous or evergreen trees near
fresh and saltwater wetlands.
■ Great blue herons typically nest at heights ranging from 9 -26 in (29-85 ft).
■ Great blue herons feed on aquatic and marine animals found in shallow water, and sometimes on mice and
voles from upland habitats. They usually forage within 2-5 km (1-3 mi) of their breeding colony site.
• Alternative nesting and feeding habitat is probably critical to great blue heron reproductive success.
• Great blue herons that have experienced few disturbances may not tolerate human activities near their
colonies. However, great blue herons that have been frequently or consistently exposed to disturbance may
be more tolerant of human disturbances.
Management Recommendations
Wherever possible, a habitat protection buffer at least 300 in (984 ft) wide should be established around the
periphery of a colony. All human activities likely to cause colony abandonment should be restricted in this
buffer year-round, and all human activities likely to cause disturbance to nesting great blue herons should
be restricted in this buffer area from 15 February to 31 July.
Site specific management plans should be developed for each great blue heron colony whenever activities
that might affect that colony are proposed. Such plans should consider the following:
➢ The colony's size, location, relative isolation, and degree of habituation to disturbance;
➢ Topographic or vegetative features surrounding the colony that might ameliorate the effect of human
disturbance;
➢ The availability of foraging areas and their proximity to the colony site;
➢ Proximity of forest lands that could be used as alternative colony sites;
➢ Land -use patterns and potential for long-term availability of nesting and foraging habitat.
• Stands of large trees at least 17 in (56 ft) high and at least 4 ha (10 ac) in size that can be buffered from
disturbance should be left in the vicinity of great blue heron breeding colonies as alternative nesting habitat.
• Foraging areas, especially wetlands, within a minimum radius of 4 km (2.5 mi) of colonies should be
protected from development and should have a surrounding disturbance free buffer zone of at least 100 in
(328 ft).
■ Attempts should be made to keep all pesticides out of great blue heron foraging and nesting habitat, and
associated buffer zones. Refer to Appendix A for contacts useful when assessing pesticides, herbicides, and
their alternatives.
• Activities such as logging or construction should not occur within 1,000 in (3,281 ft) of a colony, and no
aircraft should fly within a vertical distance of 650 in (2,133 ft) during the nesting season.
■ Alternative forested stands at least 4 ha (10 ac) in size with dominant trees at least 17 in (56 ft) in height
should be left in the vicinity of existing great blue heron breeding colonies.
Volume IV: Birds. 3-7 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
307 sr
GRAPHIC SCALE
MANOR PLAT
SOUNDVIEW200
N 21 N RNG 3 E, Sa 26 Sa t00 077,
� "r-f:
PORTION OF THE SW 1/4 OF SEC. 11, TW sr
A 310 H sT PARK
WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Q `�
( IN FEET) a `a 311 i_' p uV", aI a16
50 ft. moo. �'a SW
a
1 inch 3 S
oo,. SW v
�� ✓� `~ 1PALFSADfiS N 312TH�PL,
PARK .: 313TH PLnj
o Q / / / / / 3 SW 314TIi PL 5�, 3�Apy 0,
(1-''//i / /MTh !Y 15 q a z
HELD FOR CENTER OF SECTION POSITION Q / / / - / / S� Q�- t a a d�
V i // / // ? `",d` I 315TN Oy ��Sry ci'
FOUND ENCASED 3"X3" CONCRETE - I / / / // d p.-
MONUMENT WITH 1/2" BRASS NAIL /! / // L
-I - / 31 �N. 15 SW 317Th! IL LN 3 6c' pa
WITH LARGE PUNCH - 0.8' DOWN-\ / / \I CO � // / /eA ti o 4
SANITARY MANHOLE SW
�-/ / j� a �d� N� x YIy� a n �'
18 FIR
j III CL•�o-.}�
RIM=131.12 / / '' // // / s. I
I.E.8"PVC=122.42 SW / / E�G� '� 130 // R
_ SE / N / //.-' / / / ��� � $W 3�.8,�HT }� ' x
I.E.8"PVC-122.22 / E /i/ MARKER / dJ I-,
- - - LADDER NORTH : ��R�-'' �� 3.29%�/ - - POST f % /- - - - C'j .f�`n
} s S - >8319 vv
EDGE OF ` \� / / / ]9�H LN 4 pt < SW
CONCRETE / �/ / Sol °16'53"W +t,/ / / / a7ao � w 320TH PLI �14200 3•
�i / / / ✓ / 51.87 µ H 215T s < x C
/ /— I.E. 12» c� 3. sw 3215T J �"
POINT ROADS ',///-ter-y — �: --- �� t-
/ / SW DASH POI �/ 1� /%f —1—� / o
/ -C/L ALIGNMENT PER PLAT STORM STf y
OF DUMAS PALISADES (SR 509) I / /�Q ) P�'P / � J -4' HOG WIRE FENCE / / _ 129.02
/\��' / (MARINE VIEW DRIVE) 1 / / \0'/i / // SANITARY MANHOLE / VICINITY MAP
DUMAS PALISADES / / / (MA I '
VOL. 65, PG. 13 / "1 / / ,� / /// �f RIM --I /
SANITARY MANHOLE / / ,� // /// / ! . /� \ I I.E:8"PVC=122.14 S. / NOT TO SCALE
RIM=131.95 / / 1 / /// /i '- ;. �/ VC=122.04 NW
0 I.E.8"PVC=124.05 SW�19'NEMLOC �I 1 ONC.=121.64 NE/ /
/ / / LE.8"PVC=123.85 NESOUTH _ / / 2 8
JUND ENCASED 3"X3" CONCRETE FOUND EMPTY MONUMENT CASE / LADDER NORTH -I/ / / �' / / �"// / ' /� 1s"HE / TCH BASIN? g ''/ /
�� / /i '
ONUMENT WITH BRASS NAIL WITH PK NAILS AT 2'X2' OFFSETS / /�J / /I /. /Ii��V'i/// // 12"HEMLOCKI II IM=143.05 20' WATER EA`.
0.9' DOWN - SET HUB &TACK THAT WAS / DEVELOPED / / // /! /� ,4h�E L� t SITE ADDRESS OWNER
1TH NO MARK O / /o... > I.E.12"CMP=138.95 S. / PLAT OF TWIN
HELD FOR E/W ALIGNMENT OF ROAD -\ / / SINGLE-FAMILY / / / / / --// / o// - 5"FtR 15"HEMLOCK/
ELD POSITION FOR ROAD ALIGNMENT- - / / J / / - ///�i 2s"FIR . / . LE.12'°CMP-138.64 N. CHEN HSU CHING
- - - - - - - - - - - - _ RESIDENTIAL / / / / jG�/SOP /� /f i. _ 17'FIR . / DRAINAGE /
1/ SW DASH POINT ROAD
tih I / // /�I' / 441 MACKENA PLACE
/ / / / / - �� �' ! ooi �4"HELoc 20"FI 17"FIR / I EASEMENT PER / / FEDERAL WAY WA
` / I.E.12"CON C• / / / /i // P`�p/i r, / 2 �1 ,ao� / / 9, A4"FIR / i 1 PLAT OF TWIN / / PLACENTIA, CA 92870
r = - / LAKES N0. 6 - /
N88°22'19"W (N89°14'30' W) 320.51'(321.08') 1 _ / / / CULVERT-129.70-� / i 12 I 1
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — / / ✓/ �' F\ / i II /
--------------I--- `•
I.E.18"GONG. � ^ /\ / / /'' ✓,-'�`- /� / / � 31"HEMLOCK � WIDTH UNKOWN / 35' TEMPORARY TURN E PHONE: 253-307-
\i\�SNS6° / // CULVERT=126.90— / / \ / / / I %�'�.� :. / / / 4 FIR,�50 II II �1 I �/ / PER PLAT OF TWIN LAK
SW 313TH STREET 8 s / / '� ,9"PINE , *21"FIR/ / / / AUTOMATICALLY EXPIRE
6\ A 9. (BENCHMARK)— - - - \ /i F� 24„FIR / CB'Z7\ -� - -P - /� DEVELOPER
.$)�6Q IJ / / / �� // j !, �� / 'HEMLOCK / ,9y� / �_ _ / STREET IS EXTENDED AI PARCELS DE
t -------------------------+- �8\9" / /SHED / �' /\� �� /� �� T� (�66�°' // ��9,613S.F.SANITARY A kiOLE-�- �1sF II-- __ A PUBLIC AGENCY)
/ OVERHANG / / / / - �� \ /WESTBROOK INVESTMENTS, LLC
S6\ % / i - / // \/ '/ / Dec \2"PINE RIM=163.15 \� \ 112103-9060
)\ ! t�C R \� �� CB' \\ \
TBM-RAILROAD SPIKE / / / / / , / C/L CHANNE�-151.49 /0� CK %'ate 429 - 29TH STREET NE
/ / \ / ! *7"HEMLOCK 6T \ \ 112103-9119
IN POWER POLE- / / - / i / /// \ i / / (I.E. SE W & ) �° - a7 F R\ / PUYALLUP WA 98372
/ J ELEVATION=135.78 - _ / / / / - ��\ ADDER OUTH "HEMLOCK \ ��
I '
\ � \ PO`R �/ \ \ / / PHONE: 253-841-7000
SHED ; ^�/WO I.E.24' CMP /` // / �� -r „FIR EST PIT -\ - 5��0 -_ \ \, X
/ / / / / / 9 S.F.sP-23 // / - — I \ h \
OVERHANG ^ CULVERT= // \/ / // \ -
O \ <� / \ R \ �6"FIR \ TE5Y�N I ,'HEMLOCK125.36
—-\B'X
SANITARY MANHOLE /r O /co t5„FIR6"FIR 2 " E4At� �6��
F1R U\ VJ \
RIM=137,83 / // / k _- - / i / i 2 1 , 14"HEMLOCK
^� �cp'�/ /` tl / /FI \
I.E.8"PVC=126.39 N. / // /� �^/� j \ 0 36"FIR
LE.8"PVCa126.32 E. ( / / l�y/- / I. .�a�3i�$CONC. \ l 23^H MLOC \ �\ 15'HEMLOCKFZ/2� HEMLOCK O'FIR �% L VAULT I \ \ / \7\�,C, \.
TYPE II CATCH BASIN / /,/Q� / �� / / �� i / 7
o LADDER SW / CULVERT=129.04 _ p 1 \ " f S88`43'07"E 50.25' CB'W'
E RIM=145.95 i / ; '� ` - / -'I.E 2,,CONC. \ ~ 2, 15'�R — /24'F a� / -[' _ (50.41') I / \\s STATISTICAL BREAKDOWN OF PROJECT
/ LE.18 CONC.=141.52 W. I� \\ / \ i / / �ti ii
"=135.61 SE 4' CHAINLINK FENCES / / \\ 4 Hit! / 6 \ RECENTLY POURED
✓ CONC. ,-' / � \ / �� / / - / � i,:' / �F - tioa. / CULVERT=129.67, -` o � 18'FIR �n. ,/S �- � / e S � I L-_ „ C �
O �:; 6� ,. 27"FIR^ 'FIR - 0 / / � I \ T
W. I.E.2 / l �- / Ott j� / / o p / \� \ %' ` ✓/ 5• CONCRETE PATIO /
58 NW / LADDER SOUTH-� `,----_---�-------- -- / % / _ _------- > - - \ / / i / �'�ou A i 4"HEM 2p"FIR % 16"FIRI / /i Iy/�=37 57 56 \ \Dq / EXISTING ZONING: RS 9.6
/ / / / \ 15'PINE i ?.i6' R // I. I 13.4' 30 \ o
67 E. _ / __i - -+ - r�)c'=�� - // r y - % "6 / \\ _ ��T PIT TE- .! t' /// ,4' \/ /\ I / 37°58'48") \ - v SITE AREA: 400,312 SQ. FT. (9.19 ACRES)
6' WO _----- _ - -P / ,�-STOP BAR �/ / %.., '_ �� 06,0j/ / 15" INE 14"PINE / \ / / 2'HEMLOCK i =100.
j \ ,.r'r _ I // k� \ - 7 S.F.` _ S6��d �` ;�� WOOD SHED-W. BLDG. _ 29') \ �\ DWELLING UNITS PROPOSED:
\ TOTAL D I 28 UNITS
P INE 13 HEMLOC� 1 I I 1 & E BLD =
16"P K1 \ \ 2Z R $0 /� \ 2.7 OVERHANG 15 2' W / T 34 40' /\ FRONT YARD SETBACK 20 FEET
I _
/==----------- -� =�I _ — ��''//� - ` \ / Oo� of / / / / �� 14" INE 3 Pr `� CK` \\ \ \ j "H — \ J\ I I OF LINE
- J o — — _ — — — r _ , - �- - ,s°PINE\y — _ \\ \ // // SIDE YAARDSS BACK: 5 FEET
I TOE OF DITCH - - - - - 1 - -'- -- �,� 6. - _ -� ode »Fl/ I I OVERHANG-4.2' 3
— _ moo, ,�50-- 20"FI \'\ REAR Y
lV�F6��o�a / \ o� \ I W. OF LINE ( )
1 S » 1 GROSS FLOOR AREA: 112>000 SQ. FT. ASSUMES 4000 SQ. FT.
\-° /� 9,670 S.F. o FIR F e
6 , 22"PINE 4', y 6 LO / \ \ / / \ v I — — — — < /
_ - /_..'RKER R=7� 18"PINE / 5954 S.F OCCUPANCY TYPE: DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
d — — — - - N85°35 2>D E — �- I _ _ i 18�1 — —6 ° / 3"PI --- \� \/�5"HEMIO K\ / \ �`\\ 1 "' \ \
— _ — _- / \ 1^�j� POST L=173� �6 1 . I 1 \ / / CONSTRUCTION TYPE: DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
\ — — — — —� I / — — I� / I T_=87.3 s / �� �o2Ly 27"FIR \ 17"HEMI_6CK\ \\c\ \ / 2 \ I \
— — — ( — — — = �! — II _ / I 12 PINE \� / G — � 6"PINE \� 1� \ 14"HEML10 K / ss�1 $.F. \ \ \ II � \ \ / TOTAL EXISTING PARKING STALLS: 0
_ _ — — / / SANITARY MANHOLE S j \,� , j z7'FIR . \ t7„HE K \ \ \ I \ / TOTAL PROPOSED PARKING STALLS: 56 (OFF STREET)
BASINS //,'/ _ II RIM /�+r p ?I„q - \F\/ �/ �9 z f \ � \' � , II 32
RACI D �i �I / qq 715 F. 14"HEML / - CK \ \ / \ I \ /
-- - - - �- - /�; I % II /�=10°42'41 @SP-24 \/ \ �\ s ss1.��\ I \ 1 \
/�=05°26'01" RIM=135.49I - \
R=716.20' // 1�I.E.24""CONC.=129.44 W. �/ ! I/ II Ir R=766.20' / \ \ - / / < LO�R 13'HE LOCK' o �o\\ �\ 20"FIR \ \
\ /, LE.8' V 5.75 �43.26' / \ e LocK \
I L=67.92' / y�LE.30"'CMP=128.90 SE o / ,a' ocK q"H MLOC \\
A 3 /� II / LADDER NORTH \�- 14' i t , L 17"H LocK ��
/ I TYPE I9 CATCH BASIN J I.E.24'CMP=128.94 NE / - I I . EMLOC� \ _ - - - - J 1s" ML CK OCK Q'f ' q5 - EML SEE NOTE\ 1\\ \ \
LADDER NORTH ,sP-2/ / / \ _
u
/ I+� ,a y b° r / 17"HEMLO K I \ I°�
/ 1 RIM=144.93 I,E,30"GONG. I II /ry /� of / / ' 9 S66 MLOCK �� \ \ his"FIR W 3 3 \
o / j I.E.8"ADS=143.03 W. CULVERT=129.04 A-41 ��. II - 15' PROPOSED= -t7"HEMI\OCK ��
/ I.E.20"CONC.=135.22 NW A_5� I SANITARY SEW I / j 12"HEMLOCK \ ' /� o NHS / \� 15 \ d a o� wT07. TWIN LAKES N0. 6 \/
/ I.E.24"CONC.=131.50 E. 1 � I EASEMENT-SEE-�� TE 11 / \� \ EMLOCI - y e R r \ \ �F - \ - - -3- - \ 1 ,PGS. 32- 3
LADDER SOUTH I q \ 1 EMLoc ,�° / I 9,6913"HEMLoc \ \' 9 • a "FIR { 4ZM' """"` g Ba \ \ VOL 01 3 /
/ �6, /I I / n'n / 13"HEMLOCFZ' 18° E° / I I \ \�\ i K 7 / \ / \ /
SP-3
NO MANHOLE FOUND -?' I II I ( / 6 t4"HEMLocK -� j 7r��� q6144s.p \ (/ \\ ; ,4"FIR � /CS\/q HEMLOCK 14"f MLOCK r )i�/\I\ t/12"HEMLOCK "HEMLOCK 00° C/t2"HEM //� \I� \ s \ \ I I 2
UNDEVELOPED I ( / % / / \ -TOT-AL-BOUNDARY o ) r
I I / I / `�- \ \ I , 18"FI19,8,i3 S.F.
SINGLE-FAMILY ` oF� \ - -� 1"F z, / / / / 392 630 S�. FT 1t2'HEMLOCK DRONA I \) \
A-7, \ / \\ \ 13"HEMLO(�1C \ I 9.8' W. 1� \ /
RESIDENTIAL W 1 1 I o5 /'I f� o I _*1 NE o _ _ �. / \ \
/ / 9.01 ACRES \
EAST LIMIT OF I I o Z \ \ .. n �\ , •� \ " '' I
I � I I� -W. LINE�INd 1 /4, 13 FI / - _ 12'HE CK\ - - \ ` \ \ _ 1 / 6' CHAIN LINK FENCE
WETLAND-� \ w NE 1 4� \ 1 E / / s� 2THE - - \ - - \
o // / / / \� A \ +�SP\11 I 14'HEMLOCK I \ /
b'i" DEVELOPED \ /
/ o= __'7`- sat�2s /- // ' SIDEYARD \ \� \ > - I-- - \ SINGLE-FAMILY /
WETLAND A-s / I / II _� h� � 0d� l i/ / / 13 / / \ SET�AC�K\TYP) \\ \ /690 6„\R� I t / � RESIDE T4L
E. LINE, W. 630', 1 `V /I ( ^ / / / / 9 / / 9,764 S.F. \ \ \7"HEt�L C / �/ N �d W\ I I / \ /
N. 1 /2, NE 1 /4, SW 1 /4— -1 I II I I IFIR / / / / (/ \ / �� \ \ _ _ i / I AIR Jt7"HEMLOCK 124
A-9" 1 I I ` / / / N (I \ / / / / / \ \ \ / 17"HEMLOCK \I ` N I i 91,627 F s„ I / 2.1' E.
/ II 12"HEMLOCK / \ \ \/c�5 S 1 HEL CK I I
— — —---------600---------------- —\ —` / 1 � / \ L 1 / 15"HEMLOCF� �� o `�
/ oI / - I�P$1'OT / //5 \ — i V 14HEMLv L II 14 FI v` 6F20"FIRo I S.F. I { \ 28 / w 15"H -�-
A_10, sP II I / �� / / \ 3 \- -pis - / / a �� fi i 9- W. - - \_ OD RETAINING WALL
SP-5/ n$l$P-8 / /� \ M13 FF211 16 O
ANITANIANHOL I / �j \ I \ / /113"HE c
5 II / I IM=1471,44 (147.9t A IL)S) I \ \ \ \ / I 15"HE 99 \ / 1Z E 0CK \ I\\ I 112 II I/ i I 1
sP-� �� I
A-tt;' I.E.8"PV = 139.5(ASBUILTS) 1 \ \ \ 1 I - - - \ /�J� - I 7.9 W. J 4' HOG WIRE FENCE
/ II L7 I \ 12\ _ _- _ /�.. p \ sp82 I I I ,
/II / ' L / Ia » \ �P-10� 9�662 S\F. \ \ » 5------- — 'e \ \ \ 1 '' 24"FIR 24"Flhy 35
/ I.E.8"3(ASBUILTS) d
E. END, 6' WOOD / 4'FIR A-R T CAP �c
FENCE-2.0' NORTH --\; II ��. 0618j 14HE LOCK
`- / I
,1 �, � �E �A � y � \ � � I
TACK WITH WASHER ON A-12; / � Q \ \ / / / 12"FIR . NJ�S"FIR / tom' MLOCI J I
/ / 1 / ,3 jI °54'07IT 0.2ir -7t- i lI \ �\ \ \ I 1yP \ —\—r4" 9.4' I I
TOP OF 6' WOOD FENCE I S / /y/j2 REBAR WITH CAP I & TA / \ _� ` \ \ \ '\ �� 12"HEMLOCK . J --- r t�a\_ — /
POST "LUND LS 16213"- / 1 / ^,JN PS&E LS 12870/LS1pXXX' -N of _\_ \ I\ \ \ 17 LocK e , R�� T � �- — — — — — — —�
- 0.17' NORTH - \ A-13 / / / ./ /�lo �I / �8 �_f \ 9,791z�SiFM I �/ 71,111 S.F. is"FtR
/ i 87°17'39"E 1.72' f� I 1- - =
�j / �� 11 FIR // / \ _ \ 15"MAD \NA- —-12'HEMLgC
S. LINE, N. 1 /2, °\ \ I / I I
NE 1 /4, SW 1 /4 ---, WETLAND EDGE V I I M I \ \ \ \ 26"FIT
9,637 $ 16'MADRONA/ \� /
T /--
- — — — — — — WETLAND EDGE •� I / / / I z / \ \ f t i i\ / 13"HEMLOC / \ 16"FIR \ 1
1 WETLAND EDGE // 9 °25'46"W� \ \ /
i \ G o14''HEMLOCK I \ Tj� \ \ / y
2.91' I o 12"FIR P 1 9,603 S�F. \ , s 36
1 /ice \ // W /- - I I�\\ I \ \ \ \� L / I II / moo1�Ct �h �/\\\ ��IR 5' WOOD FENCE
DUMAS BAY NO. 2 , _ l -S
/ LAMP- I I " EML/ocK I \ fo / °° \ \ 4' CHAIN LINK FENCE \
VOL. 112, PGS. 63-64 / / ✓ — I ` 13"PIN I\ \ I18 I / / \ R �12"HEMLs \ \
1 / / GAZEBO I - I— 19a4 _ / �� I N�b1 \ I \ 5•�{• / 13"HEMLOCK
( _ I / �^ \ / 12"HEMLQCK \ \ \
9> ,9 OVERHANG —i / / 13"FIR I W \ I\ „MADR6NfC /
/ 1 0 � I I / 12 EMLO o � h \ \ V � ARC // �225
TRACT D \ /� / / / J 1 � /' T \ N A qC �
1"FIR ( I j r F' / I / I MI\8"FIR
/ L / /,1"\H/ E\ /\ 19II / ( -
20 \ 201HEMLO3HELOCK 9,767 S.F.�,8561 S.F. RS \\ \ I\ \ \
37
15' SANITARY 964 SFI no -1 Q#20FIR '
E �oc
SEWER EASEMENT 64 6' WOOD FENCEF.
— — — — — - - —12"FIR 0"FIR\PER PLAT i
DEVEL20"FIMOCKiOVERHAN\G12MR LE.4"FLEX PIPE=
4TH PLACE sNC/ - - /
\
\
\
\ \
206.56(GOES ENE) / \
c
0
aD
0
z
cat 0 �
Cq C9 r.
w
m
c" e1O
sn sn v
U
w m
N
•to
N w�
k cV
w �00
�rn
N Q
00
� o�
sn LL�
0
0
0
r
V
00
ch
Q LO
N
V
J
y
0Z w
Z o 49 �
Q Q a CO)
0J Z �
a W �C �•
a H 0
W � W � Q
Im
a.
Q a
W z
Z 3�
LL
Li
0
V♦ �
C
. c
c� 0
N c e
o
Designed: DA
Drawn: DA
Checked: CA
Scale: 1"=5'
Date: 6/15/C
Job No.: 05170
RESIDENTIAL 2 Fi s L (-
I \ --- , �/ / Z n -- iT5.Z9` �— 1aaTg--� — — Pd88�rT#6�N-65�i-- — TEST 7 —I -
--—— — — -- —— — — — ——— — — — — — — — — — \
Sheet No.:
REBAR &CAP /J�•� S. LINE, N. 132, \ I \ \ \ \ \ 1
- L `ASP-18 SE 1 �4, NE 1 /4, SW 1 /4 ` \ — *TEST PIT \ \ \ \ I ( 1
\ / I "LUND 16213" i / / 1 2�S\ \ \ \ -235�
/ 1 S87.07' 38"E 1. 50' / / J j I FEQERAL \WAY PYBLIC SC�OOL� \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \_ - / 1
�SP-14
\ 1 of 1 Sheets
\ / / TRACT Cs 1 \ \ I
>9
1