Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
04-102305
Sheldon & Associates, Inc. 5031 University Way NE Transmitted by e-mail • • Seattle, Washington 98105 Transmitted by facsimile DATE: August 9, 2004 TO: Deb Barker, Planner RE: Rabie Site Visit This brief memo documents that I met on the Rabie site last Thursday, August 5 with Mr. Rabie, Diane Ryba (wetland biologist), and David Thorstad (architect) where we determined that the site has the presence of wetlands, as defined and regulated by the City of Federal Way code. We traversed most of the site from west to east, starting mid -site near the west edge. There is a stream/wetland south of the driveway, there flows through the crushed concrete fill of the driveway(no culvert was obvious through the fill, though there is a 4 or 6 inch flex pipe within the 'stream channel' on the downstream side of the driveway fill). The flows below the drive continue north/northwest towards the bluff edge above the Sound. There are definite wetland soils, vegetation, and hydrology to the east of the small channel, north of the driveway. Diane and I agreed that hydric soils appeared to be present some distance east of the channel, but that she would return in the wet season to delineate the edge, as August was not the appropriate time to determine the extent. We did not conduct any field assessments south of the driveway fill zone. Crossing the site towards the east, we found more groundwater discharge zones in small pockets near the bluff edge. Diane and I agreed that, if, based on her field work in the wet season, these small pockets were small enough that the `buffer' would fall within the required steep slope setbacks of the adjacent bluff, that she did not have to completely delineate those edges, but should place one or two flags at the outer -most extent of the wetland to denote the furthest south extent. Further east across the site there is another large wetland complex that appears to be fed from water that enters through surface and sub -surface movement from the drainage present at the base of the southern hill -slope on the southern portion of the site. We agreed that this eastern wetland complex also needed to be delineated in the wet season; to assure accurate determination of the wetland edge. Although we did not speak to it, I would also expect the wetland associated with the break in slope of the south bluff face on the south portion of the property to be delineated. It is uncertain if this wetland has been filled or altered in the past, however it is important that the wetland at the base of the slope be accurately delineated, especially in relation to the western and eastern "lobes" of wetland on the site. I explained that if Mr. Rabie intended to proceed with any action on site that required a City permit, a wetland delineation and a wetland report with surveyed edge had to be included with any application to the City. In addition, if any project was proposed that would result in impacts to the wetland and/or buffers on site, then an appropriate compensatory mitigation plan would also be required to be submitted, per the requirements of the City code. I notified everyone that I would prepare this summary memo and send it to you, and you'd relay it on to them. Please call if you have questions. From the desk of... Dyanne Sheldon Principal Sheldon & Associates 5031 University Way NE Seattle, WA 98105 206/522-1214, ext. 14 Fax: 206/522-3507 Dyanne@bogstomper.com FILE CITY OF Federal Way July 20, 2004 Ms. Dyanne Sheldon Sheldon and Associates 5031 University Way NE, Suite 14 Seattle, WA 98105 RE: File #04-102305-000-00-AD; AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED Rabie Site Wetland Verification Dear Ms. Sheldon: CITY HALL 33530 1 st Way South • PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 661-4000 www.cityoffederalway.com The purpose of this letter is to authorize the services of. Sheldon and Associates for the verification of regulated wetland(s) and/or stream(s) on the Lee Rabie site. On June 9, 2004, the City. requested an estimate from Sheldon and Associates to review background data provided by the client, and.conduct a site reconnaissance to verify if any wetlands or streams that meet City definitions exist on the subject site. Your Scope of Work dated June 29, 2004, indicated that a budget of $1,830.00 would be appropriate for this task. At this tilde, funds in the amount of $1,830.00 have been received. Please consider this letter as an authorization to proceed with.the document review and site visit as detailed in the scope of work. Please let me know what dates you are available to conduct the site visit and I will schedule the visit with the client and his wetland consultant Diane Ryba. I can be reached at 253-661-4103 or deb.barker@cityoffederalway.com. Also, please sign and return to my attention the enclosed City of Federal Way Wetland Consultant Authorization Form. Thank you for your time and energy on this project. Sincerely, Deb Barker Associate Planner enc: City of Federal Way Task Authorization c: Tamara Fix, Administrative Assistant 04-102305 Doc. I.D. 28217 CIT Federal Way WETLANDS CONSULTANT AUTHORIZATION FORM Date: June 9, 2004 City: City of Federal Way PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 Consultant: Dyanne Sheldon Sheldon and Associates 5031 University Way NE Seattle, WA 98105 Project: RABIE SITE WETLAND VERIFICATION City File #s - 04-102305-00-AD Consultant File # Project Proponent: Lee Rabie Project Planner: Deb Barker, Associate Planner, 253-661-4103 Background Documents': 1) June 23, 1993 Wetland Reconnaissance Memo for the Rabie property prepared by Susan Meyer, W&H Pacific 2) Shannon Wilson Preliminary Wetland Delineation at Block 21 of the Buenna Addition dated September 1993 (Rabie site) 3) June 18, 1994 Supplementary wetland analysis of wetland resources prepared by Shannon and Wilson 4) February 27, 1996 Wetland issues letter from Diane Ryba to Lee Rabie. 5) May 15, 1996 decision from Federal Way Community Development Director regarding wetland determination (Note: no appeal was filed). 6) March 5, 1997 letter from Diane Ryba to Federal Way Community Development Director regarding city's position on wetland determination. These documents were provided by the applicants' Architect Dave Thorstad on May 4, 2004. Other documents from the applicant's attorney are not forwarded with this request for wetland determination. Doc. I.D. 27701 7) March 31, 1997 letter from Federal Way Community Development Director to Diane Ryba 8) April 5, 1997 letter from Diane Ryba to Lee Rabie 9) May 4, 1004 letter from Dave Thorstad to Federal Way Community Development Director regarding wetland issues. 10) Color still photographs from video of site wetland visit provided by Lee Rabie at May 20, 2004 meeting with City. 11) Wetland page from wetland inventory dated 1999 12) 1999 Wetland inventory pages 062104-323 and 062104-324 Task Scope: Review wetland report and background information/documents on the wetlands. At mutually agreed date and time, meet applicant/property owner Lee Rabie and his consultant Diane Ryba at Block 21, Plat of Buenna. Perform all tasks necessary to conduct site reconnaissance to verify if any wetlands or streams that meet the current FWCC definition of regulated wetland or major or minor stream exist on the site. Identify the wetland category, if applicable. Prepare and submit a brief written report of your findings to the City. Delineation is not included in this scope of work. (NOTE: Property owner may videotape the site visit). Consultants - Cost Estimate: $1,830.00. Task Schedule: Site visit to occur within two weeks of receipt of reimbursement payment from Applicant. Task Cost: Not to exceed $1,830.00 without prior written amendment to this Task Authorization. (The total task is to be filled in by planner after consultant returns this form with all items filled out including total work estimate and said estimate. has been approved by the Planner -and the Applicant). Acceptance - City of Federal Way (Planner) Date Sheldon and Associates (Consultant) Date Lee Rabie (Applicant) Date Doc. I.D. 27701 FROM :David L.Thorstad Architect,—) FAX NO. : �11 - N - - - -. - I I I A I I.. L �, Ll V k) tj -L -F I L, i 11. k h A V 49. 02 2004 03:24PM P2 Z' 0 0 11) CITY OF Federal Way WEATLANDS CON'Stil..TANI'ALJ'.'['IiORIZAI'ION FORM ))Fite-. j tl"j� 2 Oo�' City: City of I . 'C.- --krul Way ?(-.) Box 9,71 �mlenl Wily, WA, 9806-9 718 31 I'A" '5eatilc' wA 98I c: Project. ll. IL -stry. wrj'LAND VERIFICATION Pity 11,11e P's Colssultalli Vile A Project Proponent: Lee RLibv! Pr(ijj:ct Planner- E)eb -,ksFoci ate Plan;,Ler, 2).*,;-661 -410 I) -4u. 23, 093 NVell ju( vftnto '.LYj- the ab-tc pt-();V;Z- Y p�-cpx.-cd by SLisan Nlc-yei� W&H Pacific 21 $Fnruix: Wilson 11mirm-n-'sy Wethlnc 2 Buena;- Addition d--xd.S-) Owtv. 1953 (Rabias-,A-2) June IS, *.-9t)4 Suppl-,m,-�.nzwy ,-vey'k-Ind analysis ofweaand re'solsrcns prepared by $han-non umd Wilson 4) r.)i;'1nCRyba to Lec 15, PX'6 (!C(;*1's.i01- Eom fcdrml Way Cunim:L)�i::y i)evtlopanent Direcf.or wetland NoTv: ne -;ippcal wa, filcd). 5, 19V12 Imor frmi D-,ar;., R'yba *ofede.m! Way C'Ornmr unity �egard-,'ng c."y*s positioTi on weibxld Bete-mil"m ion. 11,csc ducwmia.s wc-,LojAw,%;!ded 6y!tie Dave Thorsiz-A en NU.y4, 2004. Orhac 8ocuTacmis 'tom the aprli:.-ant's arcomey are Do': t--3m-ia%1QCA with ':At�o rs-;Ues; for wet],-1T%d dow-Tt"';Intion Doc LD. 27101 FROM :David L.Thorstad Rrchitec+-"� FRY, NO. ' 'i.tg. 02 2004 03:24PM P3 11 .�. —'r L.11.; F'r.l�tatll.Y!', t a1)o") 7) Ivlarc:l 'S1,1199? leuvr fronj Fcdcra' 'rirav (,'amr-nonity Dc.velopmew Li)rc•;t-i Io Diime- Ryba 9) Ap-1i .`; 1997 letter from Di inc Ryba to Lee R abie 3) 1'rfay 4. 1G04 ?ett.L from Dave'fho:.xtl=d so redrral 'V`'air Coi-trrunity" Oc elopmcat Piraeter regatduig wetland issue. lli� i "Olor sr.J1 pl+otog'apiu• from vld'o of Bite wecjarld vistL provided by :.•r:: Rabiz- 3t ARFy 20, 2004 mercirg WLtb (.'ity.. 1 i; Welland page from wetland imr 11n1y Liatcd 1.9:)S 12) 1999 '.VgURJ d ;r.1vcr'.[uty 17agcs 06:2?04-323 ar,? 0(12104-324 Task Sc'apt- we layid rcpctt and background in-o-matlorJdoourncrts on the woz;k %ds. A. rrlr.Wally ae,72ed daEc trod tirrle, L applioam1property sti�vr,L1 er Ttable mj 11LE consultant PyW ; ; i31txt 21, Fla( of 13.It :"11 1, Perform a:t tasks (0 !; )i',&K t itL' rcconfLU,. �iincc to -.-biv :iany WCilnrd, or S17r'arrn• that ;n:;r;,: t'_le cuff,,it FWCC. dcfinition n" rv-'� )IaEe.l -wcdarld o.. major or i:ninor L'UUr.2 cxv1 t+oIl the mc, Identify Lhe wc_;anrl catcoar_v. ifapp'icablc. x n rrart and 5ubmtt w. brief ►rwntion repott 011 veL:r findings to the City. Vv,-f eaiiclt i; nclt; inolL'$C:d ill t.tis scup,- O! v:.,r1C, (No' ll"L; Properry c%-i-er :niav vidc•vulpe *.11c site .•i�zit). C.:irns�ltunttt Zosi Estimace, S1,;30 00 :f a>�:.Sl:'1teLirllr: S_:e visit :o a,c-ur wi.-hin t-W3 0 reccLp' Of rei-,.n'a wrser cpa payn;i lTi- Task .f):f"t c;!' wn,: tm amendI±7em to dA6 Task. i,Pie IOU zash is-i:, ;oQ fi7---d iII b; :lannet af,w:Xnisu''titl't' -S th!; A ,IT:1 W'LI) all it`S;IS ('...-d <)UT 1IiC11tI(-2'ly tOiEti WUl"�C C i).19i1IC .. s):cf.sa. i? �tiilna.t" has bc•,�n approved by the :{ lacrier and the Applic 16t.) ("IY9 c: a f caurai W;?y �l'larser+ Shtldot_ arxt A-. sc-r,iares (C'orsuI_.tnt) Lee RahiC�rf 1)r'11:':l�ri Doc L.D. 77)01 l_ w—e DEC, -- + �CITY OF FederalWay July 6, 2004 CITY HALL 33530 1 st Way South • PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 661-4000 www.cityoffederalway.com Mr. David Thorstad _ 406 South 289 h Street Federal Way, WA 98003 - - RE: File #04-102305-000-00-AD; Lee Rabie Site - King County Tax Parcel #119600-2100 Wetland Consultant Proposed Estimate for Wetland Verification, Dear Mr. Thorstad: Sheldon and Associates has provided the attached cost estimate for wetland verification at the above referenced site. The estimate was prepared based on discussion resulting from the May 20, 2004 meeting with Mr. Rabie and City staff. The normal course of action is for the city to set up an account to be funded by the applicant and drawn , down by the work performed by Sheldon and Associates. If the money is not used for the wetland verification, it will be returned to the applicant. At this point, please review the proposed Sheldon and Associates cost estimate. If you agree with the cost estimate, a check in the amount of $1,830.00, payable to the City of Federal Way must be submitted before the site inspection will be scheduled. 1 c n lea n2ach--d at `7553\ -66!-411012 :f you have am., -Ue. -lons about +hiS pri..".ess. Sincerely, Deb Barker Associate Planner NOTE: BUENNA BLOCK 21 ESTATE IS GATED AND THE TIME AND DATE FOR Dyanne Sheldon needs -to -be- coordinated. Doc. I.D. 28007 iiSheldon & );� Associates, Inc. Q a 5031 University Way NE #204 • Seattle, WA 98105-4341 Wrx Ph 206-522-1214 • Fax 206-522-3507 UJ WL cc Rabie Site Wetland Verification Im Scope of Work Prepared for the City of Federal Way 0 Prepared on June 29, 2004 The following scope of work and cost estimate was developed by Sheldon & Associates, Inc. (S&A) for conducting a third -party review for the City of Federal Way of the wetland determination on the Rabie site. This scope of work includes: reviewing existing documents from years; meeting onsite with the applicant and their representative; determining the presence/absence of regulated wetlands and/or streams on the site; preparing a letter of findings; and project management. As specified by the City request, this scope does not anticipate the delineation of the wetlands on site. This is a not -to -exceed cost estimate and the client will be billed as hours and expenses are accrued. This cost estimate will not be exceeded without the prior permission of the City. Task 1 - Review Documents Dyanne Sheldon of S&A will review all 12 reports, maps, and letters, provided by the City, relevant to this project. The listing of the documents is attached to this scope, as Attachment 1, it is a copy from the Consultant Authorization form provided by the City. Task 2 - Conduct Site Visit Staff of S&A will conduct a site visit with the applicant, the applicant's representative, and City staff to the lot in question. The purpose of the site visit is to document field conditions and make a determination of the presence/absence of wetlands and/or streams as defined and regulated by the City code. No wetland delineation will be conducted on the site. Task 3 - Prepare Letter of Findings Dyanne Sheldon of S&A will prepare a letter summarizing the findings of the field visit and the implications of the City code. If wetland or stream are present, they will be rated per the provisions of the Code, and dimensions of buffers, if applicable, will be identified. Task 4 - Project Management This includes general project management, correspondence with City staff, the development of the project approach, and coordination with the applicant and/or their representatives. Assumptions: This scope assumes that there will be one site visit, no wetland delineation, and the letter of findings will be sent directly to the City staff. No additional meetings are assumed with the applicant or their representatives, a reasonable number of phone calls/emails with them are assumed to total 2 hours. It is not assumed that comments/responses from the applicant and/or their representatives will result in revisions to the letter of findings for this scope. LEE RABIE 3U 20083 9615 W MARGINAL WAY S 206-762-1422 SEATTLE, WA 98108 .. 19-10/1250 3303 DATE July 16, 04 PAY City of Federal Way ------------_------_.------------------------------.- TO THE s$1 .830. 00--- ORDER OF s DOLLARS e'. M%rl k. uebank.com f1.e 4erSenV. ra.unrnr ji t�anc' >�rt___by�P._1ion &Ass,- far-Suerina -F3� 1 "° FOR not to wed �'P .. _ — -I r— r, e-, ,— r. 4 1 r-1 r n n 1 n r -1 17 1 ..a CITY OF Federal Way Date: copy WETLANDS CONSULTANT AUTHORIZATION FORM June 9, 2004 City: City of Federal Way PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 Consultant: Dyanne Sheldon Sheldon and Associates 5031 University Way NE Seattle, WA 98105 Project: RABIE SITE WETLAND VERIFICATION City File #s 04-102305-00-AD Consultant File # Project Proponent: Lee Rabie tn Project Planner: Deb Barker, Associate Planner, 253-661-4103 W Background Documents': 1) June 23, 1993 Wetland Reconnaissance Memo for the Rabie property prepared by Susan Meyer, W&H Pacific 2) Shannon Wilson Preliminary Wetland Delineation at Block 21of the Buenna Addition dated September 1993 (Rabie site) 3) June 18, 1994 Supplementary wetland analysis of wetland resources prepared by Shannon and Wilson 4) February 27, 1996 Wetland issues letter from Diane Ryba to Lee Rabie. 5) May 15, 1996 decision from Federal Way Community Development Director regarding wetland determination (Note: no appeal was filed). 6) March 5, 1997 letter from Diane Ryba to Federal Way Community Development Director regarding city's position on wetland determination. These documents were provided by the applicants' Architect Dave Thorstad on May 4, 2004. Other documents from the applicant's attorney are not forwarded with this request for wetland determination. Doc. I.D. 27701 h 7) March 31, 1997 letter from Federal Way Community Development Director to Diane Ryba 8) April 5, 1997 letter from Diane Ryba to Lee Rabie 9) May 4, 1004 letter from Dave Thorstad to Federal Way Community Development Director regarding wetland issues. 10) Color still photographs from video of site wetland visit provided by Lee Rabie at May 20, 2004 meeting with City. 11) Wetland page from wetland inventory dated 1999 12) 1999 Wetland inventory pages 062104-323 and 052104-324 Task Scope: Review wetland report and background information/documents on the wetlands. At mutually agreed date and time, meet applicant/property owner Lee Rabie and his consultant Diane Ryba at Block 21, Plat of Buenna. Perform all tasks necessary to conduct site reconnaissance to verify if any wetlands or streams that meet the current FWCC definition of regulated wetland or major or minor stream exist on the site. Identify the wetland category, if applicable. Prepare and submit a brief written report of your findings to the City. Delineation is not included in this scope of work. (NOTE: Property owner may videotape the site visit). Consultants Cost Estimate: $ Task Schedule: Site visit to occur within two weeks of receipt of reimbursement payment from Applicant. Task Cost: Not to exceed $ without prior written amendment to this Task Authorization. (The total task is to be filled in by planner after consultant returns this form with all items filled out including total work estimate and said estimate has been approved by the Planner and the Applicant). Acceptance: City of Federal Way (Planner) Sheldon and Associates (Consultant) Lee Rabie (Applicant) Date Date Date Doc. I.U. 27701 FIL E CITY OF Federal July 6, 2004 Mr. David Thorstad 406 South 289"' Street Federal Way, WA 98003 CITY HALL 33530 1 st Way South • PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253)661-4000 www.cityoffederalway.com RE: File #04-102305-000-00-AD; Lee Rabie Site - King County Tax Parcel #119600-2100 Wetland Consultant Proposed Estimate for Wetland Verification, Dear Mr. Thorstad: Sheldon and Associates has provided the attached cost estimate for wetland verification at the above referenced site. The estimate was prepared based on discussion resulting from the May 20, 2004 meeting with Mr. Rabie and City staff. The normal course of action is for the city to set up an account to be funded by the applicant and drawn down by the work performed by Sheldon and Associates. If the money is not used for the wetland verification, it will be returned to the applicant. At this point, please review the proposed Sheldon and Associates cost estimate. If you agree with the cost estimate, a check in the amount of $1,830.00, payable to the City of Federal Way must be submitted before the site inspection will be scheduled. I can be reached at (253) 661-4103 if you have any questions about this process. Sincerely, X'4 &AJU-A�� Deb Barker Associate Planner Doc. I.D. 28007 " Sheldon & Associates, Inc. 5031 University Way NE #204 • Seattle, WA 98105-4341 Ph 206-522-1214 - Fax 206-522-3507 Rabie Site Wetland Verification Scope of Work Prepared for the City of Federal Way Prepared on June 29, 2004 The following scope of work and cost estimate was developed by Sheldon & Associates, Inc. (S&A) for conducting a third -party review for the City-of=Federal Way of the wetland determination on the Rabie site. This scope of work includes: reviewing existing documents from years; meeting onsite with the applicant and their representative; determining the presence/absence of regulated wetlands and/or streams on the site; preparing a letter of findings; and project management. As specified by the City request, this scope does not anticipate the delineation of the wetlands on site. This is a not -to -exceed cost estimate and the client will be billed as hours and expenses are accrued. This cost estimate will not be exceeded without the prior permission of the City. Task 1 — Review Documents Dyanne Sheldon of S&A will review all 12 reports, maps, and letters, provided by the City, relevant to this project. The listing of the documents is attached to this scope, as Attachment 1, it is a copy from the Consultant Authorization form provided by the City. Task 2 — Conduct Site Visit Staff of S&A will conduct a site visit with the applicant, the applicant's representative, and City staff to the lot in question. The purpose of the site visit is to document field conditions and make a determination of the presence/absence of wetlands and/or streams as defined and regulated by the City code. No wetland delineation will be conducted on the site. Task 3 — Prepare Letter of Findings Dyanne Sheldon of S&A will prepare a letter summarizing the findings of the field visit and the implications of the City code. If wetland or stream are present, they will be rated per the provisions of the Code, and dimensions of buffers, if applicable, will be identified. Task 4 — Project Management This includes general project management, correspondence with City staff, the development of the project approach, and coordination with the applicant and/or their representatives. Assumptions: This scope assumes that there will be one site visit, no wetland delineation, and the letter of findings will be sent directly to the City staff. No additional meetings are assumed with the applicant or their representatives, a reasonable number of phone calls/emails with them are assumed to total 2 hours. It is not assumed that comments/responses from the applicant and/or their representatives will result in revisions to the letter of findings for this scope. Scope of Work — Federal Way/Rabie Verification Page 1 of 2 Sheldon & Associates, Inc. 5031 University Way NE #204 o Seattle, WA 98105-4341 Ph 206-522-1214 e Fax 206-522-3507 Cost Estimate for Review of Rabie Site Conditions and Letter of Findings TASK DS SB Expense Sub -Totals 1: Review Documents 2: Conduct Site Visit 3: Prepare Letter of Findings 4: Project Management 2 $210 4 4 $20 $780 4 $420 4 $420 Total Hours Rates Per Hour 14 $105 4 $85 TOTAL $1470 $340 $20.00 $1830 DS - Dyanne Sheldon, Principal SB - Suzanne Bagshaw, Wetland Ecologist Expenses May Include: Mileage, Photocopies, Fax, Film, and Postage. Scope of Work — Federal Way/Rabie Verification Page 2 of 2 MEMO To: File From: Deb Barker /C/ 9 Date: June 16, 2004 RE: Conversation with Diane Ryba Diane Ryba and I conversed briefly this afternoon. My initial question to her was whether or not she had prepared an additional wetland report for the site. Dave Thorstads packet only contained the Shannon Wilson report. I wanted to provide accurate information to Sheldon and Associates, so was seeking Ms. Rybas knowledge/report. Diane indicated that she would have to check her records to review what she had prepared. I said that the request had already been forwarded to Sheldon. I asked her thoughts about the current wetland status at the site. She said that in the existing channels that run to the beach, there is wet vegetation in the channel itself, but because the ground is so choppy (fissures), the water is diverted. Deb asked if the water was coming in from underground substrata and Diane thought that might be the case. She said that is was weird, that it is dominated by horsetail (mixed with sword fern), and that the first time she was there the site was mud and now there is no bare dirt with the horsetail and fern coverage. She is waiting for direction from Lee, and does not express qualms about providing a current code based delineation. She would "be honored" to work with Dianne Sheldon and would be willing to do a co - delineation. We will be back in touch. Doc. I.D. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM Date: June 15, 2004 To: Deb Barker, Associate Planner From: Tamara Fix, Admin Asst Subject: Voice Mail Transcription Following are the contents of a voice mail you forwarded to me on June 14, 2004, at 4:58 p.m. According to your records, the voice mail came in to your extension, 4103, on June 10, 2004, at 4:57 p.m. "Hi Deb, This is Diane Ryba. It's Thursday the 10'`. Returning your phone call from, I believe, it was last Thursday actually, about Lee Rabie's property. We are not using the Shannon and Wilson delineation report, per say, other than as maybe kind of an example of how the site is changing. I know there were a series of reports written, and just off the top of my head, I don't know which one says which. But I'll kind of summarize those and put a package together so that whoever ends up reviewing this can have everything easily at hand. And then, after our meeting, I actually went with Lee out to the site and it's a completely different site from when I was there, I think, eight years ago. Just, the vegetation has changed; the topography has changed. I think even the report that I wrote for him doesn't have a whole lot of weight to it. Probably what we're going to do, and I'll have to check with Lee before we go anywhere with it, is just kind of start over from scratch - current regulations, current delineation report - and see what's out there. And then, I guess, go from there. But if you have any questions, give me a call, 253-318-1811, and I'll talk to you later. Have a good weekend. Bye-bye." N.E. �04 wue. WA 98009-9304 MEMORANDUM TO: Deb Barker, Associate Planner, City of Federal Way FROM: Susan Meyer, Wetland Specialist, W&H Pacific DATE: June 22, 1993 RE: Wetland Reconnaissance for the Rabie Property Job No: 3-420-0206-1.39 The purpose of this memo is to report the results of field investigations of the Rabie property. The field reconnaissance was performed on Monday, June 21, 1993 to identify any wetlands and/or streams on the subject site. The property is located at the end of pavement of 10th' Avenue SW on a bluff overlooking Puget Sound. The area investigated was limited to the central portion of the site which has gentle topography, but is surrounded by steep slopes or cliffs (Figure 1). Groundwater seepage, which is sustaining wetland conditions in the area was observed at the toe of the uppermost slope. The wetland is located in the southeast section of the property and forms the headwaters of a stream that flows to the northeast. The main portion of the wetland is dominated by skunk cabbage, creeping buttercup, Scouler's willow, red alder, salmonberry, and giant horsetail. Ponded water was observed, and soils exhibited hydric characteristics. In the east -central portion of the property where the stream exits the site, the wetland becomes narrower and is dominated by salmonberry, vine maple, skunk cabbage, and red alder. Himalayan blackberry is scattered throughout the wetland and upland areas. The stream would be considered a minor stream because it does not support a migratory fish population, nor is it tributary to a stream that supports a migratory fish population. Just outside of the northeast corner of the property, groundwater was observed seeping out of exposed bedrock from the cliff that drops to the beach of Poverty Bay (Figure 1). This is the only part of the lower cliff that was investigated. RabieRec. mem (206) 327-0220 Fax (206) 522-5341 Mannino- Engineering -Surveying- Landscape Desi-n - Environmznta�.`Services s.3 W-5148-03 Preliminary Wetland Delineation at Block 21 of the Buehha Addition Federal'Way, King County, Washington I September 1993 ENERCO Attn: Mr. Lee Rabie 9615 West Marginal Way Seattle, Washington 98108 SHANNON 6WILSON9 INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 400 N. 34th St. - Suite 100 P.O. Box 300303 Seattle, Washington 98103 206-632.8020 IV '� 6WILSON INC. FAIRBANKS � � SHAfVN�N ISEATTLE InNFORD owl GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS ANCHORAGE C SAINT LOUIS BOSTON tC C ti September 14, 1993 ENERCO 9615 West Marginal Way Seattle, Washington 98108 Attn: Mr. Lee Rabie RE: PRELIMINARY WETLAND DELINEATION AT BLOCK 21 OF THE BUENNA ADDITION, FEDERAL WAY, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Shannon & Wilson, Inc. has completed a preliminary wetland delineation for the site referred to as Block 21 of the Buenna Addition to King County, located at approximately 294th Street SW and 9th Avenue SW, within the city limits of Federal Way. The site occurs on a bluff overlooking Poverty Bay of Puget Sound (NW1/4, Sec. 6, T.21N, RAE). This preliminary wetland delineation was completed in accordance with our proposal dated August 30, 1993, and your signed authorization to proceed dated September 1, 1993. The objectives stated in our proposal were to identify wetland areas on the site and flag identified wetland boundaries using the January 1989 Federal Manual for Iden f in and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. This methodology is currently required by City of Federal Way policy for environmental review of development proposals within their jurisdiction. Two small areas at this site were found to meet the technical definition as wetland according to the 1989 methodology. On September 2, 1993, Mr. Michael Witter and Ms. Ann Youberg, wetland specialists with Shannon & Wilson, conducted a site reconnaissance of the site and flagged the boundary of Wetland A. Wetland B was not flagged in the field. The extent of wetland conditions on the site was determined with a cloth tape and a hand-held Silva "Ranger" compass. The findings of our office and field review of this site are summarized in this letter report. The subject site is a rectangular parcel of property measuring 460 feet long in the east -west direction and 340 feet in the north -south direction. The layout of the site is shown on the attached site map. This site is approximately 3.5 acres in size. The north edge of the subject site lies in close proximity to a severe bluff overlooking Puget Sound. The majority of the site 400 NORTH 34TH STREET • SUITE 100 W-5149-03 P O BOY. 300303 SEAT TLE. WASHINGTON 96103 206.632.8020 FAX206.633.6777 I ti o^NNNON 6WILSON. INC. FNERCO �kttn: Mr. Lee Rabie .,eptember 14, 1993 Page'2 roximatel halfway up the slope from is located on a broad, bowl -shaped bench that occurs the beach. An equally steep bluff occurs along the south property boundary. from excess water o rah of the site is changing rapidly due to geologic instability resulting lting present near the center Top g P Y 1990). A higher area and drainage problems (Shannon & Wilson, Inc. , boundaries. These low areas of the site and low areas occur near the east and ^west p„ap�trtri5dict nal W tland Boundarie meet the Eerie definition as wetland. at review of readily available source documents was initiated prior to our field investigationorea this site. Documents reviewed for this report include: the ail urve for I Ma -Fount re (Soil Conservation Service, 1973), the National Wetland Inv nto Quadran _ i (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1988), and the Washington Department of Fisheries tream Invento Ma None of these documents identify wetland or stream conditions or hydric soil units at the subject site. Si te soils have been mapped by the USDA Soil Conservation Service as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam. Observed surface soils do not resemble descriptions for sand within the wetland erwood series. Observed soil conditions resemble saturated sand and saturated loamy areas and loamy sand to gravelly sand in upland parts of the site. The site appears to have been logged within the last ten years. Big leaf maple (Acer llum) stumps appearthroughout the site, indicating that the site may have been formerly a dense shrub mac ro h p ythe forested with an upland deciduous forest within the recent pasthve been resentDecently cleared• I vegetation covers most of the site. Some areas of t e si e course Wetland A is approximately 5,650 square feet, and occurs in conjunction wt has cedes toethe salt that flows north-northwest. This drainage flows off -site to a bluff aturated wetland habitat, but much of water beach. Wetland A is a Palustrine, scrub -shrub, s 1 b vegetation has recently been cleared from this area. the shrub g The portions of Wetland A that have not been cleared of shrub vegetation are dominated Ribes P Rubes discolor), B Salmonberry (Rubes spectabilis), Himalayan blackberry bracteosum), and Giant horsetail (Eguisetum telmateia). Upland forest and shrub vegetation composed of Big leaf maple and Vine maple (Acer circinatum) abuts the wetland on the adjoining slope, and some of these trees hang over and provide cover for this wet W-5148-03 r 'ENIERCO Attn: Mr., Lee Rabie September 14, 1993 Page 3 SHANNON &WILSON, INC. Wetland A represents the "Sag Pond" that is continuously created from the rapidly moving ground surface. As debris falls from the southern escarpment, weight from this debris initiates ground movement. Soil lying on top of the more dense subsurface soil moves toward the north, re -exposing the wet "sag pond." This process is expected to continue until, eventually, a ravine is created that will extend a considerable distance south. Wetland B occurs adjacent to a similar land feature along the western property boundary. This wetland occupies approximately 5,000 square feet. Wetland B occupies a broad flat area present in this part of the site, which contains saturated sandy soils and a dominance of hydrophytic vegetation. This area is dominated by dense Salmonberry, Scouler's willow (Salix scouleriana), Blue currant, and Skunk cabbage (Lysichitum americanum). According to personal reports from Shannon & Wilson geotechnical engineers familiar with this site, the portion of the site occupied by Wetland B is one of the most geologically active areas of the property. The low spot represented by Wetland B has lowered considerably through geologic processes over the last 3 to 5 years, which may have resulted in wetter conditions in this area. Therefore, wetland conditions presently observed in this part of the site may not have been present before' recent ground movement occurred. Both of these wetland areas are primarily supported through groundwater discharges that surface near the southern boundary of the site. There may be additional seepage of groundwater throughout these drainages. The water that supports wetland conditions at this site is perched above relatively impervious subsurface clay layers. The surface soil present throughout the site is unconsolidated sand and gravelly sand that is relatively pervious and allows for rapid water movement across the site. For this delineation, a total of three data plots were completed at this site. Data plot locations were chosen to reflect larger soil and plant community units present at the site. The wetland boundary flags and the data plot locations have not been surveyed primarily due to the active geologic conditions present at the site. The wetlands identified at this site provide a seasonal water source for songbirds and other species of wildlife residing in the area. It is likely, however, that seep areas occur throughout this bluff, and that this is not the sole water source for these species. Raccoon tracks were observed in the soft mud adjacent to the wetland areas, and a number of songbird species were observed in the field during the site reconnaissance. W-5148-03 ?EN-EkCO Attn: Mr., Lee Rabie Septe:moer 14, 1993 Page 4 SHANNON 6WILSON. ft ,. Wetland conditions are present at two locations on the subject site. Wetland A and Wetland B may be classified as Palustrine, scrub -shrub, saturated wetland habitats at the present time. The very active geologic conditions present at the site may make these wetlands transitory environ- ments that occur between catastrophic land movement events. These wetlands are dominated by Facultative plant species, which further indicates the transitory nature of these environments. Upland areas of the site are dominated by the same plant communities. Stabilization of this site is proposed by the client. Stabilization recommended by Shannon & Wilson in the geotechnical report will lower the groundwater table and channelize groundwater flow across the site. This action may result in the loss of the identified wetland habitat. Ground surface soil saturation may no longer be apparent during the growing season and surface water will not flow over the site. Decreasing the soil saturation will not, however, affect all of the plant species growing in the area. Since most of the species of plants growing within the wetland areas are rated Facultative, drier soil conditions will not specifically preclude most of these species. Obligate wetland plant species that occur at the site will be affected by the decrease in soil moisture. Skunk cabbage is the only obligate wetland plant growing at the site, and should be the only observed plant species that will be affected by the proposed action. Wetland A and Wetland B provide limited habitat functions and are not responsible for significant hydrologic functions to the local area. These wetlands do not provide water purification functions or prevent flooding in downstream areas. Groundwater will be captured and channel- ized through the site under the proposed stabilization action; therefore, downstream resources will not experience significant change. CLOSURE The findings and conclusions presented in this report have been prepared for specific application to this project and have been developed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill normally exercised by members of the environmental science profession currently practicing in the area, and in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in our proposal dated February 11, 1993. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are profes- sional opinions based on interpretation of information currently available to us and made within the operational scope, budget, and schedule constraints of this project. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. W-5148-03 ' I -NE -' Co Attn: Mr. Lee Rabie Septembc,;14, 1993 Page 5' SHANNON 6WILSON. INC. Wetlands identified by Shannon & Wilson, Inc. are considered preliminary until they have been validated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or the local jurisdictional agency. Valida- tion of the wetland boundary by the regulating agency(s) provides a certification, usually written, that the wetland boundaries verified are the boundaries that will be regulated by the agency(s) until a specified date or until the regulation is modified. Only the regulating agency(s) can provide this certification. Changes in Government Codes, regulations, or laws may occur prior to construction of this project. Due to such changes, our observations and conclusions applicable to this site may need to be revised wholly or in part. If you should have any questions regarding this information or if we can be of further service, please contact us. Sincerely, SHANNON & WILSON, INC. r ichael Witter Wetland Specialist Theresa Henson Wetland Specialist MNW:TRH:JTA/mnw ExaInES 1 y1ii�3 Jess Abed, P.E. Vice President Enclosures: Site Map (1 page) Copy of Field Sheets (6 pages) Important Information About Your Wetland Report W514"3XT5/W5148-Ikd/dgw q—N-13 W-5148-03 ram" SHANNO�r _'ZWI�LSONs INC. June 28, 1994 City of Federal Way 33530 First Way South Federal Way/ Washington 98003 Attn: Mr. Greg Fewins, Senior Environmental Planner RE: RABIE PROPERTY; FILE NUMBERS LSAIL90-1004 AND 92-687NR N;+•T1Lf' Hnf�r fxtn , IL.IFIEle.1fK4 WNT LOUR: 90S1pN . . � 404: 1 -, �� ! I i• i e 1 This letter provides supplementary analysis of wetland resources at the Rabie property that ; were identified in our Preliminary Wetland Delineation report dated September 1993. This ; ::. •`.: letter is in response to comments made to the City'of Federal Way by the City's'wetland consultant, W&H Pacific, Inc. in a memorandum dated June 22, 1993, and to speciftc comments contained in a letter from your department dated March 11, 1994. Specifically, this analysis relates to the presence of stream resources at the subject site. In our previous report we identified two areas of the site that displayed wetland conditions as defined by the Federal Way Code, and the 1989 redtral MauqaLfmlftntifying and Deliouting Jurisdictional Wdlandds.. Concern has been raised by the City, that no mention of ; r streams was made in our report. This fact appears to conflict with statements contained _ within the June 22, 1993,' memo from W&H Pacific, Inc. y i The Federal Way City Code Section 22-1 contains the following definition for streams within the city of Federal Way: "Stream shall mean a course or route, formed by nature, including those modified by man, and generally consisting of a channel with a bed, banks, or sides throughout ' substantially all its length, along which surface waters naturally and normally flow is draining from higher to lower elevations:" 400 NORTH 34TH STREET -SUITE 100 W-S 184-0 , PO. BOX'300303 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 96103 206.632.8020 FAX 206.633.6777 ' I1 n . City of Federal Way SK NON6WILSORINC.I. Attn: Mr. Greg Fewins Rune 28, 1994 it Page 2 At the time of our previous site investigation, the delineated wetland drainages did not conform with the above definition. We described the site resources as wetlands and not as, I'' streams primarily because they did not display a defined bed and bank for most of their length. Instead, these areas are defined by very gradual side sloe I h # A' , I Sy'ay 11YU11c SM.,. I: conditions. Stream -like banks were present for a small portion of the eastern drainage and near the initial seep zones along the southern property boundary. However; since these drainage areas feed broader wetland deposition areas, and do not contain a defined channel'- bed or a defined bank over most of the drainage way, they �have not been considered strearn resources in our previous report and in our opinion should., not be classified or regulated as such. ' � i � � 'r'li 91 i !'+ We would be A: I . "Jiljjr v scuss Uns matter with you ' or.your technical staff at any time.. We 11 I !I I hope that this explanation will clarify the on -site natural resources sufficiently for your - continued review of this proposal. Sincerely, SHANNON & WILSON, INC. icliael N. i tter LO I •1 t Wetland and Wildlife Ecologist MNW:RNB/mnw WS I 84-03XTR/W5184-1kd/dgw 1. EXPIRES 7/25/ jl Ralph N. Boirum, P.E. Senior Associate JI,; W-5184-9 I 1-1:JH ng.j o!i t .1![ 1.. 1 LIZ) 4 �PLIPM& Del) Barker, Associate Planner 33530 1st Way S. Federal Way, WA 9,003-6221 RE: L.e:c Rabie dcvciclpmcnt a licatic�n 1,SM9(]-[}Ot}4 cat. 92-6R7NR Dear Ms. Barker: nd iscuss 'llzc purpose oC this letter is in submit . mtmlics rojject s At tile end o[ hr your review e letter,dyc u will Of tits outstanding issues rt:lated to Mr. Rahte • p 1 to tile City to find a lengthy disct�ssicln of the wetland issuirinntaMr Sensitive. e s tiverAreaseclucstArticIc becausenthey regulate the wetland area~ under the Gtvlron Y rovide no beneficial fulictions and actually exacerb"te tile inntunder eep eSc Sepe ction 7�The Mr. l' City is allilloriled to make this administrative cictermtin. Y Sensitive Rabie agrees that the stc: T slopes sltelelld'be +t-gu re local calthazaer lyd L o human life l an property. Areas Article: because unstable siclpes create sever Qverall, 1 think our first meeting on October 26 was 5 ry productive, mat materials. of particular forward to repackaging and suhttiitting the Mr. Raht Pl' importance to Mr. R.tl)ie is that we [iu.1 w`7�1� like ��t tile significant long the following ttcvntments. I CTc discussed at the meeting. Given this, 1 have organized these comments along the same topical outline as the meeting agenda and minutes. Status Retxlrt The C-1- sheet that was left with Ron Garrow at the 8/17/95 rneetitlg was an inters will be COPY. 1 believe that ll€ Mr. Garrowill tile 's response and comments � COC-1 sheet. 'rile final map adjustments are minor and do not P�ll�aaddressed in the final modify Mr. Garrow's comments. Gradin & 13uilciin Permits Because Mr. Rabie's application has been worked on continuously since first submitted 4-5 Russell E. Davies, Attorney at Law 1726 NW 62nd, Suite #2 Seattle, WA 98107 206-789-9315 Nove ber 16, 1995 Pane 1 lw mtg l.ftr 2. k%. years ago, the grading and building permit applicatiums ccintinuc to be valid. Report & Man Production llx17 map sheet reductions of the full sized plan sheets have been Prepared as called] for in the 9/23/94 letter from the City. Let me restate that our primary concern is with producing new engince.ring reports from this point forward. i would also like to comment that modifications to existing technical reports should be a decision left with the applicant. Easement Easement descriptions and their location on the plan sheets are available for City review. There are' two easements appurtenant to Mr. Rabie's property. The first connects Mr. Rabic's driveway to SW 294th St in a small arc across the adjoining property at the southwest corner of Mr. Rabic's property. 7'he complete text of this easement is loented in the lower left corner.of the C-1 sheet. The second easement connects the aforementioned -driveway arc to SW 295th St along a private street and is recorded as Recording #891221117U. -The text of this easement has not been placed on the C-1 sheet because the instrument is 11 pages long. However, the instrument is clearly noted in the legal description of the property that is afixed to the tall center of the C-1 sheet. Please let me know if the City will require a complete copy of this instrument. No access or utility easement exists for the drainage outfall proposed to cross the northeast corner of Mr. Rahie's property. This proposed drainage outfall will be located wholly within the unimproved 91h Ave SW city right-of-way lyilig west of the centerline along Wock R. According to Mr. -Garrow's comments at our Oct. 26 meeting, a permit not an easement is necessary to construct this proposed drainage outfall. l would like to get final concurrence with Mr. Garrow on,these matters at his earliest convenience. shorelincs 11. N. Lehtinen has completed a topographic survey for Mr. Rabic that defines the shoreline mean/ordinary high water relative to Mr. Rabic's property. This report is available for your review. Ilowever, let me again state: that (he Shoreline Management Act exempts the construction of single family homes and their appurtenances. The plan sheets and the topographic survey demonstrate that the proposed improvements are landward of the ordinary high water mark. At this point, we will presume that the project is exempt from the requirements of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. steeJ2 Slope Russell E. Davies, Attorney at Law 1726 NW 62nd, Suite #2 Seattle, WA 98 107 206-789-9315 November 16, 1995 Page 2 fw mtg 1.1tr gco-tech report of June 1994.r is adequate for City review. We must keep clearly in our minds that stabilizing the site imist he t1le City's first priority. In the opinion of Mr. Ralph Boirum, P.E., the uphill bluff is in imminent danger of failing. Over the past several years, the uphill slope has continued to encroach on the McConkey residence. Moreover, the video tape in your possession, which documents stormwater discharge onto this unstable slope from a City storm drain, suggests that the City has a responsibility to expedite Mr. Rabie's development application. Consequently, the slope is the issue that must predominate. It is critical that the City prioritize slope stabilization over protection of nonfunctional wetlands. As we enter another wet season without this project moving forward, we expect land sliding to continue. Wetlands I have reviewed my notes regarding wetland functions and would like to reinforce the statement I made at the meeting that the small, isolated wetland areas identified on Mr. Rabie's property fail to perform even minimal wetland functions. One of the primary functions of a beneficial wetland is storm water retention and sediment filtering. however, according to the engineering reports, these wetland areas actually discharge considerable sediment into Puget Sound as a result of the unstable slopes. My notes tell me that this discharge is estimated at 50,000 cubic feet per year. Tile wetland report states that these wetland areas support no animal or plant species that would be displaced other than skunk cabbage. In addition, these wetlands provide no fish habitat, have no open water, and are not associated with any stream system. In fact, because of the unstable slope, these areas are transient. Given these facts, I again raise my question: Is it appropriate to regulate these areas as wetlands? It remains extremely unclear to me what benefits accrue to the city by regulating these nonfunctional areas as wetlands. In trying to answer my own question have contacted a number of technicians at King County, the Department of Ecology, and the local office of the Army Corps of Engineers. At each level, there was surprise that the City Code required use of the 1999 Army Corps Delineation Manual, even though the Corps itself has rejected the manual. At each level, there was even more surprise that the City did not recognize different classes of wetlands. i:very other system that I am aware of recognizes high value and low value wetlands. Low value wetlands are given minimal or no protection; while, high value wetlands are more protected. Implicit in the Army Corps delineation system is that a local jurisdiction will regulate areas Russell E. Davies, Attorney at Law 1726 NW 62nd, Suite #2 Seattle, WA 98107 206-789-9316 November 16, 1995 Page 3 fw mtg 1.1tr differently t7�tsctl on [Iteir value and/vr size. In fact, the Army C,0rp% regulatory rrngram c.Kcml,ts Mr. R,tl,ie's project thrcuigh a naliotaCfe "[ wetland is clispermit 29 t �tlon rl cd{ Tl►us,ev value dodo of a single fatttily home where Icss 11tzn 1 /2 ly the s17P- become itrtportant in deciding if an area should he regulated at all. A s attotller example, King County recc,gltires three classic i scsc 14)0' buffer for any hare, grade, Class i wt:tlstntis, have a Ii1t)' buffer. Yet, tile Y with wetla nd characteristics regardless of 917,c, function, nr value. In urban areas as defined prohibit by the Growth Management Act tinder Icing County's adopteStp�a It a! lzictatts,[[a lOUllbu[fei is home construction in urban areas. According to county an ore suitable to rural areas where development is inoe controlled under GMA policies. to it decides to protect the wetland areas ttin Mr. Ral.,ie's property at the expense of if the C y 01 fer would e. slope stabili7,ition, tile Property would be unbuildahl Rat 1 PO and the iCity 's[prior agreement eliminate the use of the l,uiltial,lc lot created by Mr. concerning the lot line adjustment. More. intp�}rtailiare[oreLcompti tely unbuildable areas are protected then the site cannot be stal,ili7.ed and is 1t the purpose (if the City,,-, Environmentally SensitivlettA Are-as is to protect is to the Recall the p f environment, human life, and property frsittti harm and degratserious or achieved b Precluding or limiting devcloptncnt in areas ft drinkingtwater t Poses and by preserving y special ha7,ards; by preserving and proicetittg the quality o lakes, and wetlands. The public important ecological areas such as steep slopesstreams, reams, to be achieved by this artic is include protection of water quality, ground -water purposes stability of slope areas, wildlife recharge, shoreline st-ibili7ation, Streanl {�t,w maintenance, 'es habitat maintenance, protection 6f human life and property and maintenance of and ftshen natural storm water storage systems. 1 would like to state that these policies are not furthered by protecting the wetland areas on . Rabie's property- First, the City Code prohibits the tty onfi ss.e precluding Thus, Mr p c,f a single family detached dwelling on any 1?uilciing tat regardless 's guaranteed he can build a home on his property. In this area ar nonce! ha uld be zard to Ratite t. the area is Uic unstable slope• Therefore, this case, tile ttwetl nd -areas sensitive not protect drinking water, to protect against this Ita7nrd. do not protect ground water, do not maintain stream flows, do not provide storm water and do not provide wildlife or fishery ltal,it:tt. lne fact, tile rat discl>ii getinto Puget Soland areas on und, storage, Rabie's property increase slope tt11cre_ lity, increase sc ttn ' izc shoreline bluffs, and increase 11,17 rds to !roman life and property as evidenced by destabil the slope encroachment on the McConkey house• Russell E. Davies, Attorney at Law 1726 NW 62nd, Suite #2 Seattle, WA 98107 206-789-9315 November 16, 1995 Page 4 fw mrg 1.Itr �Fn rght of this Preceding discussion, Mr_ Rabic reyuetts the C # areas under the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Article because the OVI functions and actually exacerbate the steep slope' instability hazard. The Ciaty s aiuthorized make this administrative determination under Section 22-1243. Mr. Rabie agrees on the other hand that the steep slopes should be regulated under the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Article because unstable slopes create special local hazards to human life and property. Mr. Rabic has provided sufficient information in technical reports and site plans to make this determination. I appreciate the time you spent and the frankness of your approach in discussing these issues last week. I hope we can reach final resolution of the issues in the near future. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Russell E. Davies Enclosures: Oct 26, 1995 Meeting Agenda Oct 26, 1995 Meeting Minutes Plan Sheets C-1, C-2, and C-3 Title Report Topo Survey Report Russell E. Davies, Attorney at Law 1726 NW 62nd, Suite #2 Seattle, WA 98107 206-789-9315 November 16, 1995 Page 5 !w mtg 1.1tr M �1 January 16, 1996 Deb Barker, Associate Planner 33530 1st Way S. Federal Way, WA 98003-6221 Fax 661-4129 RE; Lee abie develo me t a licativ 90-0004 & 9 -687 NR Dear Ms. Barker: The purpose of this letter is to send you a list of the questions that have come up as we prepare a response to your letter of January 4, 1996. Because time is of the essence, I would like to discuss these with you at your earliest convenience. It is imperative that the City of Federal Way make every effort to keep this application moving. Mr. Rabie's application has been pending now for more than six years. Mr. Rabie has spent considerable time and money on preparing information for the city to review. Over this period, the city has had full knowledge that landsliding continues, propert damage mounts, and risks to neighboring homes increase. I cannot over emphasize that we need Mr. Rabies application processed as quickly as possible, 1. Could you please provide me with the code provision that authorizes the city to require Mr. Rabie to submit new technical reports. SEPA requires the use of existing documents that are supplemented or referenced as needed during project review. I am not aware that the FWCC requires otherwise. I would like to add that all of your questions can be answered through the use of clarifications or supplemental memos without compromising o would be tunduly burl integrity both financially y and time wise. Reproduction of new reports We view this request as a delay tactic and/or an unnecessary burden created to discourage Mr. Rabie from building his retirement home oohis r lately Anecdotally, neither I nie has gone or the call of duty to try and answer the city s requests professional colleagues of mine have ever observed a project where new reports were required. This is particularly burdensome when we step back and realize that Mr. Rabie is Russell E. Davies, Attomey at Law 1726 NW 62nd, Suite N2 Seattle, WA 98107 206-789-9315 January 16, 1: a building a single family home, not a super mall. 2. Could you please let me know what materials are necessary to complete Mr. Rabie's application? jQ �J MOM d/ At present, we� pact to submit: corrected C-1, C-la, C-2, and C-3 plan sheets; a corrected SEPA checklist; a letter from Ralph Boirum, P.E., addressing the. substantive issues in your letter; and a cover letter that ties the project materials (new and old) together. It is my understanding that the other primary materials that the city possesses are: valid building permit and LSM permit applications from Mr. Rabie; a Process I Use permit application; the revised 1994 Shannon & Wilson Geotech Report; the 1993 L.ehtinen Surface Drainage Report; the 1993 Shannon & Wilson Wetland Report; the •1995 Lehtinen Topo Survey Report (submitted in November); and ingress/egress and private road easement descriptions. 3. In the 1/4/96 letter, it states that your questions about the access easements have been adequately addressed. Can the application be processed on this issue? 4. In the 1/4/96 letter, it states that the building and LSM permit applications continue to be valid. In addition, Mr. Rabie has not received any substantive questions regarding these matters in at least two years. Can the application be processed on this issue? S. In the 1/4/96 letter, it states that the proposed drainage tightline discharge to the N will require a permit as it will run in the platted right-of-way. is Mr. Rabie required to apply for a separate permit? it is my understanding that this is processed as part of the general site plan review. Consequently, can the application be processed on this issue? 6. In the 1/4/96 letter, it states that the city didn't resolve the shoreline issue because a detailed cross-section was needed. However, as we discussed on the phone, both the C-2 and C-3 plan sheets provide considerable detail of the drainage system including a cross-section of the outfall pipe and its location relative to the Ordinary High \Dater mark. It is my understanding the city has copies of both the C-2 and C-3 sheets. In any event, I was disappointed that I was never called or given the opportunity to provide the cross-section information even though I was in contact with the city once or twice a week, between the November submittal and the January letter. Russell E. Davies, Attorney at Law 1726 NW 62nd, Suite N2 Seattle, WA 98107 206-789-9315 January 16, 1996 If this project is to move forward, we must be comfortable calling each other on the phone and talking about the project. If we wait to convey information through letters that are delayed in the administrative process from December 15 through January 4 then the project will certainly be delayed at Mr. Rabie's time and expense. Given these circumstances, what does the city specifically need before the application can be processed on this issue? 7. In the 1/4/96 letter, it states that Mr. Garrow's comments that the engineered plans are functional and appropriate do .not exempt the project from FWCC 80.65(2). Could you please tell me specifically what are the requirements of 80.65(2) and specifically how the plans do not meet these requirements? 8. In the 1/4/96 letter referencing the G. Fewins 9/94 letter, it states the wetland delineation report doesn't satisfy FWCC 80-145(2) because it doesn't have an overview of methodology or lists of observed and potential species and their abundance. Could you please tell me specifically how the report is inadequate? On page one, paragraph two of the report it notes that the field technicians are "... using January 1989 Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. This methodology is currently required by City of Federal Way...." The report also makes . repeated references to observed and potential species - please note page 2, paragraphs 5-7; page 3, paragraphs 2 and 6; page 4, paragraphs 1-2; and field Data Forms 1-3. Most importantly however is the fact that if the wetland areas are impacted then skunk cabbage is the only plant or animal species that will likely be displaced_ When we again step back and realize that Mr. Rabie is proposing to build a house, not a supermall, we are convinced that the information provided is adequate.. 9. In the 1/4/96 letter, the latter part of the letter- is devoted to issues from the G. Fewins September 1994 letter that the city states are unresolved. Given the considerable body of information provided to the city over the years, the time the city has had to review that information, and presuming that the issues listed in the 1/4/96 letter will be adequately responded to, we would like to gently close the door on the city's ability to raise new issues concerning this project. Time is of the essence. Consequently, we will view any new issues raised by the city as a delay tactic and/or an unnecessary burden created to discourage Mr. Rabie from building his retirement home on his property. Under the FWCC, Mr. Rabie has the right to build a home on his property. Delaying this process any longer will be viewed as an infringement of this right. Again, we must realize that Mr. Rabie is building a single family home, not a super mall. Russell E. Davies, Attorney at Law 1726 NW 62nd, Suite #2 Seattle, WA 98107 206-789-9315 January 16, 1996 W ... 10. In the 1/4/96 1etter, it states that it is appropriate to regulate the wetland areas on the �► , property under the sensitive areas ordinance becauseochbe whatoweight lwsas griven wetland ' delineates them. Given this response, couldy deliberations to the language on page 4 paragraph 3 of the Snote oWilson responsibleWetland Report ons where it states that these areas provide limited habitat functions, significant hydrologic functions, do not provide water frwe caPlcation tune and channellze waterfunctions, and do �hrough prevent flooding in downstream areas. Moreover, site as proposed, we will not impact downstream resources. Could you also tell me what specific community benefits arise tell firom e what City wetland policprtecting these ies areas on Mr. Rabie's property? More broadly, could y are furthered by protecting these areas? Can youexplain what functions and with those adopted by the or Rabie's wetland areas provide that would be consistent the FWCC? Could you please provide a list or tell me how often single home construction projects are required to undergo process III review? can you Since Mr. Rabie has the right to build a home . and burden ome ' rocess IIIn his property under the review rev ew on Mr. explain why the city wants to impose an expense Rabie when the outcome is predetermined? The reason this issue is so troubling to me is that Mr. Rab ie is being required small non-functional process III review solely because of the cety s desireg wetlands on his property as if they were the West Hylebos Wetland. No other issue in this entire project requires process III review. the World 13. Could you please tell me what review process ook for development tf em to there permits? undergo in Federal Way? Could you tell me how long 14. Can she quickly go over the project review process with me? 15. How long for each step?' 16. What can I do to make sure the project moves ahead? Russell E. Davies, Arromey at Law 1726 NW 62nd, Suire #2 Seattle, WA 98107 206-789-9315 January 16, 1996 IN February 27, 1996 Mr. Lee Rabie Enerco, Inc. 9615 W Marginal Way S Seattle, WA 98108 Dear Mr. Rabie: RE: -Buenna Block 21, Wetland Issues The purpose of this letter is to summarize my visits on February e s a y 26ffice, and 6 to my telephone City f Federal Way Building ❑epartment and to the City Attarn y conversation that evening with you. 1 encourage you review e1 and do notwith your fully Mr. Russell Davies, for two reasons: one, I am not an attorney Y understand much of land -use -related law at local and higher i soar level codes andand I am al familiar with only a small part of the City of F Y regulations, specifically, those pertaining to wetlands. Mr. Davies' legal perspective will be invaluable in this convoluted case. I would like to clarify that the staff people to whom I spoke (a young man named Fernando and Deb Barker in the Building Department, and Bonnie erected Lindstrom h ping me. ty Attorneys lily to) were cordial, do so seemedrelated more to aolite, and r lack of knowledge than to Their inability to obstructionist attitudes. However, it is also interesting onote e that Ms. barker that was interested in "the Rabie property, Fernando immediately the conversation. I got the impression that he was under order not to disc ss the case, but to call in a more experience planner.impression later when I spoke to Ms. Lindstrom regarding -the "regulated"status the of criteria in the definition I had asked her, if a wetland existed that d id -not meet y of "regulated wetlands," would it be regulated? She assureme me that call she wo 41 asked look into it, and if I didn't hear from her be Friday (March 1) that her to provide me with a written opinlGre Fewins. arrivedn. When I Ihad not mentioned eithe rMr. message that said I should speak to g Rabie's name nor the location of the projer. ct, sugg�sg that she alsoe from her thas been answer to a suggestion that I speak to gagged. I believe that the mast productive path to Pure is Buildingng the City has ccontinualllly the unregulated status of the wetlands. Since the9 refused to do this, citing that the code doesn�td��o in the City codes m to not ghattstates that all once they are identified (! am unable to find any p wetlands must be regulated; in fact, Section 80.145.1 a of the old zoning code, PUGET SOUND PLNATIVE EWCASTLE PLANTS (WA 98056 1119 12024 SE 71 sT Mr. Lee Rabie February 27, 1996 Page 2 recodified as Section 22-1356a, specifically states "This Section contains procedures and criteria for determining whether an area ... is a regulated wetland under this Code." Section 80.145.3 states "The Planning Official shall use the information provided ... to determine whether a regulated wetland exists on or within 100 feet of the property..." The new version is found in 22-1356b, "...The director of community development shall use this information to determine if the area is a regulated wetland..." This clearly implies that some areas are not regulated.), I suggest that you have Mr. Davies contact the City attorney directly and obtain a written legal interpretption of the applicable sections of code. My logic is this: the City of Federal Way Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan (1990) which I believe was in effect at the time this project was vested, defines "regulated wetlands" (Section 3.10.725b, since recodified) as "Any wetland, whether or not mapped, that meets, or is functionally related to, a wetland that meets one or more of the following criteria: 1) Serves significant biological functions. 2) Serves significant drainage and sedimentation functions. 3) Shields other areas from wave action, erosion, or storm damage. 4) Serves as valuable storage area for storm and flood waters. 5) Is a prime, natural recharge area. 6) Serves significant water purification functions. Since the wetland areas on and adjacent to this site serve none of these functions (and the City biologist has agreed to this in a January 13, 1994 memo from Susan Meyer of W&H Pacific to Greg Fewins), they must not be regulated. It also follows that if a wetland is non -regulated, you should not be required to prepare new, or modify existing, reports about the wetland. The specific listing of what functions make a wetland regulated excludes all non -listed criteria. I expect that Mr. Davies will be able to provide examples of laws, legal interpretations, and/or case law that support this opinion. If, in fact, the wetland issues are all that is delaying your project, the City's agreement to non -regulated status should expedite your permits. However, in my conversation with Deb Barker, she indicated that the City was still waiting for a revised SEPA checklist. It is important to either complete the checklist, or identify what required revisions still need to be made (you should have in your possession a letter from the City that specifies these revisions). If the revisions relate only to wetlands, I would delay the checklist until the regulated status of the wetlands is determined. On a slightly different tack, the code addresses "Structures, Improvements and Land Surface Modifications Within Regulated Wetlands" (Section 80.155) and "Structures, Improvements and Land Surface Modifications Within the Setback Areas from Regulated Wetlands" (Section 80.160). These have been recodified as Section 22- 1358 of the revised Federal Way City Code. There are two important issues here: 1) a Mr. Lee Rabie February 27, 1996 Page 3 the idea of within regulated wetlands or their setback areas, and 2) land surface modifications. The first may be significant if the proposed drainage plan is implemented outside the wetland and setback areas. The second has to do with the definition of land surface modification: "The clearing or removal of trees, shrubs, ground cover and other vegetation and all grading, excavation and filling activities." (Section 3.10.430 of the old zoning code.) Diversion of runoff is not included. Therefore, diversion of runoff, outside the wetland and setbacks, should not be regulated. You should also review Section 115.75, Land Surface Modifications, especially subsection 4, Discretionary Approval. This is re'codified as Section 22-1094. Please note that this is a Process I decision. Also, Section 80.160.4 (22-1359d) states "... The City may approve any request to locate an improvement or engage in land surface modification within the setback area from a regulated wetland through Process 11, based on the following criteria: a. It will not adversely affect water quality. b. It will not destroy nor damage a significant habitat area. c. It will not adversely affect drainage or storm water retention capabilities. d. It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards. e. It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor to the City as a whole, including the loss of significant open space or scenic vista. f. It is necessary for reasonable development of the subject property. It is clear that the proposed drainage modifications meet all these criteria. •ti, Furthermore, -if amelioration of the existing undesirable conditions is considered, the City should welcome such a proposal. Needless to say, there appears to be no justification for requiring a Process III on your project. I believe the City staff are reading into the codes material which is not there, such as the concept that if an activity outside the setback may have some effect on the wetland, then that activity will be 5, regulated. In this, they overstep their authority. Other information I noted in the file at the City: The City is in receipt of the 8/26/95 survey to identify OHWM. A memo from Mr. Fewins suggests that the City believes it has no liability for the overflowing water from the drainage system at 9th and 196th. I'm not an engineer, but suspect that forcing the City to route the water to the east side of 9th along the south side of 196th would solve much of your problem. There is an existing stream slightly east of 9th that would probably be able to handle the volume quite easily. The previously mentioned 1 /13/94 memo from Ms. Meyer concurs with the findings of Shannon and Wilson's 9193 wetland report, recommends maintenance of the catch basin and dewatering your site, agrees that wetlands on -site are unstable and do not provide any essential functions, and furthermore do not warrant off -site mitigation. She identified the overflow from the catch basin as a "minor stream," but in a 9/14/94 a Mr. Lee Rabie February 27, 1996 Page 4 memo to Mr. Fewins agreed that is was a wetland, and not a stream, because of the S&W letter which pointed out the lack of a defined channel and banks for roost of its length. Finally, it appears that the City planners are arbitrarily interpreting the codes in different ways on different days or for different topics. As an example (as I mentioned above), they have stated that the code does not allow them to not regulate a wetland. This appears to be based solely on the fact that the code does not specifically tell them that they are able to not regulate a wetland. Unfortunately for this brand of logic, the code also does not tell them to regulate all wetlands. On the other hand, they appear to have chosen a number out of thin air for their estimate of slope stability (this should be checked; there may actually be a definition somewhere in the code), namely, that a 25% or greater chance of failure in the next 50 years makes a slope unstable. As you will recall, during our conversation I asked you if you had talked to your city council representatives. You had stated that you tried, but they said they could not talk to you because of the pending Process III hearing. I believe that this is based on a concept known as the "appearance of fairness doctrine," which requires them to not discuss cases they will review, because it might appear that you had influenced their decision in your favor. However, I do not believe that in this case it applies, because 1) it has not been adequately determined that a hearing will be required (the regulated status of wetlands must be determined first), and 2) your case has not been scheduled for a hearing - you haven't even applied for a hearing. Therefore, they cannot refuse to talk to you based on some future event that may never happen. Check this with Mr. Davies; I'm sure his grasp of the situation is better than mine. hope that this letter provides you with some useful ideas for pursuing your proposal. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at 255-0241 (Newcastle, my home/office number) or 318-0984 (Tacoma, my mobile number). I have attached an invoice; since we had no contract I suggest you pay me what you think the service is worth. I have also attached a general schedule of charges for your reference, should you decide to continue with wetland studies, or if you cared to recommend me to your associates. Sincerely, Diane M. Ryba l� Wetland Biologist �I March 25, 1996 Deb Barker, Associate Planner 33530 1st Way S. Federal Way, WA 98003-6221 Fax 661-4129 RE: Lee Rabie develo ment application LSM90-0004 & 92-687NR Dear Ms. Barker: The purpose of this letter is to memorialize our phone conversation of March 22, 1996. In that phone conversation, we discussed an interpretation of the City of Federal Way Code related to how the city determines if a wetland is "regulated" within the meaning of the City's sensitive areas zoning ordinance. To briefly recap the background that we discussed, Mr. Rabic requested some time ago for the City to make a determination that the small nonfunctional wetlands on his property should not be considered "regulated" wetlands under the City Code because they are small, isolated, provide no beneficial wetland functions, and actually exacerbate unstable slopes, which are causing significant property damage onsite and threatening upslope property as well. On the technical level, the City has issued a memo evaluating the wetlands on Mr. Rabie's property, and this memo agrees that the wetlands are nonfunctional with respect to criteria the City Code establishes as benefits of wetlands. As such, I find no City or community interest in seeking to impose the City sensitive areas wetland ordinance on Mr. Rabie's project. If there are absolutely no benefits to be gained, then why seek to regulate it as if there were valuable wetland functions or benefits that would be lost? In any event, the City responded that it has no discretion to make such a determination pursuant to the City Code. As I mentioned to you, the purpose my phone call last Friday was to identify the source of that Code interpretation. Your response was that you made the interpretation and drafted the response letter to Mr. Rabie, which was sent out after review by your superior, Mr. Greg Fewins. You also reiterated your statement from a prior phone conversation with me that no written interpretation was available. You stated that the reason no written interpretation was available was that no one had the asked the question before. At that point, I mentioned that I was uncomfortable with how the interpretation was made Russell E. Davies, Attorney at Law 1726 NW 62nd, #2 Seattle, WA 98107 206-789-9315 March 25, 1996 Page 1 because by letting each planner interpret the city code on such important questions could lead to arbitrary or unfair permit decisions for different applicants. I believed the term I used was that any applicant walking through the door would h"rollingdecisiothe dice" uld be made. respect to which planner would get the project and subsequentlyow a Moreover, I noted that governments typically provide answers to these important interpretation questions through letters from the City Attorney or in guidance manuals or policy documents that the planning departments use to achieve consistency among their various planners and project decisions. You mentioned that the City does maintain a guidance manual for its planning department but that it does not contain any interpretation on this important matter. As we wrapped up our discussion, I again stated that the City is imposing an unfair burden at significant cost on Mr. Rabic by requiring a process III review of his project. In its history, the city has required only one other home project to require a process III review and that project was to relocate a stream. I believe that a stream relocation is a significantly different level of environmental impact that Mr. Rabies proposal for the small, isolated, nonfunctional wetland on his property. I mentioned that it is inconceivable to me that in the history of the City no other residential project has had any wetland impacts other than Mr. Rabie's current proposal and the unrelated prior stream relocation project. Please let me know if you have any comments to add to this summary of our conversation. Thank you again for taking time to speak with me. Sincerely, Russell E. Davies Russell E. Davies, Attorney at Law 1726 NW 62nd, #2 Seattle, WA 98107 206-789-9315 March 25, 1996 Page 2 April 5, 1996 Deb Barker, Associate Planner 33530 1st Way S. Federal Way, WA 98003-6221 RE: Lee Rabie develo w:. Dear Ms. Barker: r its The purpose of this letter is to request the City of Federal way e s rethonsrtyebe regulatedenaston that the small, isolated and ntanfuittiCode►Net he better and Rfaiirer determination is that is made Iese t wetlands �.mder the City small isolated and'nonfunctional we are "Which gl 1consideration ofCitywetland pursuant to Section 22-1356 of the City Code, which and pursuant unctions prior to determining if an area is a "reg ble discretion in decisions of to policies and f State law, which requires the City to honestly exercise reasons this type- 1995 letter Th is letter re -raises the..same request that was made in a �a ua y lgg6 letter. Rabie's November r' In the to the City, which the City responded to and re}ec • response to this request, we ask that the City include a written statement of facts and Citys respo conclusions used by City rtaff in making its decision. ave d several the Cit` 's 1/4/95 rejection of Mr. Rabie's request, I in the normal course of After receiving y made discussions with City'gtaff concerning how such e el Amens As a re ult of these discussions, it business in the Department nt va is now apparent that the City did not faithfully consider all relcnation as require by City Code and State law when it decided to reject Mr. Raie's request. During m discussions with City staff, I discovered that theDepartment hoeCity t have e with D g Y written guidance documents or policies direct d seem to be a considerable respect to the request that Mr. Y apply CityCode shortcoming because it is of utmost ntal quimportestion is-sDoesoacCodetsection apply. particularly when the most fundamental ques ity e question 'of whether to apply the wetlands sensitive Barker areas provisions lno interpretation In fact, on the q Code, I was informed .-in a 3/22/96 phone conversation with Ms. Russell F. Davies, Attorney at Law 1726 NW 62nd, #2 Seattle, WA 98107 206-789-9315 April5, 1996 Page 1 L 4 is available because no one had asked the question before. This fact was particularly troublesome to me because the City has been applying their wetland regulations since incorporation. Yet, apparently not one applicant in that time has ever asked how the City determined that regulated wetlands exist on their property. It was additionally troublesome for me to find during the same phone conversation that Ms. Barker was the staff person who made the code interpretation that resulted in rejecting Mr. Rabie's request. Although the response letter was approved by Ms. Barker's superior, the fact that no one had asked the question before and the fact that there was no written guidance on the issue suggests that it is inappropriate for individual line staff to make such important Code interpretations. This sysiem suggests that different staff could come to different conclusions on exactly the same project. During that same conversation, I was informed that the specific reason the City rejected Mr. Rabie's request was that the City had "no discretion" to determine that the wetlands onsite were not "regulated" wetlands within the meaning of the code. I firmly disagree with this code interpretation because there are numerous possibilities for wetlands to exist that do not meet the criteria set forth in Section 22-1356 of the City Code. Moreover, section 22- 1356(b) expressly requires the Director of Community Development "to determine if the area is a regulated wetland." If a decision must be whether to regulate or not then no is a possible answer. Consequently, a wetland determination is absolutely a discretionary act. Under Washington law, permitting agencies are required to exercise reasonable discretion when exercising agency powers that do not carry mandatory requirements. Section 22-1356 carries no mandatory requirement that all wetland areas must be "regulated" within the meaning of the City Code. Moreover, Washington Iaw prohibits agencies from modifying or amending a code by means of interpretation or clarification. Interpreting the City Code to mean that there is no discretion when discretion is expressly authorized is an example ❑f modifying the Code by means of interpretation, which is prohibited. Thus, the City must recognize that no mandatory requirements can be found which strip discretion from the Department or any of its officers. On the contrary, the Code expressly authorizes and requires the Director to make the determination. Consequently, the wetland determination is without a doubt a discretionary act, and this discretion carries with it the presumption that some wetlands may be nonregulated. Given that the actual determination is a discretionary act, under what circumstances could a wetland be nonregulated? Based on City Code requirements, one circumstance in which a wetland cannot be nonregulated is a wetland that does not fulfill City policies with respect to wetland functions or values. Section 22-1356(a) of the City Code contains the procedures for determining whether an area is defined as a regulated wetland. Section 22-1356(b) states that when a wetland is suspected then the applicant shall submit a report to the City "...that Russell E. Davies, Attomey at Law 1726 NW 62nd, 82 Seattle, WA 98107 206-789-9315 Aprils, 1996 Page 2 Fr,7jrr, : i_roSSroad: R=-t Ctr PHUHE No. : 20r7621-422 -,7 : un. 10 2003 '_2:32P11 =01 includes tlia follo%ving information." The Director "...Shall use. this information to detettnine. if the area is it rcVull+tcd wetland...." Under s"Oon the information that must do conridoro4 inclt+dus on avaloatiori and su-ossmcni of the.+ uxisting or potontial walland funetioni: and values bajw i or, six enumerated Notcrs. Thoso tinx faotoro ossontially rostato the.+ City policlas for protecting wetl,inds. State. law instructs that it is it clear abuse of discretion for an agency to modify its,' code through an inturprotation that falls outtjdo of the framework and policies of that cock.. In meeing the strictures of this rule, staff much rucoanize that suh- scction (7) is a restatement of City pnlicy and therefore must give ii-cotisiderable w6ght. Con.^.equemly, pursi-mat to Slug: ]tow and the City Codc, the.: City is required tc► t; msidcr the functions and values of a w•cstland area prior to delertnining if it is 1'regulab_d." And, because City policies enui ieiiaed in the Codv cannot be modified or rcic.cted through interprctatiun, it follows that the City mum dc.c:linc to rcEulatc areas that do nut fulfill the fulluduits c,r vtl1uc:5 that thu City st'Seks to protect. Thus, wi: nnve identuied oil.. circumostancc: in which a w ctland cannot be "regulated", namely a wetland that deice not fulfill City policies with raspxt to wetland functions or VAILIO&. So, now we. risk: Leo tile small, isolated, nonfunctional wetlands con Mr. Rabie's property in fact fulfill any of the. Ciiy policies with mspect to wetland lunctions or values? The answer is no. Thcsc wctlands fulfill nonc of the City pc►lkicb, functiw;s, cat vuluvs, Thib Arvuc;lusic,n Ii suprvrtud by the Shannon' & Wit-oon r9•cilund report -,ubrllit►ed tc, tll:. City, w1dul', found chat thewetland areas on and :adjacunl to the site seine none of the enumerated .funclions. The Shannon & Wi1.tu1❑ conclusions wore further agreed to by sus:m Meyer, a City biologist, in a 1!13/94 memo to Mi. Flewhis. And i'ilially, I was lurvimud in a 2116/96 phonic conversatikin with Ms. Barker that if; fact the City agrees that. no City wetland JxAicics are fulfilled by classifying the small, iscilmod,, nonfunctional wetland rheas va Mr. Rabie's property as "regulated" wetland.. Consequently, there is sufficient factaal basis for delel'111itiitig Ll;;it the wetland areas on Mr. Rabl'C's I,rcil)crty should not be, "tcgulaled" bmiuse they fulfill none of the City policies, f;uicuons, or values for pruteciing w(Alfinds. In that same 2/6/96 nhtmu converstition, Ms. Barker indicated her belief that the City veould have,. to Ignore t11.. findings of tile. Sliantion & Wilson report in order to grant Mr. Rabic's request. I &-mgrcie. Rather, what we are ;Asking is for the City to fully and 1'ttirly =&idev all the it ormatiori bcfvoc it. State, law comj Glb 111a miug ugtnci.cb to fully mid fairly cUmildcr all available information bcfofc making a dcclsion. In this case, the full i:+ictum is that the. reparl identifies mnall, i;ol}ucd, non-funetionril wctlanda. Oty exrerts concur that no City policies or wetland functions are served by these. wv11anch, 5o, the betka and fairer dc.wrulint%( coti. whiul+ a►s,Purms to City C.ndc, City palicics, and Statc few, is to Liccli,le to Cltissify these wetlands as "regulated" within the meaning of flu: City Codcv_ if declining to "rogulalo" thorx; areas iw wvetlands is the laetter and fairor dee16011 then is there -Ally pi1'uctiC111 fm !imkiog suu.lt section? Li,;is dGratllc izrrcrcicnl exists in other jurisdictions but BLp"ol/ P. nnvirv, Arrnrnc►- r f lmv t726 f'JW 62mY2 1;oettle, WA 9plp? 206-'99-9J 15 t April6, 1906 Page 3 Freon . Crossroads R-A i_tr F'i•a'_rJF_ No. . 2067621 12 Tyr. 10 200� I---73 N =02 there i5 ntt pre.,mlent either pro or con within the: City. Rc:csall that Haste is 110 lttccrsdtll' in the City because no one had asked the City this questicn before. In cutttla.st, in Mt•. ROO`& 11,+16/'iS reyu�`sl tcf ails C'it�t, ;'t, raxstnted a lengthy distu�siarr tlrat detailed how clihel- Im;al, state, and fe;dt•.ral ag,encie" 'ytri,:Ally exempt ssrtttill,'Solatrd, or tt:)nfuncticInr�i wctibltris. Sttcll i rxc:ntlttitrns can be.be.foundi itt virtunily every system eXa.111 Snr FCdC.e�ri Way. Otll;:r SY!:tetns also lypically recognize tiers (if vs Aands hosed tin their vahlc. Thus, thcJar is cottsicit ul.�le lr:c:lttl'tCjl find fK1liCY precedcra for distingulM%mA afffcrent tylx-s of w6l'110'4 1111d n"L inll)or.tantly fill >jvcll>alr S to "i•eAulate" sic minimal; wetl;'tttl ;i1c°a!:. lrr rcccrgnitinsr of tllc 'V'-Idely a4erpted arts! wehnWal anti }x)lic•y basis fear flat "1'Ggu:atin " [vc'rY wr•tlxrErl 4'+r:v;tttSr` (hc:y ,a:y in siau, futlztitlst, vl,.l:lc rtl:ii r;i rrti[irattep, ch City is now in ttZe process of radmitirlg itt: wetland scale. Our,ci�jMjjcr f i 1=CA)LI ag of fair and hclltest gt7vt~rr1111ci1t cttrEtpcl tare L'ity to recogrtiaa tale severe limits o[ its sa►tic as it is currently bcitlfi al�plieci 10 Mr. R:tllic's project. More spacifit ally, .it is a striking fact of [e h City`s Cta•cic that its tiering nr s.irx, exemptions arc offert:d, III addition, the C:ity's extremely Ysur:icttsomc ;€1(1 ft�tat Setback for tall 'regulated" wt:.tlands is co0trary to e'rery tatllr,.r &Xstcrn ilia( the City is that i gave ertc:-luntcrct{. 'f'ltia is par[icttlarty hurdcttson't wii' a we recOgluzx an urban area with rciat?vtly small IVts for most residentiaa uses. AS suc:ll, 0�1 fool setbactss virtually guarlcrrtc'.,t no develapmcnt t>: evvn improve.-AMs to rrfiidential lcsts in the City, I dnuhl that the drafters of :he CiEY Ctxic intcndt fitt>' 11�1t=vctt Private 4"hie r d3iPtc, of he= City rCOdct! improving their rrt)p^rty, A-b-mter. t,;nsistent and P-rtttis,.t & allows initial discre6ollary exe.mptsclr,s tr,, be granted 011 a eatrt: !xy cast. basis through itlo Section 2'Z-135ti ti6c.tmit?%+li.tui y�rt•CCSa dlstut•scd abc:vc City staff havt:' suggest'.W that an cxenipdon process dk� s exist through tha CiLy'f; j1ft015 errrlinat;tlq, we know allot the City must Gprtsidcr However, vvliem making all initial wet'jams det its wetland policies within tile, runtext of the ;area's itlncticns and values. 11 such values or fulictions are implic:ateci then a prcx_IM 111, ds a Sf*-:i::l cxvm-lption process, allows considcr'lativn of within NvetlandS ill winch the City leas idusttifikd an up front irlrNmst ill prc)tec+irl€;. Thus: tilt isltcnt of the prtsc�:rs lli i4 to grant sp~ci;►! exctnlytiuns f��r ilrtpravament5 in ail�as tliai the City otherwise would seek to protect, l�c�wa. cr, our prior discussion cir•manstratc% that if lh-t re 9re no wet:anci fur ctions to preserve; and 110 City wi incl policies to fulfill then tlrF area ;s n�Yt titre {rsr pet�tecfing anti the neccssily far 8 process ill is removed. In tllat case, requhin� a 1rl-crc:eS$ 111 t1f a small pro;yerty owner is clearly an �an�lue and iwilativ btsrctcn th at iG ',:rillmm ptlmose or public nect�sit�'. 'phis is exactly tl;e sitt,atiosl to lrc fat:ud ual Mr. Ik,%bic.'r pnrp,�rty. At this l3CIlt1[, the t.:i!]' must hlStt ttil;t' rlt)t� VC tltc. fact that rat bare minimum 41c. L'ity Code guarants;cs f42r. Rabic the right to build a ilcstrte an his prt)perty. 'Titus, the Oute'Ome i4 te tlait, Mr. %abie. is dart'(=1111y l,c ng requires! to undergo a burdensome, ,�redc:tet matted. De spi s�racess 111 ±etiic'h tvltcn [he s�u!ccrme is predcter�ttineci ails! there atc Do wetlar"' i.tlu•'rests to Sr"r!lr,. WA :P 707 k: 46•7a9-q3 IS ti i. A,,iil G, 1906 Pay* d protoot. A!I such. this 1 ~iirc►nent, whiclt is currently dfivvm. l:yy S�Ilsorrect staff level code intuip:etation,-m-nack; (if i►rbilru-ine:cs c,ndl+. r port:Orial prejudice ap Mist Mr. Rnt:io. It is equally telling that in its hi&toiy the City has never rcciuirod any other e,ingla family ►cs'deiititil comstrut:ticm. pr(+-,ct ko undergo a c: procss IIi revic.w fo., wch and impacts. In discw:siuils with City st.tff. 1 was informe..ii that only one other single family holrle prc�j(.:t:t, Iatowil7, has been required to undergo a f,rorc.ss lit. This project included subdividing nr Shoit platting the pl'ullC.rty anj moving dll Pil silt• Etrcani• Ilowevcr, streidii eckocatk)n Gain I'+;: abmAutc:ly :tistinguishcd from Mr. Rwhic'apropowni both io sc-( ji c and potential impart. In addition, Stream relocintion is govc med miler Section 22-1 07, not 22-1358, whie-h is the. promisiun at issue in Mir. Thus, staff cannot identify it single example in ttle- history of the City in whitill a nroall piopw-ty %,w1?cr has bet-n reytgirc;d to undcrl;u a process III review for wetlands. In the coume of my converr<llione, staff gug,ge,=,ted that one possible reason 110 other prvjeois havC undcrp�onc a procrm, 111 ro-vitw is that vvllca I-vollc find out the cost and the scvcrc burdens imposed by the City on jmwmial wetland arch& the) don't file or they withclra-.v their application. Ilowc.v r, givell Ihat no guidance document is available it) tell stiff when to "regulate" a putporw.cl -,w--flav3, it is tcppa mnl thut many small rrop�rty uwncrs h;,ve bcon given ur.ne-cessarily rest: ictivc (-ounscl front City staff. Either -this is a telling editc,rial opt thc. City's agendn to prevent small property owner-, from improving their property or an indication that Mr. Rabic is being :singled oui. The reason I outline these. f;lcts is that they -Iuarly ilholraw the utifaimess with wlt;cli the City has responded to Mr. Ra 7ie'r, rc guest. A,i docuntcnti�d in Mr. Rabies wetland report and adixic.d to by both tht; City's own exNrt who reviewed the sa.-m—t and the principal City Planner tuviewing the, I)ruj0.1, 1110 w-cticulcl,,alt Mt. ILaL1015 proln.rty a►e ncit only small, it;c11a1uij, kind utrllfunutiulial but also &erve no City wetland function or fulfill any City palicy. Mr. Rabic is I1 tit ACAIUL'StinK the City to ignore technical information. Oil the contrary, Mr. Ra"no is nihilply 1tAilig lilt Oity to-;onsidcr o11 the ink yrnatmii. Pur-mant to State law, (lie City cannot ignuru the wc,11 ncl tz;xul. ('i!I:.tiltbs ox, C h) staff'.• adoption of that same firlding. In its frame)'York, the City Godc. sets forth certain c.ri.teri'm for 130tern►ining .if a wetland arc!n should be. "regulated." Thrsr Vrilvi-41 cxpm.;sly Illclude City wetlatld policies, which Stele law tcyulr•cs full and fair consicirratim, Of. Because. the Dirtunur maul mt►icc a determination, This Is a diFeretionary act, and ►,tic' possible outcome. is that some. areas can he. "null►egulatud" if they fail to serve. City wrilaticl fx1licics or vwciland ft►nctions. In fact, nowhere in the City Code is there a Stale➢11: rat Whereby ilic, City sceks to proke.cl. nonfunctional, nurlbeni ficiWl wetlands. 'i-ne nonexistence of ,toy P011C,� or Wdcs frainewmk I•ut }I►utccthig nonfunctional wellttncls compels Staff to honc..stly exercise reautnatblu diset ll'on and de-termint: that tlontutictior,a1 wctlantls slaati!d not be "rogulateV' within the meaning of the City Code... R,,vsr.!1E. t)hv;,. , Athx»eyatLaw 17e6 ATV 6311.K $2 3cntda, WA:d107 API-P 5, '996 PApift C., a Refusing to exercise discretion in this matter is a modification of the Code by interpretation, which is prohibited by State law. Therefore, the proper decision based on an honest exercise of reasonable discretion is that the City will decline to classify small, isolated, nonfunctional wetlands as "regulated wetlands" because they serve no wetland policies or functions enumerated in the City Code. Attempting to protect them is a useless act in light of the City policy. More importantly, there is no identifiable, protectible interest that necessitates a process III review. Consequently, the City should support its citizens rights to fair and honest government by not requiring small property owners to seek special exemptions through an expensive and burdensome process III when no City policies are being fulfilled. This logical, reasoned outcome is more compelling in light of City staff's open recognition that citizens are not improving their property because the City process is an enormous burden. It is equally telling that no other property owner has ever been required to undergo a process III for wetlands in the history of the City. At this point, it is clear that City staff recognize there are no benefits to be gained or wetland functions to be preserved from the small, isolated, and nonfunctional wetlands on Mr. Rabie's property. Attempting to classify these areas as "regulated" wetlands flies in the face -of express City policies for regulating wetlands. As such, I cannot conceive of any public interest that will be protected or fulfilled by requiring Mr. Rabie to undergo a process III. More importantly, City staff have not demonstrated that any public interest will be protected or fulfilled by requiring Mr. Rabie to undergo a process III. Accordingly, we must request the City to reconsider its earlier decision and do the right thing by declining to regulate that the small, isolated., non-functional wetlands on Mr. Rabie's property as "regulated" wetlands under the City. Code. In preparing the response to this request, we ask that the City include a written statement of facts, policies and conclusions used by City staff in making its decision. Because of the long delays in moving this project ahead, Mr. Rabie would appreciate a timely response to this request. In pursuit of this, I am available at your convenience to answer any questions or to meet to discuss this further. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, k..�" �,b��_ -1 , kllvv011 i, I),a\ Vow =� Russell E. Davies, Attorney at Law 1726 NW 62nd, #2 s a Seattle, WA 98107 ; 6 206-789-9315 Aprils, 1996 Page CT 1 1--rorn : Croz:Sroad'_ F'_.. t-tr -� PHOHE No. : 2067n21422 `-) Tun. 110 200:3) :1:.3->AM =01 rri April 5, 199fi City Attorney City of Federal Way 33530 1st Wa 14A y�tt)(1t-C,221 1"cde�tal Way, ' c:C a i e %fist ,mUL � % . 7 brat City Aitnrm:y; 17r gttt:t ai�[t Sul}eititiod to U e p:�strtesti cr �ec�t8 tl,e my cif rrsictal The �tsrlx�se elf thi f mtCrt f�uleller Is ctn it �ct'rcto ce lri grief, tt�at lrttrial w tlattds can 1Vlr. {�;tY�ic's tnmuttity Dcvclt 1 fulfill Way to de��lirie to Classify the small, E ,lalca tiiit3 ncmlunt t $ to rotect. y fulfil' il' sl �� a ulatrtl" K�ctla:.[ls uditltirt tls r+ac;s►�:si at tltt3 C do Of ,'WCk� 15ep u« the} Property as r $ which YtittireS cot�sider�ttion csi' t to none (if tile, wetl`tu eCt c�la 2 1356 o At Ci y Code, ssSated'' %veoactd ami is oracle putsu:en a�tilieics. hinclicens, and vzitic:s i+ri rFsctite �`-it}`tto tts�rie 1p rxrrGi r['sonalyie tit retirsn. l ,t11 rrittil l,s:rauas,t tra ,�tatc lc,w , r�'11' , ill '1 hls lctte.r rr•-raises a rr, ttcs( Eltat way 1»ade. in �lnveatl]l�er 1�V5 5 al clifi�ussi has wl iyiit L'it)t �aalf, aarent tl}sit tits City did Bert faitinfullY catsl;l�.r January 19 9C►. Aficx rue}virg ir�t: rc}ert�em, I have had seti�cr And as a regUit of t�tc�e discur'siovi , it is rtov+ a}�1 all rclevari t ittfeyrmaticut • ,,, roquited by City Ccdt: and State ia.�l. fLccardtit ,ly, we must revest the City to recottside:r its ct.rlicr decision. s si[ully Of regulatory reform tnarndawd by the 1S1�4t'tm � r si�Use un ycte�t1 aroi cc►nfident that In thr. spirit S staff in Crafting a YOpan request the catty Attorne to aid C:ty . lr s to fair, honest, undns or to y ats will fulfil' yotir public ditty to available ailksLaya r c�nveni :rice W an5wcr any l on• oovertiment are prolex-tIzA i tart av rnert anti discuss this matter furtl.c.r. Thank yca1.r for your time and oot�st ara Sii,cctcly� Davk% RUS•� 11)r,lnStirCS fi�rcti+:NW F7(td.•�'ptfenR1ei Lew ?2� s#aulr. WA VIO 7U4. 7 s9. 3 ! 5 Pays 7 = May 15, 1996 Mr. Lee Rabie Enerco, Inc. 9615 W Marginal Way S Seattle, WA 98108 Dear Mr. Rabie: RE: Review of Federal Way SEPA Files eT0 =' awr Today I completed the review of the files which the City provided for me, and am waiting for the last four to be located. I re -requested these (including the one on 312th St.) today while I was at City Hall. A City staff person called me this afternoon to say they should be available on Friday, 5/17/96. Following is a summary of the enclosed photocopies: SEP91-0001. [quadrant orporation An MDNS was issued knowing that the proposal would have an effect on water level fluctuations in the wetland, with resulting impacts to wetland and buffer vegetation. The "mitigation" for this site is apparently limited to monitoring the vegetation for 5 years and replanting areas that are threatened to be overtaken by invasive plants. EP93-0001 Michael Gass Stairway As highlighted on the photocopy, the City comment reads "... a Process Ill conditional use permit may not be necessary if the city finds either..." This suggests that the permit may or may not be required, based on a discretionary decision by staff. Later in the letter, find "...the City ... has not expanded the definition of appurtenance to include..." This suggests that staff can reinterpret the definitions of appurtenance found in the shoreline program. On the other hand, it could also mean that a more involved process such as a code amendment, requiring Council approval, is necessary to expand the definition, and that this has not occurred. On the Seawall letter, notice that the applicant points out that Substantial Development Permits (SDP) sometimes require conditional use, and sometimes not. This appears to be discretionary. It appears that Mr. Gass moved away, and the new owner complied with all the City's requirements. SEP95-0008, City of Federal Way This project involved regrading 70 lineal feet of a major stream (the outflow from Brook Lake, tributary to Hylebos Creek), in a high - quality wetland system (Hylebos). Items of interest: the City review by Bill Kingman required preparation of a wetland mitigation plan as required by city code section 22- 1385. Kingman's own notes indicate that the plan was never provided, but says that an PUGET SOUND NATIVE PLANTS (206) 255-0241 12024 SE 71 ST PL NEWCASTLE, WA 98056-1119 I4 966 a!geu aa� 'alN Mr. Lee Rabie May 15, 1996 Page 2 earlier (June 20, 1995) memo "include all necessary elements of the required mitigation plan." I noted that the June 20 memo did not discuss wetlands, only streams. Brook Lake and its outlet are entirely contained within the Hylebos wetland according to the City's maps. The City's findings include that "The proposal is also located within a regulated wetland, ..." and "... no work is proposed within the wetland." How both are possible is not clear. Furthermore, it appears that work within a stream requires only a Process I review, while, in your case, work in a wetland requires a Process III review. The city concludes by saying the stream permit requirements take precedence over the wetland permit process, even though in all other cases I've seen the more rigorous review is required. SEP95-0013- Hylebos Stream ❑redging. Another Process I review for in -stream dredging, this one actually in Hylebos, not just a tributary, and for 300 lineal feet. Again, the City states that the project is located in a wetland but no work is proposed in the wetland. This site has been historically dredged by King County, and maintenance is undoubtedly necessary to protect adjacent property. Too bad the City doesn't feel that way about the malfunctioning storm drain above your property. EP95-0028, Cily of Federal Way Historic Cabins Par This file is of interest because the SEPA review was based on a DRAFT wetland report and the land use application was not filed for SEPA review, due to lack of funds. I believe that the land use application is typically required before or concurrently with the SEPA review process. 5MP94-0004 Marine View E3ulkhead and Stairs An interesting case for three reasons. First, the City in its 7/18/95 letter states that a shoreline permit for the stairs, and SEPA review, are not necessary because of the "confusion about the preexisting condition of the stairs..." I've never seen confusion as a codified reason for not requiring a permit. Second, Bill Kingman uses the phrases "ordinary high water mark," defined as "where the beach and upland vegetation come together. In the May 13, 1996 letter (only two days ago!) Greg Fewins repeatedly says "shoreline ordinary high water line." Neither of these seems close to the rigidity the City displayed relative to your site. Third, the 5/13/96 letter contradicts the 7/18/95 letter by turning around and requiring SEPA for the stairs after all. Fourth, the 5/13/96 letter points out that although the department "made a decision to exempt the stairs from shoreline regulations..., the department may not consider [various activities] to be exempt from shoreline regulations in all cases..." which clearly indicates a level of discretionary staff review. PUGET SOUND NATIVE PLANTS Fr•c,m : CroSsroads R= t Cti- FHC uqF I Jc. . =O67- G-21 a22 Jun. 10 2003 _ 1: 27RH ;:01 1"... , .,. Mr. Lee Rabie May 15. 1996 Page 3 B Wth 1-QaQ �Leri Cie, $ Pl+� A r a�n t plat, et th6 `ragul�ted®d iri$s�r7 aG;ordlrg extensive wetlands, inert li ing two ri,!Caccurately and correCAW eport was to the report. One cornment is "The wetland considered a be regulated wetlands." prepared... Four of the six wetlands are cons Presumably this rriaarss that the City agreed that twO Of t larid mpacthe � and only 0.33 arts of late wetlands. The ['open identifies Q 41 acre of wet mitigation, only 0•i�i3 acre of which is recrsatirg weft he wn regulat0.74 d" watIAn0s, e Of rn+tsga could not tC-11 if the 0.41 acre include buffer impact. i coin but this plan but 4 think it must have: since those two were note address this More fully, butbile t a bplan supposed was were.the file, final1 rr�,ay be ava table on Friday, 5/17. way rsat m We to s,tat9d in hone convarsatioils With you, this process W As 1 l� r a Pre";"sly , P e fiati ycu will see things in the be providing little benefit fa; your cause, a�though est ttlat, after my 5117 visit to the photocopies that escaped me. t would like tO eugS ait for the Ci Y's "legal" response' to Mr. Davies' letter, as 1 tr,ink that wilt be city, we w more productive than m}'current tasK. FtnaLy, 1 must point out that at $121hour f1e3s than 1futl are. rlegu9gest that You not mare your project a high priority ovor r, t e r paying a intern valuate whether slow service is wp�i s the ma other rep swat, such a I a X,11eigei You e $ervices or obtain an want to continue with my in environirentai studies Sincerely, r DianQ M. Ryba ' Wetland 81101091st r��� �y,�rfr siC,:SND NA7iV1= PLANTS \ tIN;' 33530 1ST WAY SOUTH (206) 661-4000 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003-6210 May 15,1996 Mr. Russell Davies Attorney at Law 1726 NW 62nd Avenue, Suite ##2 Seattle, WA 98107 RE: I SM90-0004 & 92-687NR, RABIE DEVEwpmENT APPLICATIONS Block 21, Plat of Buenna, Federal Way, WA Dear Mr. Davies: Thank you for your letter of April 5, 1996, to Deb Barker, Associate Planner, regarding the wetland determination for the above referenced project. Staff has read your letter and reanalyzed the September 1993, wetland report prepared by Shannon & Wilson, the expert hired by Mr. Rabie to determine if wetlands exist on the site. Based on staff review of this information, and my review of your request, I have concluded the following: The Federal Way City Code (FWCC) definition of regulated wetland is as follows: `Regulated wetlands shall mean those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar area, with the exception of the following areas shown in the King County Wetlands Inventory Notebook, Volume 3 South: (1) Lower Puget Sound Beach; (2) Lower Puget Sound 1 and 51; and (3) Areas defined as a regulated lake. Methodology in the January 1989 Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands and subsequent United States Army Corps of Engineers regulatory guidance letters will be used for regulatory delineations of wetlands within the city. _ - Mr. Russell Davies May 15, 1996 Page 2 Although a site specific wetland may not meet the criteria described above, it will be considered a regulated wetland if it is functionally related to another wetland that meets the criteria." As you can see, the definition of regulated wetland does not relate to the size nor function of a wetland (FWCC section 22-1). T Page 1, paragraph three of the September 1993 Shannon & Wilson report states, "Two small areas at this site were found to meet the technical definition as wetland according to the 1989 methodology." The size of wetland A is listed as 5,650 square feet, and wetland B is listed as 5,000 square feet. Page 4, paragraph one states, "Wetland conditions are present at two locations on the subject site. Wetland A and B may be classified as Palustrine, scrub -shrub, saturated wetland habitats at the present time." The city's wetland specialist concurred with the conclusions of the Shannon & Wilson wetland report in a January 13, 1994, memorandum (enclosed) . In making this wetland determination decision, I found documention that these areas meet the city's adopted definition of regulated wetland based on,soil saturation and existence of � vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soils con ditions. As discussed in the January 4, 1996, letter from Deb Barker, there are two classes of exemptions from wetland regulation, contained in FWCC section 22-1248: 1) Emergencies, that in the opinion of the Director of Community Development Services, threaten the public health, safety, and welfare. 2) Normal and routine maintenance and repair of the following facilities, for which a maintenance plan has been approved by the Public Works Director: a) Existing drainage ditches, except those used by salmonoids. b) Surface water facilities. c) Existing public facilities and utility structures or rights -of -way. There is no other policy or regulation which grants me the authority to exempt an area that meets the definition of a regulated wetland from the city's wetland requirements. Based on the information provided, I have determined that the areas in question are regulated wetlands and as such are subject to the requirements of FWCC Division 7, Regulated Wetlands. If you are not satisfied with this determination, the provisions of FWCC Section 2- Mow '7001 A.I .Ai, Mr. Russell Davies May 15, 1996 Page 3 1245, Appeals of determination made under article, lay out the appeal options available pursuant to FWCC section 22-5. Appeals are reviewed and decided upon using Process II review. Linder Process 11, the Federal Way Hearing Examiner conducts a public hearing, and bases his decision on the criteria of section 22-443(c). Appeal fees are $2,163. Should you have any questions, please call Deb Barker, Associate Planner, at 661-4103. Sincerely, Gregory . Moore, AICP Directo of Community Development Services enc: January 13, 1994 Memorandum from Susan MeyerlWetland Specialist FWCC Section 22-1245, Appeals of Determination Made under Article FWCC Section 22-5, Appeals FWCC Article VII, Process II Review Master Land Use Application c: Deb Barker, Associate Planner Jim McNamara, Deputy City Attorney Mr. Lee Rabie ENERCO Inc., 9615 West Marginal Way South, Seattle, WA 98108 i i WE'IRPSP.L971 :j March 5, 1997 Mr. Gregory Moore Director of Community Development Services City of Federal Way 33530 1st Way South Federal Way, WA 988003 RE: Wetland Determination at Buenna Block 21 Dear Mr, Moore. I have reviewed material provided to me by your staff people and by Mr. Lee Rabic, owner of the above -referenced parcels of land. This material includes various affidavits regarding a petition for writ of mandamus, wetland reports, and correspondence in the Rabic file at your offices. I have also conducted several site visit over the last year and conclude that the slippage of soil on this site has effectively eliminated any wetlands which existed in the past. I find several statements made by you or your staff people to be in error, and request corrections or clarification and justification of your decisions. As you know, this project has been pending since before Federal Way became a city. On August 9, 1990, Mr. Rabic filed an application in the City of Federal Way for a grading permit on his site, to attempt to dewater and stabilize a slope. As you also know, much of the water on this site is discharged from a storm water drainage system above Mr. Rabie's property, flows across the neighbors' lots, and falls over the bluff and onto Buenna Block 21. It is Mr. Rabie's position that if the City properly managed its road runoff, the issue of wetlands on his property would be much less significant. however, the City has elected to refuse to accept responsibility for its inadequate drainage system, instead foisting the problem off onto local landowners. I z, Mr. Rabic is not asking for much: he simply wants to manage the road runoff in the safest, most efficient manner possible. The City has been throwing roadblocks in his way since the inception of this project, demanding outrageous fees for applications that amount to spiteful harassment. Application of a little common sense would reveal that there is no rational excuse for regulating the so-called "wetlands" on this site, and that the process the City has insisted on is excessive over -regulation. We ask that the City step back, review its position from an unbiased perspective, and consider whether the people of Federal Way are truly being served by the tax -wasting position that the City has taken in light of the lack of wetland functions -served by the designated wetlands on Mr. Rabie's property. In reviewing the material in support of the City's decisions, I noted that staff frequently took the position that "all wetlands within the City are regulated wetlands, regardless of size or quality." In 1996, Ms. Deb Barker told me that all wetlands are regulated because the City has no 12101 SF., 71 sr PLACE NFwcAsn,E, WA 98056 (206) 277-8114 M.1, Gregory Moore 'Marcli"5,11997 �,. Page 2 I J mechanism for not regulating some wetlands. From a philosophical and scientific standpoint, I have no objection to the position of protecting all wetlands. Wetlands are important elements of the ecosystem and need to be protected. However, the City's regulations do not support this position. In the March, 1990 Comprehensive Plan, in effect at the time of Mr. Rabie's permit application, there is a distinction between "wetlands" and "regulated wetlands." Wetlands, of course, are "Those areas that are inundated or saturated by groundwater...," the definition used b} the Corps of Engineers. Regulated wetlands, on the other hand, are Class I and Class II wetlands identified by Icing County, or any wetland that meets or is functionally related to a wetland that ] meets criteria listed in the Comprehensive Plan related to wetland functions (see below), Since the on -site wetlands do not sheet these criteria, rlrey are not regulated vvetlanels. Furthermore, the most recent field visits have revealed that these areas are not "wetlands" at all. The affidavits of your staff people make a number of statements that directly conflict with the facts of the case, or leave a great deal of room for interpretation. leis. Barker's declaration dated January 17, 1997 states "...even if the City were to determine that the wetlands on the Rabie Property were not "regulated wetlands,"..." suggesting that such a determination is possible, although she had told me in person last year that it was not. Mr. Moore, your own statement in your 1 / 17/97 declaration is that the Shannon and '' dson wetland report (for which you provide no date; I assume you refer to the report dated September 14, 1993) identifies the areas on Mr. Rabie's site as meeting the "inundated or saturated" definition, and that the wetlands are therefore regulated. You base this on Section 22-1356 of the Federal Way City Code. But since the City's regulations in effect at the time of permit application make a distinction between wetlands and regulated wetlands, your statement is clearly incorrect. Furthermore, you quote Ms. Susan R•leyer of W11 Pacific as stating that "The wetlands, therefore, do have value for enhancing water quality. Since surface water was not addressed in the [Shannon and Wi[son] wetland report,..." However, the actual text of the wetland report reads "These wetlands do not provide water purification fiinctions or prevent flooding in downstream areas." On June 22, 1993 and on January 13, 1994, IVIs. Nleyer sent memos to City staff; neither of these memos make the statement that the on -site wetlands serve the functions generally attributed to wetlands that would make them regulated wetlands. The conclusion of the report was that the on -site wetlands d❑ not have these values, furthermore, surface water was addressed. Whether this mistake was yours or Ms. Meyer's in yet another memo, the effect is the same. If your decision was based on faulty information, then it is highly probable that your decision itself is faulty. Your final statement is "the City would consider the areas on Nlr. Rabie's property as regulated wetlands because the wetlands serve an important water duality enhancement purpose." Can you please tell me where you found this statement? None of the material I have seers suggest that the wetlands are capable of providing, much less actually do provide, "important water quality enlancement." 1t is apparent that you have never seen the "wetlands" in question; no rational 12101 SE 71 sT PLACE NEWCAST1.E, W 998056 (206) 277-81 14 7,-ZrCwrY Moore March 5, 1997 Page! L professional could consider an incised ditch with no in -stream vegetation to be a wetland with "important" water quality functions. Mr. Fewins continues this line of misinformation with his 1/17/97 declaration statement "It continues to collect and filter water, even though its location changes from time to tirne because of the slides." There is less filtering going on in these wetlands than in your average road -side ditch. Mr. Fewins really makes a leap with his next sentence: "Even if the majority of tine property were to slide and become a ravine, the wetland would still exist and still continue to function; it would simply be in a different location and configuration." The obvious logical flaw in this statement is that if the site slid, the wetland would still exist. Does Mr. Fewins think that the combination of wetland hydrology, hydric soil, and hydrophytic vegetation appear instantaneously as soon as the earth stops moving? The natural processes of erosion create and destroy wetlands oil an on -going basis. I have to ask what psychic ability lets him know that the 'wetland will still exist in the future, Since the slippage on the site of the last year has, in fact, obliterated tiie former wetlands, it is clear that Mr. Fewins stepped far out of line with his remarks. In the respondents' answer in opposition to petition for writ of mandamus, several statements are made that are absurd at face value. The City claims that Mr. Rabie's permit has been delayed by the complexity of his proposal, and goes on to point out that he wants a 17,000 square foot house on a property with 11,000 square feet of wetlands (a large portion of which was off -site). It is appropriate to point out that this number is from a report 3 1/2 years old, and that the wetlands have substantially decreased in size since that time. Results of a preliminary study underway to document this change indicate that in fact there are NO wetlands on Mr. Rabie's properly, regulated or otherwise. Does the City have some code forbidding large houses? A 17,000 square foot house is a good deal less complicated than ten 1,700 square foot houses, which would easily fit on the site. Do 11,000 square feet of non-functional wetland, a tiny fraction of tlue entire site, deserve protection, especially as the geological activity on the site is rapidly causing the wetlands to disappear? Can the City justify within the limits of its own regulations the requirement that Mr. Rabic proceed with ridiculous hearings to determine whether or not the wetlands should be regulated at all, when the matter is a simple decision to be made by the Planning official without any special applications or fees? Tile City's response states "tile Petition seeks to compel the City ... to make its determination of whether a wetland is "regulated" contingent upon a particular wetland's value and functions -- that does not exist in the City's code." I direct your attention to Section 90.145 of the Comprehensive Plan, in effect at the time of permit application. It reads as follows: 90.145 Re la d We l nd3 - Determination f W l nd nd ReVlatcA Wetland- ner 1- This Section contains procedures and criteria for determining whether an area, other than those areas defined as regulated wetlands 12101 SE 71 sr N,ACE NEWCAs-n.E, WA 99056 (206) 277-9114 _�..._....__�_.- _._..... —__ L 1 Mr. Gregory. Moore March 5, 1997 ' under Section 3,10.725.a of this Code, is a regulated wetland under this Code. j 2. Ev a i) - The Planning Official shall make an initial evaluation based on information provided or available to the City to determine if the subject property contains or is within 100 feet of any mapped or unmapped I wetland which may constitute a regulated wetland under this Code. a. An evaluation of the area in question. based on the definitions in this Code of "Wetland" and "Regulated Wetland." 1 3. Determination - The Planning Official shall use the information provided under paragraph 2 of this section to determine whether a regulated wetland exists on or within 100 feet of the property, and, if so, the precise boundaries of that regulated wetland. JThe definition of "regulated wetland" includes the following: J b. Any wetland whether or not mapped, that meets, or is functionally related to, a wetland that meets one or more of the following criteria: 1 1) Serves significant biological functions. J 2) Serves significant drainage and sedimentation functions. 3) Shields other areas from wave action, erosion or storm damage. 4) Serves as valuable storage area for storm and flood waters. 5) Is a prime, natural recharge area. 6) Serves significant water purification functions. Although a site -specific wetland may not meet the criteria described above, it will be considered a regulated wetland if it is fianctionally related to another wetland that meets the criteria. It is clear that the Code provides a distinction between "wetlands" and "regulated wetlands." It is clear that a wetland must provide some significant function, or be f nctionally related to one that sloes, in order to be regulated- It is clear from the original wetland report and the 1993 and 1994 evaluations by the City's contracted wetland professional that the wetlands on -site did not provide these functions and were not related to any that did. What is not clear is why the City insists on regulating what is clearly not a regulated wetland. The City's response to the petition for writ of mandamus brings up quotes that, out of context, make the wetlands on Mr. Rabie's property sound like they are of the same quality as the Hylebos 12101 SE 71 sr PACE NE_WCAsnE, WA 98056 (206) 277-8114 rMr. Gregory Moore, March 5, 1997 Page 5 wetland system. The City response reads "First, Mr. Rabie asserts that the Rabie wetlands perform only limited wetland functions, if any and that the City's consultant agrees with this conclusion. A brief glance at the reports... indicates otherwise." It would have to be a brief glance indeed to miss the point that the consultants are not calling this a valuable wetland system, The City quotes the Shannon and Wilson wetland report as saying the site wetlands 14rovide a seasonal water source for birds and wildlife, and that raccoon tracks were observed in the mud. I have seen crows and raccoons visiting mud puddles on dirt streets, but that doesn't make the rnud puddles valuable wetlands. The City quotes Ms. Meyer as saying the wetlands have value for enhancing the water that comes out of the City's storm drainage system. However, no water quality enhancement is likely to occur in a channelized system with no vegetation, flowing down a Slope of sufficient gradient that it is causing erosion rather than depositing sediment. The City's response indicates that on May 15, 1996, the City issued a "regulated wetlands" determination (if this is tine first time, why has the City been attempting to regulate the wetlands for so long, prior to making the determination?). It is our contention that this decision is faulty for the reasons staled above and should be withdrawn. Furthermore, if the City can issue a "regulated wetland" determination without a hearing, then it can also issue a "non -regulated wetland" determination without a hearing, and more importantly, without applications, fees, or Process I, II, 1II, or IV. One of the arguments against the writ of mandamus is the rule of deference, stating that deference should be accorded to the special expertise of administrative agencies." The problem with this argument is that in this case, the City has no special expertise, relying instead on an independent contractor. The City's decisions appear to be based in large part on misunderstanding or outright disregard for the special expertise of both the contracted professional and the opinions of other professionals working on tine project. Furthermore, the City has read importance into isolated sentences and phrases in the reports of professional wetland specialists, which when taken in context clearly do not indicate that the site wetlands had any significant values. The City states that Mr. Rabie has misread the City's Code; that there is no requirement to make a determination of whether a wetland is regulated based on the wetland's functions and values; I direct your attention to the previous section on the wetland vs. regulated wetland dichotomy and suggest that perhaps it is the City who has misread the Code. In fact, the City quotes its own code for the definition of "regulated wetland;" while the quote may be correct for the version quoted, it is not relevant for this site which is vested under older regulations. If this is tine basis for your decision, Mr. Moore, as claimed in the response, then you admit your own errors. To say that someone with no technical expertise in a specialized field is entitled to "considerable judicial deference" is absurd. Would you visit a dentist for open heart surgery, since any doctor 12101 SE 71 sr PLACE NEWCASME, WA 98056 (206) 277-8114 Mr Gregory Moore lVlarFh 5, 1997 Page 6 could be accorded deference under this argument? In a memorandum from you to Planning Staff, dated March 27, 1996, you list as one criteria for regulating man-made wetlands "the ecological ftinctions and values of the site." This is followed by a reason not to regulate wetlands as "limited functions and values." Given these remarks, how can you continue to insist that wetlands with no values should be regulated? The response states "Nothin in Federal Way's code... requires the Director to separately evaluate the function or value of a wetland before determining that it meets the "regulated wetland" definition; the Director is merely required to "use this information"... to determine if the area is a "regulated wetland." " This is extremely confusing. First you say nothing requires evaluation of the functions or values of a wetland, then you say the Director is m rel a lire to use this information to determine if the wetland is regulated. Yet the Comprehensive plan does require consideration of function. What would be the point of using the information provided in the report to determine whether a wetland is regulated, if not for the purpose of identifying valuable versus valueless wetlands? Do you propose to not regulate the high value ones? Of course not. Then why do you insist on regulating wetlands that, as the report put it, "provide limited habitat functions and are not responsible for significant hydrologic functions ... do not provide water purification functions or prevent flooding in downstream areas." Your response states "Thus, while the definition of "regulated wetlands" contemplates that, in some circumstances, the Director will need to consider the values and functions..." You admit that it is occasionally necessary, but refuse to engage in such consideration on a highly deserving site. Such failure is without justification. Your assertion that Mr. Rabie's argument would "elevate the "functions and values" portion of a consultant report over that narrative definition in 22-1 " is also faulty. Of course, the Code at issue is the Comprehensive Plan, not the newer Title 22. More important, however, is the fact that Mr. Rabie does not want one section of the regulations to be treated with greater weight than another, on the contrary, he wants all sections given equal weight, including the section that says "The Planning Official shall make an initial evaluation based on information provided or available to the City to determine if the subject property contains or is within 100 feet of any mapped or unmapped wetland which constitute a regulated wetland under this Code" (emphasis added), and the definition of "wetland" vs "regulated wetland." The City's response goes bn to reiterate the need to protect wetlands such as those on the Rabie property to protect wetland functions, but continues to ignore the lack of functions that such wetlands provide, to ignore the fact that most unregulated uplands and roadside ditches serve sinvlar or better functions, and to ignore the potentially hazardous geologic movement of this site, which has already caused the wetlands to disappear, and which may be alleviated by allowing the proposed development to progress. 12101 Sr-_' 71srPrAce Ne«'cASn.c, WA 98056 (206) 277-811-1 rage The City's argument quotes I'ajute,po0! r,, Rahrdeaffgs saying "action is not arbitrar capricious when exercised honestly and upon due consideration... y and although the issue has been given excessive consideration, it has notlbeen uivenr�tention that and that the City has invested so much energy and become so entrenched its due consideration, position that it cannot overcor»e the inertia and acknowledge that the alleged wetlands on the Rabie sit in fact, merit preservation. The City is grasping at straws, anything that will 1 e do not, et them av the truth of this issue, that there are no regulated wetlands on tlus site in acc oid facing regulations, ordance with City For all of the reasons stated above, we believe it necessary for rile City to reconsider regarding the alleged wetlands on this site, '1'hefe are rro wetlands Qrt this site. T Y nsrder its position decide whether to insist that there are wetlands, but of an unregulated natureThe City must determined by an adnunistrative decision, or acknowledge that there are �hrclt can be on recent field work which shows that nowhere on the site is the "saturated or rowetlunds at all, based definition of wetlands met. dated" We look forward to your response to this letter: Although the matter is a simple undoubtedly a great deal of thoughtful discussion that will be necessarybefore one, there is a reasonable response. We feel that 30 days will be more than sufficient, a you can formulate Your response within that time frame so that Mr. Rabie's building c1eu�t' and anticipate receiving more frivolous delays. g permit may be issued without Sincerely Diane M. Ryba Wetland Specialist c ' Lee Rabie,HEnerco Inc., 9615 W Marginal Way S, Seattle WA 98108 Ken Nyberg (City Manager) Skip priest (Mayor) lack Dovey Hope Elder Mary Gates Ron Gintz Michael Park Phil Watkins 12101 SE 71sT P ACEACE _--rrr� _ NEWCAsTLI, WA 98056 (206) 2 77-8114 i CITY OF^� ' 33530 1ST WAY SOUTH March 31, 1997 Diane M. Ryba 12101 SE 71 st Place Newcastle, WA 98056 Re: Lee Rabie Dear Ms. Ryba: FEDERAL VVL.Y. VJ1, 9i;0 L27 We have received your letter dated March 5, 1997, concerning the City's application of its wetlands -related provisions of the Federal Way City Code. The letter asks me to withdraw previous administrative determination, made on May 15, 1996, that the wetlands on proper. owned by your client, Mr. Lee Rabie, are "regulated wetlands" within the meaning of FWC, 1. Although the letter makes many arguments in support of this request (the letter totals see pages), most if not all of these arguments simply restate arguments previously made by Mr.. in conjunction with his Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the King County Superior Court. ' arguments were rejected by King County Superior Court Judge Janice Niemi, who entered a Order Dismissing Petition for Writ of Mandamus on January 23, 1997. Mr. Rabie did not se reconsideration of or appeal Judge Niemi's decision, which is now final. Given this finality, t is no reason for me to revisit my administrative determination concerning the definition of regulated wetlands, and I must respectfully decline your invitation that I do so. The March 5 letter does contain several assertions concerning the status of the wetlands on 1V. Rabie's property. For example, the letter claims that "the most recent field visits have reveale that these areas [on Mr. Rabie's property] are not `wetlands' at all." March 5, 1997, letter fro Ryba to Moore at 2. On page 3 of the letter, you state "results of a preliminary study underwa. this document change [sic] indicate that in fact there are NO wetlands on Mr. Rabie's property regulated or otherwise. Id.at 3. The letter also states, "the slippage on the site of the last year in fact, obliterated the former wetlands..." Id. If these claims are true, and if Mr. Rabie wishes develop his property, invite him to document any changed conditions on the site and submit the for review, along with the other, outstanding information necessary to allow processing of his applications. Such documentation must be prepared in accordance with all report requirements contained in FWCC Section 22-1356. As previously explained, Mr. Rabie will be responsible tc pay for any consultant services required for the City's review of this information prior to beginning this review. In this regard, please be advised that Mr. Rabie has allowed his incomple application to languish for several years. If Mr. Rabie does not provide the additional informatic necessary to allow processing within thirty (30) days of this letter, the City will close its file on Mr. Rabie's application, which will become null and void. For Futher information, please contact Deb Barker, Associate Planner at 661-4103. Sincerely, l Gregory . Moore, AICP Director of Community Development Services cc: Londi K. Lindell Lee Rabic Deb Barker Bob Sturbank council I:1Rl'BAR.ABI.LTR April 5, 1997 J� Mr. Lee Rabie J Enerco, inc. 9615 W Marginal Way South Seattle, WA 98109 RE: - Response from Gregory ivioore to March 5 Letter Dear Mr. Rabie. Enclosed is a copy of the letter Mr. Moore sent to me. Alihough you are on t1�occ, led ptr! ° the indicated that you have not yet received a copy. I suggest that this should be 1 City, in light of the fact that they say they will cancel your apple letter. i I you JO not trovide the information they are asking for within 30 days of the date of t investigating; whether they have the legal authority to do this, and in the meantime file a formal objection. As you can see, Mr. Moore responded to very few of the issues I raised in nt ems hadHisalrpdy boll on the issues appears to be that King County Superior Court Judge Janice Tti rejected the arguments, and therefore Mr. Moore's original position is validated, however, in reading the court decision you sent me (which is not signed by a representative of the Court, so I don't know if it is the final version), I see nothing to this effect. The Court denied the Petition for Writ of Mandamus, but nowhere said that Mr. Moore is correct in his position. My interpretation of the denial is that the Court felt either that it was not appropriate for the nratter to be decided sultby ed the Court, or that Mandamus was not the appropriate vehicle. Your attorney should be for an accurate assessment of the meaning of the decision. Mr. Moore invites you to document the absence of wetlands, and states "Mi. Rabie will be responsible to pay for any consultant services required for the City's review of this information prior to beginning this review." The grammar of the sentence is sufficiently peculiar that I'm not sure what it means, unless it means that you must pay application fees before the City will review your proposal. However, I would suggest responding by asking the City if, hypothetically speaking, they would require a wetland study on a lot that has no indicators of the presence of wetlands on their maps, and which has no indicators of wetlands on the site itself. A quick site visit by the Cit 's biologist to confirm that there are no wetlands would be significantly more efficient than submitting documentation for review, which would probably have to be verified b site visit anyway. Mr. Moore is deeply entrenched in the idea of regulating your site under current standards. I seen nothing justifying this position, and believe the City does not have thin authority to impo new regulations on old applications vested under previous regulations. If Mr. Moore persist would ask him to show you the law that permits him to require that new standards be met. ' suspect that it will be another example of policy plucked from thin air. 12101 SE 71STPI ACE, NEWCnS•11.E WA 98056, (206) 277-8114.. CEI.i.M AR Ii (206) 380-0608 f f � r April 5, 1997 Mr. Lee RaWe Paget tter, I was leased to see his comment that it Was the City's inaction that Regarding Mr. Jensen s le P City must ve resulted in destruction of the wetlands. A good poinnds twhenethe City is employ ng to let et}aem thinkers to justify forcing others to protect wetlands, disappear r ear rather than put any effort into preserving them. On the other hand, ocessed your permit of effort into preventing your prove actual theybeen able m preserve and even enhance the wetlands �L in a timely manner, they might have Y as part of your building permit conditions. 1f you have any questions, lease feel free to call. P Sincerely, ,(L�(1z-su. Diane M. Ryba Wetland Specialist c; J. Darin Jensen, 616 Reed Street, Sedro-Wooley WA 98284 #, IM 12101 SE 71 si PLACE, Nr%;'c,�s�t.e W A 98056, (206) 277-8114, CGI.LMAR # (2(1G) 380-0008 33530 1ST WAY SOUTH June 25, 1997 J. Darrin Jensen Law Office of J. Darrin Jensen 616 Reed Street Sedro-Wooley, WA 98284 RE: LSM 90-0004 & 92-0687NR (Lee Rabie) Dear Mr. Jensen: (206) 661-4000 FEDERAL WAY, WA 90003-6210 RECEIVE-- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT D_PA. PRi IT J U N 2 6 1997 C(D F"y (206) 661-4034 We have received your letter dated March 31, 1997, to Gregory Moore, Director of the City of Federal Way Department of Community Development Services. Mr. Moore passed your letter on to me, and asked that I respond as a courtesy. The letter raises several different legal and factual issues/claims; I have grouped some of them together for purposes of this response. (CZ- --- (n,� �. N CI G lM u 5 -� IiU� I •I �,,;� C The general overall gist of the March 31 letter is that the City has allegedly deliberately delayed processing Mr. Rabie's development application, thus damaging and "taking" his property. March 31, 1997 letter from J. Darrin Jensen to Gregory Moore at 1, 2. Since you are at Ieast the fourth attorney to represent Mi Rabie, you may not be aware that Mr. Rabie recently sued. the City of Federal Way in Ding County Superior Court, raising exactly the same claim. Mr_ Rabie sought a Writ of Mandamus to compel the City to take action, and requested damages allegedly resulting from the City's failure to act. After substantial briefing and argument, however, the Honorable Janice Niemi concluded that Mr. Rabie had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required, and that Mr. Rabie's lawsuit was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The Court therefore dismissed Mr. Rabie's Petition for Writ of Mandamus, including the claim for damages contained therein, in its entirety. A copy of Judge Niemi's Order Dismissing Petition for Writ of Mandamus, dated January 23, 1997, is enclosed. The Order was a final appealable decision, and Mr. Rabie's failure to appeal � •saw ,<c-�.4qY.s. .:.<•zr n... ..- „n, � ,.. ,,....��+c� r N f J. Darrin Jensen June 25, 1997 Page 2 it means that each of the claims threatened in the March 31 letter are barred by the doctrines of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel. 2. tatV.s of Wetlands on Rabic PLopgqy= The March 31 letter also asserts, based on a letter dated March 5, 1997 from Diane Ryba to Director Moore, that the wetlands on the Rabic property "have now disappeared." The March 31 letter blames the wetland's alleged disappearanice upon "the lack of stabilization resulting in the [land] slides...." March 31 letter at 2. There are at least two responses to this argument. First, please be aware that although Ms- Ryba's March 5 letter implied that the status of the wetlands on the Rabic property has changed, Ms. Ryba did not submit any documentation (in the form of site visit reports, wetland delineations, or the like) in support of her assertion. Director Moore invited her to do so, by letter dated March 31, 1997, but neither Ms. Ryba nor Mr. Rabic ever responded. In the absence of any such documentation, the City cannot rely on claims sM by . Ryba or by you concerning the status of the wetlands on the Rabic property. Second, and perhaps more important, any change in the wetlands on the Rabic property has resulted from Mr. Rabic's illegal and unauthorized grading activities rather than landslides. In response to Ms. Ryba's letter and your March 31 letter, City staff inspected Mr. Rabie's property last month. Staffmembers observed that a ditch had been dug, by hand, to drain each of the two wetlands on the Rabie property. The fact that the ditches were dug by hand, rather than created by earthquake or landslide, was apparent from the piles of side cast material present along the length of each ditch. Notwithstanding the digging, wetland plant species appeared to still be present. In light of the site visit, and until the City is provided detailed information from a qualified consultant demonstrating to the contrary, the City can only conclude that the wetlands remain on the Rabic property. Moreover, the ditching and draining of the wetlands violates FWCC sections 22-1094 (requiring approval for land surface modifications) and 22-1358 (no construction or land surface modifications may take place within a regulated wetland, except those approved via Process III). To remedy this situation, Mr. Rabic must complete his pending Land Surface Modification Permit to 'Hilltop Terrace Homeowners Association v. Bland Coun 126 Wash. 2d 22, 891 P.2d 29 (1995) ("resurrecting the same claim in a subsequent action is barred by res judicata. 'When a subsequent action is on a different claim, yet depends on issues which were determined in a prior action, the re-Iitigation of those issues is barred by collateral cstappel."); Anderson v. National Dank 146 Wash. 520, 528, 264 P.8 (1928) (res judicata applied to every point which properly belonged in the litigation and which parties exercising reasonable diligence might have included in it); A4 cra v. Ww-ten QtySchnnl r) Board of J..ducation, 465 U.S. 75. 104 S.C. 892, 79 L. Ed. 2d 56 (1984) (full faith and credit clause of United States Constitution mandates subordination of claims under 42 U.S.0 § 1983 to state claim preclusion law). J. Darrin Jensen June 25, 1997 Page 3 address his illegal draining of the wetland.' Failure to do so may result in the City commencing an enforcement action against Mr. Rabie pursuant to FWCC sections 22-121-128, and may also subject Mr. Rabie to civil and/or criminal penalties pursuant to FWCC 22-11. M�.r,Tel ' 40TIM, Kom 011,f The March 31 letter also asserts that the primary cause of the wetlands on Mr. Rabie's property is runoff from "the drainage system installed by [sic] the City's failure to alleviate the problems from the street runoff in the area." March 31 letter at 2.3 It is unclear whether Mr. Rabie asserts that runoff from City streets, or runoff from a City -owned drainage system, is the cause of the Wetlands. If the former, please be aware that the Court of Appeals, Division I, recently held that: A municipality, in constructing a road upon a dedicated street in a plat, even though it changes the surface, and increases the flow onto adjacent property (because the roadway is impermeable, for example), 4!2es not qacuL 1ibility. DiBlasi it City o , "ecattle 85 Wash. App. 514, 520 (Div. I March 31, 1997)(emphasis added). If Mr. Rabie instead believes the landsliding is caused by drainage from a catch basin at the southwest corner of 9th Avenue S.W. and S.W. 295th Street, his concern is similarly misplaced. According to the September 24, 1993 report prepared by Mr. Rabie's consultant, H. N. Lehtinen, water collected in a drainage ditch along 9th Avenue S.W. percolates into the ground via a "french drain." Other water flows over S.W. 295th street onto adjacent property where according to Mr. Lehtinen it is allegedly collected by a property owner in an eight -inch tightline and discharged on top of the upper bluff. The City is not liable for any of this drainage. The water infiltrated via the "french drain" becomes groundwater. The City is not liable for groundwater flow from the basin which finds its way over the bluff onto Mr. Rabie's property, because liability only attaches to actions affecting surface water, and the ground water is following its natural flow over the bluff. The city is also not liable for water which flows off of S.W. 295th Street. DiBlosi, 85 Wash. App. 514. Finally, the City is not liable for water being discharged by an adjacent property owner through an eight -inch tightline. Mr. Rabie's complaint is with the owner of that tightline--not the City. 2Even apart from the illegal drainage, Mr. Rabie's application is incomplete with respect to SEPA, the wetlands issue, and geotechnical issue as noted in the City's January 4, 1996 letter at pages 9 and 10. 3Mr. Rabic included this claim in his briefing on his Petition for Writ of Mandamus and request for damages. Because the Court dismissed this Petition as well as the claim for damages incorporated within it, any claim now for damages based on the claim that drainage from the City's drainage system has caused a landslide is barred by res judicata. b IV fa of Wi the NI Mr. Mr. entir, 23,1 J. Darrin Jensen June 25, 1997 Page 4 4. Qonclusion. As discussed above, the City is not liable to Mr. Rabie, either for alleged delay on the City's part in processing Mr. Rable's applications, or for how however, he City has prge. As ovided this analysis attorney, we as a understand you may Feel obligated to disagree; at such as those courtesy and does not wish to be involved in a protracted letter writing campaign Mr. Rabie and his previous attorneys in the past." Mr. Rabie should finish the work waged by required to provide a complete application and cease illegal dfautage activnfor . ti he wishes to ng proceed with development of his property, he should also submit any changed info previous � tter ),mood the wetlands and other information required by the City (detailed in the City's p proceed with the process. If he does not repair the ge to the wetlands, he days o£ the date of tor his letter the ay finformace at on criminal penalties. IF he does not submtt �t.nthe City will have no choice but to cancel necessary to allow further processing of his applications,ty Mr. Rabie's application files and cease any further processing. Sincerely, BOB C. STERBANK Assistant City Attorney BCS:db encl. K:VLotte abiaez.ltr 4The City does not have the resources to respond to a chain of letters. Accordingly, while the city may be unable to respond to future letters along the lines of the March 31 letter, the City's silence should not be taken as acquiescence in or agreement with any statements made in such letters. COFT January 22, 1998 Via Certified Mail and Regular Mail Mr. Lee Rabie ENERCO 9615 West Marginal Way Seattle, WA 98108 RE: CANCELED APPLICATIONS: LSM 90-0004, 92-678NR, RABIE LSM BLOCK 21, PLAT OF BUENNA, FEDERAL WAY, WA Dear Mr. Rabie: The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the above referenced applications were canceled in 1997. In a letter dated June 25, 1997, Assistant City Attorney Bob Sterbank responded to different legal and factual claims of J. Darrin Jensen, an attorney representing you (copy enclosed). Mr. Sterbank's letter also contained a deadline for submittal of the information necessary to allow further processing of the application. The letter indicated that if the information was not received within 15 days of the date of the letter, the City would cancel your applications and cease further processing. Mr. Sterbank's letter was a follow up to previous letters from the city detailing a variety of missing information. ' On July 7, 1997, the City received a copy of a letter to you from HongWest & Associates, Inc. The letter reviewed survey data at the site, and stated that landslides on the upper bluff have continued. However, this letter did not contain information required to further the application as detailed in the previous letters from staff. This letter constitutes confirmation that your Land Surface Modification and building permit applications were canceled in 1997 as a result of your failure to provide updated information as outlined in the City's previous letters. Any request by you to proceed with the application now or in the future must be filed as a new application subject to the codes, fees and requirements in effect at the time of application. Please be advised that the materials from the canceled applications will be archived off -site. ' Refer to the City of Federal Way letters dated October 15, 1990, September 23, 1994 and January 4, 1996. R 222 Lg98 It should be noted that in a January 4, 1996 letter to Russell Davies, an attorney representing you (copy enclosed), staff observed that future code revisions to the Environmentally Sensitive Areas chapter may influence development of your property. At this time, a draft of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas code revisions are under review by the City Council's Land Use and Transportation Committee (LUTC). The LUTC will review the proposed draft ordinance, and forward their recommendation to the City Council. There are opportunities for public comment before the LUTC and the City Council. As you will see, the enclosed draft code revision proposes changes to the definition of regulated wetland, stream, and major stream, as well as changes to wetland setback areas. If you desire additional information about proposed amendments or the LUTC and City Council process, please give us a call. If you have questions or you wish to file a new application, please contact Deb Barker, Associate Planner at (253) 661-4103. Sincerely, Gregory D. Moore, AICP Director of Community Development Services enc: FWCC section 22-34 June 25, 1997 letter from Bob Sterbank January 6, 1996 letter from Deb Barker Draft ESA revisions file Deb Barker, Associate Planner Bob Sterbank, Deputy City Attorney Attorney J. Darrin Jensen, 616 Reed Street, Sedro Wolley, WA 98284 I:\spr\leerabie\cancel.ltr city letterhead September 23, 1994 Lee Rabie ENERCO, Inc. 9615 West Marginal Way South Seattle, WA 98108 RE: Rabie Development Applications; File Numbers LSM90-0004 and 92-687NR Dear Mr. Rabie: The city has completed a review of revised documents submitted for the above referenced applications on July 22, 1994. The revised application material are principally based on a request for additional information contained in my letter to you dated March 11, 1994. For organization purposes, I have separated the city's comments using the same format contained in the March 11 letter. Submittal Requirements With the exception of reduced copies of all full size plan sheets, all submittal requirements outlined in the March 11 letter have been provided. I am currently only in receipt of a reduced site plan sheet C-1. One reduced copy of all other full size plan sheets are also required including: sensitive area plan; surface drainage plan and details; and, subsurface drainage profile and sections. Comments contained in this letter will require modifications to various plan sheets or studies as noted. Required corrections shall be made to the corresponding original documents and submitted as a replacement. Supplemental plan sheets, letters or addendum will not be accepted. Specific comments related to revised plan sheets are as follows: The legal description provided on the plans is not correct and parts are not legible. The legal description must be revised and clearly presented. Specifically, there is a discrepancy as to which portions of vacated 10th Avenue S.W. right-of-way are owned by the applicant and which parts are under easement. These should be checked before revising the legal description. 2. The site plan sheet C-1 does not correctly represent the location of the centerline of 10th Avenue S.W. relative to the subject property. This centerline should only be twenty feet from the property line, not forty feet as shown. 3. Drainage facilities on the site plan C-1 should be more clearly labeled. The plan should represent the intent of development without relying on accompanying geotechnical reports and information. A specific example is manholes at points A, B and C and the piping system between these structures. Also, there is no indication where the pipe from the catch basin in 10th Avenue S.W. will drain. 4. Easements on or abutting the site must be shown on the site plan C-1. This particularly applies to the access easement described on the bottom left corner of the site plan. 5. An elevation of mean high water is given as -1.74 feet. Datum for the topographic survey is noted as Federal Way Water and Sewer. Actual datum used on the plan sheets must be related to KCAS and the location and description of the benchmark for this datum provided. A reference to the source of this elevation must be provided and the datum indicated on the plan. An elevation for the ordinary high water mark must also be provided using KCAS datum. If the ordinary high water mark is represented by mean high water, the reference should be changed to ordinary high water mark for consistency with state shoreline designation requirements. 6. Plans do not identify steep slope sensitive areas. The plans only show a 25 foot setback line from forty percent slopes and the top of bank associated with the shoreline. 7. Use of silt fencing and its location should be labeled on the site plan. 8. The surface drainage plan sheet C-2 does not appear to utilize manholes or piping that will be installed for groundwater withdrawal. As a result, there are some conflicts between the two systems that will need to be corrected during design. Also, slopes on some pipes (S=.002 feet/foot) are too shallow. These pipes cannot be installed to any reasonable degree of accuracy at the slopes shown. Slopes must be increased to provide positive flow to manhole #2. 9. Driveway details indicate a pavement width of eight feet. Minimum paved driveway width for single family residences is twelve feet. 10. Earthwork quantities noted on the site plan C-1 indicate that approximately 1,800 cubic yards of material from the deep subsurface drainage system will be wasted onsite. A slightly greater quantity of imported material is noted. These quantities appear to assume that the deep drain will be excavated with vertical sidewalls and will be to the minimum width, however specifications for the use of sheet piles and/or use of a full width trench box are not provided. These quantities do not appear to include general site grading or material that will be excavated from the shallow surface drainage system or for other utilities, walls, driveway or other construction work. As an example, if open trenches are used, over 10,000 cubic yards of spoil could be generated. A qualified engineer must recalculate and estimate quantities of graded material. Final project design will require more exact refinement of these initial estimates. All earthwork estimates shall be consistent between application documents. The geotechnical engineer must then determine if leaving this quantity of material within the site will affect the current geotechnical stability analysis. 11. As currently shown, the silt curtain is uphill of the east -west leg of the shallow drainage system. The silt curtain is also within an area proposed for grading along the west property boundary. It appears that the silt curtain location needs to be adjusted to reflect the actual clearing and grading limits. A qualified engineer must determine if silt curtains are needed elsewhere (i.e. defining the toe setback from steep slopes). 12. Since the site plan sheet C-1 forms a basis for proposed site grading, drainage improvements and other structural improvements, the plan must be stamped by a registered engineer. 13. Plan sheets C-1 and C-1a reference the July 1990 Shannon and Wilson report and must be updated to reflect the current 1994 Shannon and Wilson report. 14. Plan sheet C-1 shows the approximate location of the subsurface drainage system and plan sheet C-3 provides additional details regarding this system. Neither of these plans, nor the Shannon and Wilson report, provide details such as the types of required manholes, trench dam details, specifications for PVC piping, maximum slot size for PVC pipe, vertical sand drain details, etc. It is also unclear whether the tightline portion of the subsurface drainage system has been sized to accommodate inflows from offsite discharges, as recommended by Shannon and Wilson. Clarification of these issues is needed. 15. Plan sheet C-2 lacks specifications for such features as manholes, "CPP" piping, trench dams, etc. In addition, the pipe anchoring scheme, which involves setting timbers and driving four foot long rebar into very dense, near vertical slopes, may not be practical. The current design requires either two or three pipes from the top of bank to beach level. It is not clear why one properly sized pipe would not be sufficient. Clarification of these issues is needed. 16. Based on a telephone conversation between Bill Evans, Landau Associates, Inc. and Ralph Boirum, Shannon and Wilson, Inc., it is our understanding that Shannon and Wilson has not yet been given the opportunity to review the latest revisions to plan sheets C-1, C-2 or C-3. Considering the critical nature of drainage to the project, this appears to be a significant oversight. We recommend that Shannon and Wilson and the drainage engineer resolve the issues raised above, as well as any others noted by Shannon and Wilson, then revise and resubmit the drainage design for review. Final drainage plans should be of sufficient detail so that a contractor who is unfamiliar with this project could bid and successfully construct the drainage systems using professional quality plans and reports and not have to rely on verbal directions or excessive field modifications. As built drawings will be required following construction. 17. The existing topographic base map prepared in 1990 may not now accurately reflect site conditions due in part to landslide movement during the past four years. In addition, contours from the north slope may not accurately reflect the near vertical bluff that is present near the beach level. These conditions make it difficult or impossible to assess detailed site grading needs or establish the ordinary high water mark. Revising site topography throughout the central portion of the site will assist the designer and contractor in setting grades and establishing budgets even though some adjustment to planned grades will occur once the site is cleared and the deep subdrain has been installed. Accurate topography in that area is probably not critical at this time. To properly evaluate setbacks from the ordinary high water mark and slope setbacks recommended by Shannon and Wilson, accurate topography along the north slope is required. This is particularly true of the ordinary high water mark. Shannon and Wilson and the drainage design engineer should determine if topography in other areas of the site is adequate for their purposes. 18. Plan sheets C-1 and C-3 identify what appears to be an approximate 150 foot long retaining structure near the northwest corner of the bench. This feature is within five feet of the top of slope line, and is currently outside of proposed grading limits. Details concerning this feature are required. 19. Drain piping to the beach traverses property owned by others. Appropriate easements will be required prior to issuance of any construction permits. 20. The surface drain trench crosses the trench for the subsurface drain at several locations. Shannon and Wilson should comment on this design and any impact it may have on operation of the deeper drainage system. Each of these items must be addressed prior to proceeding with the applications. Through this initial application stage, the city is most concerned that sufficient detail be provided to ensure that proposed site stabilization and future home construction is reasonably consistent with approved plans and can be accomplished. In some cases, more than conceptual design will be required. However it is not the city's intent to require full project design at this time. Therefore please be advised that 4 there are other details related to the plans that will need to be addressed during the building and grading permit review process and are not covered in this letter. Subdivision Lot lines indicating a proposal to subdivide the property into four lots have been removed from the current drawings. This revision confirms that there is no intent to subdivide the property at this time. Any future proposal to subdivide the property will be reviewed as a separate action subject to all pertinent city regulations. Geotechnica l Report The'Revised Geotechnical Report Proposed Residential Development Block 21, Buenna Addition, King County, Washington' ("report"), dated June 1994, prepared by Shannon & Wilson, Inc. for the proposed project does not meet all report requirements of section 80.65(2) of the Federal Way City Code ("FWCC") as submitted. The following are specific required elements missing from the report. The report is required to describe how the proposed development will impact each of the following items on the subject property and nearby properties: seismic hazards; 2. existing vegetation; and, 3, optimal location for roadway improvements (i.e. driveways). In addressing each of these required elements, the geotechnical report must incorporate all proposed elements of the project located within geologically hazardous areas. Therefore the report must be expanded to include other project elements such as utilities, general site grading beyond site stabilization work and other structures unrelated to stabilization work. Only those elements included in the geotechnical study will be considered. Project elements not included in the report will require subsequent geotechnical review and consideration. The report as submitted now provides sufficient conceptual foundation detail for subsequent home construction on the site. Please be advised that this conceptual foundation design will require more specific design detail prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the home. For example, specific location of augercast piles cannot be determined until drainage work and site stabilization has occurred. As built drawings of all constructed site stabilization improvements will be required. In the March 11, 1994 letter, I requested that inconsistencies between the H.N. Lehtinen and Shannon and Wilson reports be clarified or resolved. The June 1994 Shannon and Wilson report does not discuss the Lehtinen letter and it is assumed that the 1994 Shannon and Wilson report is the authoritative document. If this is not the case, please clarify. The following are specific comments on the June 1994 report: Page 8, third paragraph of section 4.3: This section does not correctly restate the city's administrative interpretation of site stability. The city has interpreted stable conditions within the context of geologically hazardous ares to mean that there is less than a 25 percent probability of -geological failure of a site and proposed improvements within a 50 year period. The report indicates that geologic failure is limited only to sliding and must be broadened to include other potential geologic failure conditions such as seismic and erosion hazards. This administrative interpretation will be verified or modified by the Federal Way hearing examiner and city council through the application review process. 2. Page 9, paragraphs 5 and 7 of section 4.3: Paragraph 5 recommends a structural setback of one vertical to 1.4 horizontal from the beach high tide line. Setback requirements from the upper bluff are to be determined on an individual basis. Paragraph 7 recommends a setback of 25 feet from the top of the bluff iu�e1:__ LsLI . It is not clear from the report if the two shoreline bluff setbacks are the same or different lines and the greater of the two setbacks must be noted on the site plan. In addition, because construction is proposed for the site, setback from the upper bluff must also be determined by the geotechnical engineer and identified on the site plan. Appropriate analysis of this setback must be included in the geotechnical report. The geotechnical engineer must also evaluate the appropriateness of other accessory improvements located in the setback, such as driveways, utilities and general site grading. 3. Page 15, second paragraph of section 4.10: This section states that the elevation of the mean lower low water elevation is 19.5 feet. However the site plan designates the mean high water elevation at -1.74 feet. This discrepancy must be corrected on both documents using KCAS. 4. Figure 15: Should filter fabric be placed around the pea gravel and slotted pipe in the trench subdrain system to prevent migration of sand into the pea gravel and pipe? 5. Foundation design must be coordinated to assure that pile placement does not compromise drain performance. 6 Shorelines I am in receipt of a June 6, 1994 memorandum from Alan Wallace to you interpreting the State Shoreline Management Act as it relates to your proposed development. This memorandum identifies three potential areas exempting the proposed development from shoreline substantial development permit requirements. The following responds to this memorandum. First, WAC 173-11-040(a) exempts any development which does not exceed $2,500.00 in value, if the development does not materially interfere with normal public use of the shoreline. To date, no total cost or fair market value of work proposed within the shoreline area has been provided. In addition, at a minimum, the city interprets interference of the shoreline area to be any improvement located waterward of the ordinary high water mark. Because the ordinary high water mark is not identified on the plan sheets, it is not possible to determine if the drainage system and outfall are located landward or waterward of this point. Second, WAC 173-11-040(d) exempts emergency construction necessary to protect property from damage by the elements. An ongoing natural landslide process cannot automatically be deemed an emergency. To date, the city has not been provided with compelling evidence supporting that an emergency exists. To the contrary, your delay in expeditiously pursuing the proposed development application does not suggest emergency conditions. Last, WAC 173-11-040(g) exempts construction of appurtenances connected to a single family residence. An appurtenance includes utilities, and the proposed drainage system would qualify as an appurtenance. However there are two conditions related to installation of appurtenance. First, the appurtenance must be located landward of the perimeter of a marsh, bog or swamp. As evidenced by the proposal, grading, site work and improvements will be located waterward of onsite wetland areas. Second, the appurtenance must be located landward of the ordinary high water mark. As indicated above, the city is unable to determine if the drainage system and outfall is located landward or waterward of the ordinary high water mark. Based on requirements of WAC 173-11-040(g), the city concludes that a shoreline substantial development permit will be required for the proposed development. Enclosed you will find an application form which must be completed and returned before the city can proceed further with the proposal. The application filing fee for a shoreline permit is $1,420.00 if the fair market value of shoreline improvements is less $15,000.00. Improvements over $15,000.00 require additional application fees. Estimated fair market value of shoreline improvements must be submitted with the application. Stream and Wetland Reports 7 The wetland report continues to not meet report requirements of section 80-145(2) FWCC. Specific elements missing from the report include: An overview of the methodology used to conduct the study; 2. A list of observed plant and wildlife species, using both scientific and common names, and a description of their relative abundance; and, 1 A list of potential plant or animal species based on signs or other observation. This information must be prepared by a qualified professional approved by the city. As the author of the previous wetland reports, the city would accept Shannon and Wilson, Inc. assessment of the above report requirements. Once submitted, the wetland report will be considered complete. The city is unable to proceed further with the applications until this information is submitted. The city concurs that the drainage course existing in the easterly portion of the site would not be designated as a stream under FWCC. This determination is based on the fact that a bed, banks and sides do not exist throughout substantially all of the drainage length. w _ 1 11 J by _ LL:_ J__.__ 1_:__J ...:1L.: course length. Most of the area occupied by his drainage course is contained within a wetland. A more defined drainage channel emerges out of the wetland at the edge of the property flowing directly into Puget Sound. This defined drainage channel is very short (approximately twenty feet) in comparison to the rest of the wetland. Therefore, the FWCC definition of stream does not apply to this part of the drainage course either. The potential for temporary impact of sediment laden water reaching the beach area during site stabilization should be taken into consideration when developing the erosion control plan. Avoiding wet weather conditions is very important, but even during the dry season, trench construction and other dewatering activities could discharge sediment laden water onto the beach. In addition to a stringent erosion control plan, a contingency plan should be developed to address remediation of the beach if it becomes laden with sediments during construction. As discussed in the March 11 letter, now that the project is better defined, required sensitive area processes related to surface water features can now be determined. Based on the proposal, existing onsite wetlands will be eliminated. Because onsite restoration of displaced wetlands cannot occur due to slope and groundwater limitations, the proposal cannot be processed using normal wetland intrusion procedures. Based on this circumstance, the request must be processed through section 80.35 FWCC related to reasonable use of property. This type of request requires review by the Federal Way Hearing Examiner and City Council through process III, and requires a filing fee of $3,412.00. Decisional criteria for considering this type of proposal is contained in section 80.35(3), and must be addressed by the applicant as part of the application package. The city is unable to proceed further with the applications until this information and fee is submitted. Since wetland mitigation cannot be accomplished onsite, other possible mitigation alternatives will be explored. Examples of other alternatives include offsite mitigation within the same subbasin, or fee -in -lieu intended for stream improvements or regional detention facilities within the same subbasin. It is appropriate for you and your wetland expert to explore some of these options and develop a strategy for mitigating wetland impacts. Environmental Analysis The following additions or corrections must be made to the environmental checklist prior to proceeding further with the applications. The following items are referenced using the numbering sequence of the environmental checklist form. A.10. Additional permits that will be needed are a shoreline permit, reasonable use of property consideration, geologically hazardous area intrusion, land surface modification/grading permit and building permit. A.11. The square footage of the house as indicated in the checklist (11,760 square feet) does not agree with the figures provided in the geotechnical report (14,000 square feet) and the plans (17,430 square feet). This discrepancy must be addressed and resolved. A.12. Reduced copies (maximum 11" by 17") are required for each full size plan sheets attached to the environmental checklist. B.1.b. The steepest slope on the site based on submitted plans is 150%. B.1.e. The 1,000 cubic yards of earth work cited in the environmental checklist does not agree with plans (indicating 1,800 cubic yards excavated and wasted onsite and 2,300 cubic yards of imported material) and information provided in the geotechnical report (i.e. page 12). Clarification of this inconsistency is needed. Also refer to Submittal Requirements item #10. B.3.a.2. Work depicted on the plans also includes grading within 200 feet of Puget Sound and must be noted. W B.3.b.1. In order to lower the level of groundwater, water must be withdrawn from the ground. Withdrawal does not have to necessarily be vertical, but can also be horizontal as proposed. If water is not withdrawn, there will be no lowering of current groundwater levels. Clarification of your response is required. B.3.a.3. Refer to B.1.e. above. B.4.a. Geotechnical report requirements of section 80.65(2)(a)(5) FWCC requires analysis of vegetation impacts resulting from portions of the proposed development located within geologically hazardous areas (refer to Geotechnical Report requirements above). Evaluation of these impacts will require an assessment of existing vegetation which can also be referenced in this section. B.4.b. Estimates of 30,000 square feet of land clearing appear low, however the full extent of land clearing is not shown on any one plan making an accurate assessment somewhat difficult. Preliminary estimates by the city suggest that actual clearing for both home construction and site stabilization work will be closer to 45,000 to 65,000 square feet. R R h I andslide nA .eicmin h., 1 I.. : al lu J6 IJ1 I Ills i iazai u areas also are considered sensitive area characteristics of this site. The request for additional environmental information is made pursuant to section 18- 47(h)(2) FWCC. The environmental checklist application cannot be considered complete and an environmental determination will not be issued until such time as all required information is received and determined to be complete. Summary Until such time as all of the information listed above is provided, the city is unable to proceed with review or issue any permits for this project. As you know, prior to issuance of any permits, the environmental review process must be completed. Sincerely, Greg Fewins Senior Environmental Planner c: Alan Wallace, Cairncross & Hempelmann Dick Mumma, Building Official Ron Garrow, Senior Development Engineer LD Londi Lindell, City Attorney Bill Evans, Landau Associates, Inc. Susan Meyer, W&H Pacific enc. d9:rabie.wp LL COPY January 3, 1996 Mr. Russell Davies Attorney at Law 1726 NW 62nd Avenue, Suite #2 Seattle, WA 98107 RE: LSM 90-0004 & 92-687NR, RABIE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Dear Mr. Davies: This letter is in response to your November 16, 1995 letter in which you requested information and staff response to a variety of issues regarding the Lee Rabie development permits. The second portion of the letter details items from Greg Fewins' September 23, 1994 letter to Mr. Rabie which have not been addressed. Bold headings correspond to your letter sections; sections in italics indicates items from the September 23, 1994 letter which require response. It should be noted that with the distribution of this letter, the city has sent no fewer than twelve letters to Mr. Rabie and his representatives regarding the status of this project or the need to provide additional information to facilitate review. Status report The city received a revised full size sheet C-1 on November 16, 1995. This document satisfactorily addresses the easement questions. (Refer to Submittal requirements section page 5 for additional comments) Grading and building permits Staff concurs that the grading and building permit applications continue to be valid. Report and Map production The city's August 23, 1994 request for reduced copies of all full size plans, sensitive area plan, surface drainage plan and details and subsurface drainage profile and sections is still applicable. Your letter states that new engineering reports will be produced. The required corrections must be made to the corresponding original documents and submitted as a replacement. As stated in the August 23, 1994 letter, modifications, supplemental plan sheets, letters or addendum to existing technical reports will not be accepted. Easement The city does have a copy of recorded document #8912211170. It has been reviewed by Public Works staff and found to be acceptable. Public works staff has indicated that improvements to the easement do not meet city code requirements for two way access. Further improvements to the easement such as pavement widening may be required as part of the building permit for the residence, but will not be part of the LSM discussion. (See Ron Garrow's memo dated December 13, 1995, enclosed). Additionally, discharge of runoff from the site to the north will require a right-of-way 'L L_. IJ 'L dischargeI 1 LI 1 LL 1 I L r Ir 1 1• 1 1 periiiIt sI-ould i1 i11 along the platted right-of-way. it the discharge is across the platted lots immediately north of the site, an easement from the city will be required. The exact requirements will be determined when the final design is submitted for drainage construction permitting. Shorelines Documents provided by HN Lehtinen, Structural Engineers, dated October 1, 1995, do not demonstrate that all proposed improvements are landward of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). The submittal is missing an accurate cross section drawing of the lot, and staff is unable to determine whether or not a shoreline permit is required. A project specific cross section drawing that starts at Puget Sound should include the OHWM, the mean high water mark, the toe of the slope, all drainage improvements and the top of the slope. The OHWM will then be verified at the site. Please contact Bill Kingman, Associate Planner at 661-4110 if you have any questions about the required information. Steep Slopes Your presumption that the revised Shannon and Wilson revised geo-tech report is adequate for city review is in error. Mr. Garrow's statement about the engineered plans does not exempt the project from meeting the FWCC section 80.65(2) code requirements specified in the 9/23/94 letter. Refer to the Steep Slope discussion on page 8. Wetlands Your letter contains an extensive discussion of the wetland situation at the Rabie site. You have stated that Mr. Rabie "requests the city to not regulate the wetland areas under the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Article because they provide no beneficial functions and they actually exacerbate the steep slope instability hazard." You state that the city is authorized to make such an administrative determination under FWCC section 22-1243. FWCC section 22-1243 states that "the determination regarding whether the subject property is regulated under this article ... will be based on the environmental information, reports and mapping available to the city.'Based on the September 1993 Shannon and Wilson Preliminary Wetland Delineation, on -site wetlands have been identified. With wetlands identified on the site, wetland regulation is implemented. Exemptions from wetland regulation, contained in FWCC section 22-1248, are: 1) Emergencies, that in the opinion of the Director of Community Development, threaten the public health, safety and welfare; 2) Normal and routine maintenance and repair of the following facilities, for which a maintenance plan has been approved by the public works director: a) Existing drainage ditches, except those used by salmonoids; b) Surface water facilities; c) Existing public facilities and utility structures or rights -of -way I am not aware that the Rabie site meets any of these exemptions, and, is therefore regulated under the provisions of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas article. In response to your question on page 3 of your letter: Under current code, yes, it is appropriate to regulate these areas as wetlands. I appreciate your discussion of the jurisdictional disparity of wetland regulation. On November 21, 1995, under Ordinance 95-248, the Federal Way City Council adopted the second Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP). FWCP Chapter 9, Natural Environment, contains a thorough discussion of wetland protection, enhancement, variety, inventory and mitigation. The following goal and policies may be of interest to your client. Natural Environment Goal (NEG) 6 Protect and enhanse the functions and values of the City's wetlands. 3 NEG 7 Develop a wetland buffer system reflective of the variety of wetland functions found in the City. Natural Environment Policy (NEP) 33 The city shall, as a minimum standard, use the 1987 Federal Manual for Identifying and Delinating Wetlands, as now existing or hereafter adopted or amended. [Note: This policy intentially differs from Countywide Planning Policy CA-1 which suggests use of the 1989 Manual. Use of the 1987 Manual is consistent with the Department of Ecology, Environmental Protection Agency, and the Corps of Engineers]. NEP 36 The city should consider implementing a tiered wetland classification system based on wetland functions and values. The wetland classification system would set forth the appropriate wetland buffer widths. Furthermore, any new wetland classification system should contain provisions for allowing buffer width averaging. As a reference point, the city should consider the classification system and protection measures contained in the Department of Ecology's Model Wetlands Ordinance. NEP37 Required wetland buffers shall be comprised of native vegetation typically associated with the type of wetland in question. Intrusion into the wetland buffer may be restricted, except for the location of essential public facilities and utilities where no other feasible alternative exists. Community Development Services staff are currently drafting wetland related zoning code revisions, which are based on the above referenced comprehensive plan policies. City Council adoption of these proposed revisions to the Environmentally Sensitive area chapter is estimated within four to six months. Mr. Rabie's development permits are vested to the wetland definition and regulatory standards of the 1990 Federal Way Comprehensive Plan and the Federal Way City Code. You may find that upon adoption, revisions to the Environmentally Sensitive area chapter of the zoning code may provide your client with development options not available under current code. If your client desires to be vested to revised standards, the project would have to be withdrawn, and resubmitted after adoption of those standards. As noted in staffs September 23, 1994 letter, the Shannon and Wilson report does not 4 satisfy the requirements of FWCC section 80-145(2). Specific elements missing from the report include: 1) An overview of the methodology used to conduct the study, 2) A list of observed plant and wildlife species, using both scientific and common names, and a description of the relative abundance; and, 3) A list of potential plant or animal species based on signs or other observation. In addition, these wetlands are proposed to be eliminated. Because onsite restoration cannot occur due to site limitations, the wetland elimination must be processed through FWCC section 80-35, related to reasonable use of the property. This is reviewed by the Hearing Examiner and City Council through Process III. The city may approve a modification or waiver of the requirements of the article based on the following criteria: 1) The application of the provisions of the article eliminates any profitable use of the subject property. 2. It is solely the implementation of this article, and not other factors, which precludes profitable use of the property. 3) The applicant has in no way created or exacerbated the condition which forms the limitation on the use of the subject property, nor in any way contributed to the limitation. 4) The knowledge of the applicant of limitations on the subject property when he or she acquired the subject property. 5) The waiver or modification will not lead to, create, nor significantly increase the risk of injury or death to any persons or damage to improvements on or off the subject property. UNRESOLVED ISSUES The following references unresolved issues from Greg Fewins September 23, 1994 letter to Mr. Lee Rabie. Submittal Requirements The following submittal items identified in the September 23, 1994 letter have not been addressed. 3. Drainage facilities on the site plan C-1 should be more clearly labeled. The plan should represent the intent of development without relying on accompanying geotechnical reports and information. A specific example is manholes at points A, B and C and the piping system between these structures. Also, there is no 5 indication where the pipe from the catch basin in 10th Avenue SW will drain. 5. An elevation of mean high water is given as -1.74 feet. Datum for the topographic survey is noted as Federal Way Water and Sewer. Actual datum used on the plan sheets must be related to KCAS and the location and description of the benchmark for this datum provided. A reference to the source of this elevation must be provided and the datum indicated on the plan. An elevation for the ordinary high water mark must also be provided using KCAS datum. If the ordinary high water mark is represented by mean high water, the reference should be changed to ordinary high water mark for consistency with state shoreline designation requirements. 6. Plans do not identify steep slope sensitive areas. The plans only show a 25 foot setback line from forty percent slopes and the top of bank associated with the shoreline. 7. Use of silt fencing and its location should be labeled on the site plan. A reference to datum of KCAS must be provided. 10. Earthwork quantities noted on the site plan C-1 indicate that approximately 1,800 cubic yards of material from the deep subsurface drainage system will be wasted on site. A slightly greater quantity of imported material is noted. These quantities appear to assume that the deep drain will be excavated with vertical sidewalls and will be to the minimum width, however specifications for the use of sheet piles and/or use of a full width trench box are not provided. These quantities do not appear to include general site grading or material that will be excavated from the shallow surface drainage system or for other utilities, walls, driveway or other construction work. As an example, if open trenches are used, over 10,000 cubic yards of spoil could be generated. A qualified engineer must recalculate and estimate quantities of graded material. Final project design will require more exact refinement of these initial estimates. All earthwork estimates shall be consistent between application documents. The geotechnical engineer must then determine if leaving this quantity of material within the site will affect the current geotechnical stability analysis. 11. As currently shown, the silt curtain is uphill of the east -west leg of the shallow drainage system. The silt curtain is also within an area proposed for grading along the west property boundary. It appears that the silt curtain location needs to be adjusted to reflect the actual clearing and grading limits. A qualified engineer must determine if silt curtains are needed elsewhere (i.e. defining the toe setback from steep slopes). 12. Since the site plan sheet C-1 forms a basis for proposed site grading, drainage 6 improvements and other structural improvements, the plan must be stamped by a registered engineer. 13. Plan sheets C-1 and C-1a reference the July 1990 Shannon and Wilson report and must be updated to reflect the current 1994 Shannon and Wilson report. 14. Plan sheet C-1 shows the approximate location of the subsurface drainage system and plan sheet C-3 provides additional details regarding this system. Neither of these plans, nor the Shannon and Wilson report, provide details such as the types of required manholes, trench dam details, specifications for PVC piping, maximum slot size for PVC pipe, vertical sand drain details, etc. It is also unclear whether the tightline portion of the subsurface drainage system has been sized to accommodate inflows from offsite discharges, as recommended by Shannon and Wilson. Clarification of these issues is needed. 16. Based on a telephone conversation between Bill Evans, Landau Associates, Inc. and Ralph Boirum, Shannon and Wilson, Inc., it is our understanding that Shannon and Wilson has not yet been given the opportunity to review the latest revisions to plan sheets C-1, C-2 or C-3. Considering the critical nature of drainage to the project, this appears to be a significant oversight. We recommend that Shannon and Wilson and the drainage engineer resolve the issues raised above, as well as any others noted by Shannon and Wilson, then revise and resubmit the drainage design for review. Final drainage plans should be of sufficient detail so that a contractor who is unfamiliar with this project could bid and successfully construct the drainage systems using professional quality plans and reports and not have to rely on verbal directions or excessive field modifications. As built drawings will be required following construction. 17. The existing topographic base map prepared in 1990 may not now accurately reflect site conditions due in part to landslide movement during the past four years. In addition, contours from the north slope may not accurately reflect the near vertical bluff that is present near the beach level. These conditions make it difficult or impossible to assess detailed site grading needs or establish the ordinary high water mark. Revising site topography throughout the central portion of the site will assist the designer and contractor in setting grades and establishing budgets even though some adjustment to planned grades will occur once the site is cleared and the deep subdrain has been installed. Accurate topography in that area is probably not critical at this time. To properly evaluate setbacks from the ordinary high water mark and slope setbacks recommended by Shannon and Wilson, accurate topography along the north slope is required. This is particularly true of the ordinary high water mark. Shannon and Wilson and the drainage design engineer should determine if topography in other areas of the site is adequate 7 for their purposes. 18. Plan sheets C-1 and C-3 identify what appears to be an approximate 150 foot long retaining structure near the northwest corner of the bench. This feature is within five feet of the top of slope line, and is currently outside of proposed grading limits. Details concerning this feature are required. 20. The surface drain trench crosses the trench for the subsurface drain at several locations. Shannon and Wilson should comment on this design and any impact it may have on operation of the deeper drainage system. The submittal items must be provided on a revised sheet C-1 or other sheets, as applicable. Each of these items must be addressed prior to proceeding with the applications. In some cases, more than the one conceptual design may be necessary for clarity purposes. As stated in previous letters and in our meeting of October 26, 1995, clarity in the accurate depiction of the project elements is crucial. Sheet C-1, which contains a large'amount of critical information, is becoming quite difficult to read. Steep Slopes The following are the specific required elements which are still missing from the report. 1. Page 8, third paragraph of section 4.3: This section does not correctly restate the city's administrative interpretation of site stability. The city has interpreted stable conditions within the context of geologically hazardous ares to mean that there is less than a 25 percent probability of geological failure of a site and proposed improvements within a 50 year period. The report indicates that geologic failure is limited only to sliding and must be broadened to include other potential geologic failure conditions such as seismic and erosion hazards. This administrative interpretation will be verified or modified by the Federal Way hearing examiner and city council through the application review process. 2. Page 9, paragraphs 5 and 7 of section 4.3: Paragraph 5 recommends a structural setback of one vertical to 1.4 horizontal from the beach high tide line. Setback requirements from the upper bluff are to be determined on an individual basis. Paragraph 7 recommends a setback of 25 feet from the top of the shoreline bluff. It is not clear from the report if the two shoreline bluff setbacks are the same or different lines and the greater of the two setbacks must be noted on the site plan. In addition, because construction is proposed for the site, setback from the upper bluff must also be determined by the geotechnical engineer and identified on the site plan. Appropriate analysis of this setback must be included in the geotechnical report. The geotechnical engineer must also evaluate the IV appropriateness of other accessory improvements located in the setback, such as driveways, utilities and general site grading. 3. Page 15, second paragraph of section 4.10: This section states that the elevation of the mean lower low water elevation is 19.5 feet. However the site plan designates the mean high water elevation at -1.74 feet. This discrepancy must be corrected on both documents using KCAS. 4. Figure 15: Should filter fabric be placed around the pea gravel and slotted pipe in the trench subdrain system to prevent migration of sand into the pea gravel and pipe? 5. Foundation design must be coordinated to assure that pile placement does not compromise drain performance. Environmental analysis: The SEPA checklist, updated June 28, 1994, still requires additions or corrections in order to continue processing the applications. The following items are referenced using the numbering sequence of the environmental checklist form: A.10. Additional permits that will be needed are a shoreline permit, reasonable use of property consideration, geologically hazardous area intrusion, land surface modification/grading permit and building permit. A.11. The square footage of the house as indicated in the checklist (11,760 square feet) does not agree with the figures provided in the geotechnical report (14,000 square feet) and the plans (17,430 square feet). This discrepancy must be addressed and resolved. A.12. Reduced copies (maximum 11" by 17") are required for each full size plan sheets attached to the environmental checklist. B.1.b. The steepest slope on the site based on submitted plans is 150%. B.1.e. The 1,000 cubic yards of earth work cited in the environmental checklist does not agree with plans (indicating 1,800 cubic yards excavated and wasted onsite and 2,300 cubic yards of imported material) and information provided in the geotechnical report (i.e. page 12). Clarification of this inconsistency is needed. Also refer to Submittal Requirements item #10. B.3.a.2. Work depicted on the plans also includes grading within 200 feet of Puget Sound and must be noted. B.3.b.1. In order to lower the level of groundwater, water must be withdrawn from the ground. Withdrawal does not have to necessarily be vertical, but can also be horizontal as proposed. If water is not withdrawn, there will be no lowering of current groundwater levels. Clarification of your response is required. B.3.a.3. Refer to B.1.e. above. B.4.a. Geotechnical report requirements of section 80.65(2)(a)(5) FWCC requires analysis of vegetation impacts resulting from portions of the proposed development located within geologically hazardous areas (refer to Geotechnical Report requirements above). Evaluation of these impacts will require an assessment of existing vegetation which can also be referenced in this section. B.4.b. Estimates of 30,000 square feet of land clearing appear low, however the full extent of land clearing is not shown on any one plan making an accurate assessment somewhat difficult. Preliminary estimates by the city suggest that actual clearing for both home construction and site stabilization work will be closer to 45,000 to 65,000 square feet. teal IualluC dl IU JeIJI I IIC 1 IdLdl U areas alsoare COnSIQerea sensitive area characteristics of this site. The request for additional environmental information is made pursuant to section 18- 47(h)(2) FWCC. The environmental checklist application cannot be considered complete and an environmental determination will not be issued until such time as all required information is received and determined to be complete. Summary appreciated the opportunity to meet with you on the project. I look forward to bringing the ongoing discussions and review of the permits to closure. As stated earlier, until such time as all of the above information is provided, the city is unable to proceed with review or issue any permits for this project. As you know, prior to issuance of any permits, the environmental review process must be completed. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 661-4103 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Deb Barker Associate Planner LO G FILE Bill Kingman, Associate Planner Dick Mumma, Building Official Stephen Clifton, Public Works Development Services Manager Mr. Lee Rabie, ENERCO, Inc. 9615 West Marginal Way South, Seattle, WA 98108 enc: Copy of 9/23/94 letter December 13, 1995 memo from Ron Garrow December 5, 1995 memo from Bill Kingman FWCC section 22-1243 FWCC section 22-1248 FWCC 80-145(2) FWCC 80-35 SPR\leerabie\comment.001 LL COVIV February 7, 1996 Mr. Russell Davies, Attorney at Law 1726 NW 62nd Avenue, Suite #2 Seattle, WA 98107 RE: LSM 90-0004 & 92-687NR, RABIE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS SHORELINE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS Dear Mr. Davies: This letter is in response to your November 16, 1995 letter in which you requested staff response to shoreline permit applicability for your clients' project. Based on the review of plan sheets C-1 and C-2 dated December 28, 1994, staff has determined that a shoreline permit is not required for the Rabie project based on the following: a) The proposed rip -rap energy type dissipator devise proposed for the toe of the cliff is landward of the Ordinary High Water mark (OHWM); and b) the drain system is classified as an appurtenance to a single family residence located on Puget Sound. The storm drainage rip -rap type energy dissipator design will be verified during engineering plans review. It may be changed to a vault or similar device due to the velocity and quantity of water to be conveyed. Staff recommends that if a vault is used, it be located on grade with the storm water "bubbling up" out the top of the device. This would provide structural backfill and strength for the vault and present less of an impact to public use of the beach. I can be reached at 661-4103 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Deb Barker Associate Planner Bill Kingman, Associate Planner Ron Garrow, Public Works Engineer FILE COpY April 15, 1996 Mr. Russell Davies, Attorney at Law 1726 NW 62nd #2 Seattle, WA 98107 RE: LSM 90-0004, 92-687 NR RABIE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT Dear Mr. Davies: I am in receipt of your letter requesting that the City of Federal Way reconsider its determination of regulated wetlands on the Rabie property in Block 21, Plat of Buenna. The purpose of this letter is to advise you that based on my current project load, I expect to respond to your request within approximately three weeks from todays date (April 15, 1996). can be reached at 661-4103 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Deb Barker Associate Planner c Greg Fewins, Principal Planner Jim McNamara, Deputy City Attorney File spr\leerabie\davisresp.ltr May 15,1996 Mr. Russell Davies Attorney at Law 1726 NW 62nd Avenue, Suite #2 Seattle, WA 98107 RE: LSM 90-0004 & 92-687NR, RABIE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS BLOCK 21, PLAT OF BUENNA, FEDERAL WAY, WA Dear Mr. Davies: Thank you for your letter of April 5, 1996 to Deb Barker, Associate Planner, regarding the wetland determination for the above referenced project. Staff has read your letter, and reanalyzed the September 1993 wetland report prepared by Shannon & Wilson, the expert hired by Mr. Rabie to determine if wetlands exist on the site. Based on staff review of this information, and my review of your request, I have concluded the following: The Federal Way City Code (FWCC) definition of regulated wetland is as follows: "Regulated wetlands shall mean those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar area, with the exception of the following areas shown in the King County Wetlands Inventory Notebook, Volume 3 South: (1) Lower Puget Sound Beach; (2) Lower Puget Sound 1 and 51; and (3) Areas defined as a regulated lake. Methodology in the January 1989 Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands and subsequent United States Army Corps of Engineers regulatory guidance letters will be used for regulatory delineations of wetlands within the city. Although a site specific wetland may not meet the criteria described above, it will be considered a regulated wetland if it is functionally related to another wetland that meets the criteria." As you can see, the definition of regulated wetland does not relate to the size nor function of a wetland (FWCC section 22-1). Page 1, paragraph three of the September 1993 Shannon & Wilson report states "Two small areas at this site were found to meet the technical definition as wetland according to the 1989 methodology." The size of wetland A is listed as 5,650 square feet, and wetland B is listed as 5,000 square feet. Page 4, paragraph one states "Wetland conditions are present at two locations on the subject site. Wetland A and B may be classified as Palustrine, scrub -shrub, saturated wetland habitats at the present time". The City's wetland specialist concurred with the conclusions of the Shannon & Wilson wetland report in a January 13, 1994 memorandum (enclosed). In making this wetland determination decision, I found documention that these areas meet the City's adopted definition of regulated wetland based on soil saturation and existence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soils conditions. As discussed in the January 4, 1996 letter from Deb Barker, there are two classes of exemptions from wetland regulation, contained in FWCC section 22-1248: 1) Emergencies, that in the opinion of the Director of Community Development, threaten the public health, safety and welfare; 2) Normal and routine maintenance and repair of the following facilities, for which a maintenance plan has been approved by the public works director: a) Existing drainage ditches, except those used by salmonoids; b) Surface water facilities; c) Existing public facilities and utility structures or rights -of -way There is no other policy or regulation which grants me the authority to exempt an area that meets the definition of a regulated wetland from the City's wetland requirements. Based on the information provided, I have determined that the areas in question are regulated wetlands and as such are subject to the requirements of FWCC Division 7, Regulated Wetlands. If you are not satisfied with this determination, the provisions of FWCC Section 22-1245, Appeals of determination made under article, lay out the appeal options available pursuant to FWCC section 22-5. Appeals are reviewed and decided upon using process II. Under process II, the Federal Way Hearing Examiner conducts a public hearing, and bases his decision on the criteria of section 22-443(c). Appeal fees are $2,163. Should you have any questions, please call Deb Barker, Associate Planner, at 661- 4103. Sincerely, Gregory D. Moore, AICP Director of Community Development Services c: Deb Barker, Associate Planner Jim McNamara, Deputy City Attorney Mr. Lee Rabie ENERCO, Inc. 9615 West Marginal Way South, Seattle, WA 98108 enc: January 13, 1994 memorandum from Susan Meyer/Wetland Specialist FWCC Section 22-1245, Appeals of determination made under article FWCC section 22-5, Appeals FWCC Article VII; Process II Review Master Land Use Application COPY December 6, 1996 Mr. James A. Harris Paglialunga Harris, LLP 205 - 108th Ave NE, Suite 104 Bellevue, WA 98004 RE: LSM 90-0004, 92-678NR, STATUS OF APPLICATIONS BLOCK 21, PLAT OF BUENNA Dear Mr. Harris: This letter is in response to your letter regarding the city's intent to cancel the above referenced permit applications on December 9, 1996. As stated in my November 7, 1996 letter to Mr. Rabie, city records indicate that the land surface modification, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) checklist and building permit applications were received on 8/9/90. Staff reviewed the project and provided numerous comments regarding application incompleteness in letters beginning on 10/15/90. To date, the applications are still incomplete. The city notified Mr. Rabie that the applications would be canceled unless pertinent information which completes the applications was provided. Your December 5, 1996 letter states that you were retained by the applicant in late November and have not been able to obtain the information and documentation pertinent to the application from the previous attorney. Based upon your letter, the city withdraws the cancellation notice. However, information which completes the applications is requested to be submitted at your earliest convenience. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 661-4103 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Deb Barker Associate Planner c: file spr\leerabie\expirenot.ltr COPY November 7, 1996 Mr. Lee Rabie ENERCO 9615 West Marginal Way Seattle, WA 98108 RE: LSM 90-0004, 92-678NR, EXPIRATION OF APPLICATIONS BLOCK 21, PLAT OF BUENNA Dear Mr. Rabie: This letter is being provided as a courtesy to let you know that the above referenced applications will soon expire. City records indicate that the land surface modification, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) checklist and building permit applications were received on 8/9/90. Staff reviewed the project and provided numerous comments regarding application incompleteness in letters beginning on 10/15/90. To date, the applications are still incomplete. City records show that the last item submitted was on November 16, 1995. The last city action was an 8/16/96 letter from the Director of Community Development regarding his intent to adhere to his wetland regulation determinations- ff met attorney o0eys egaY'd g to again state the Directors intent, There has been no forth� response from you or yourattorn this project. Therefore, I will cancel the permit applications related to this project on December 9, 1996 unless you provide me with pertinent information which complete the applications. Please contact me at 661-4103 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Deb Barker Associate Planner c: Mr. Russell Davies,1726 NW 62nd #2, Seattle, WA 98107 file spr\leerabie\expire.ntc H N Lehtinen Structural / Civil Engineers Oct. 1, 1995 TOPO SURVEY REPORT Differential leveling to determine ordinary high tide liiie at the Lee Rabi.e proporty block 21 Buenna addition Federal Way, Washington. M11 56 on Redondo Beach Dr. was used -s a bench mark (-I-10.2,) K.G.A.S. Daturn. On Aug.26, 1995) consetutive differ.ent.ial leveling was used along the beach to establish U.H.W. mark on the Lee Rabi-e proporty. U.H.W. mark was then calculated to be approximately 3.64' at Rabie proporty corner on the beach. The fol.lowinci abbreviations are leveling. BM: bench mark or monument. 'I P turning point PS: f.oresigh1: BS: t)acksigI11: I111, height of the instrument I,: level. position I01 t• , is ,el► i nen+ PE i Uri Au Ui U erTV11 98109 8. o used with differential 11 N L eft tilt eat Structural / Civil 11.ngineers TO I'() SI111VIF, V 11F.1'ORT Iiuenna addilimn Block 21 (o derine ordinary high 11-Mer mark • I'I 1. hIlnen : JOB NO. _ _ DATE SIIELI . _ OF 'iliblural , CIA Engineers JO■ NAME I'c'r►►i��►•t,� �l rc. (200)2 j2-2373 COMP. at - I, IVA 98201 CONTENTS OR v, +� 1rt ,�n AID i ,tip M - litUL . j7� -100 v cc, 14 r F 3 , i ei�iinen JOB NO. _____ GATE ur SIIEk 1 _ lural / Clvll Cnglneers ._— - JOB NAME (200)2j2-1373 COMP. SY dY 1 V/1 98201 CONTENTS Isdoi- c I x .r, i f �#} Ju > A cu ti SHANNON &WIL.SON, INC. - ~ TABLE OF CONTENTS W-5148-03 Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................1 ., . 1.1 Purpose and Scope ..... . . . . 1 1.2 Site and Project Description 1 Revised Geo technical Report 4 2.0 EXPLORATIOTroposed Resid�►:tia1 l]evely rn 2 p ent 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS 6100k. 27, Bwel na iAddition3 L` 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RiEncg"�%MD KoVc7S01"gtOn............ 4 4.1 Stability ............,June -1-994 .................... 4 f 4.2 Site Stabilization . .. . . . 6 f.; 4.3. Site Development . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... ..... 8 4.4 Augercast Concrete Piles .. .. . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... ... 9 4.5 Excavations .......... . . . .... . . . . . .......... . . . . . . 11 4.6 Fill Placement and Compaction . . ..................... . .. 12 4.7 Wet Weather Earthwork .. . .. . . ........................ 13 4.8 Erosion Control . . ... . ENERCO..................... 14 4.9 Earth Retaining StrucATM MI: L60 . ............ . . . Ra'b1 a 14 4.10 Sea Wall Design 9615 ... ......... . . . West lt/1aryinal Way 15 v: 5.0 LIMITATIONS Seattle, Washingtpn..9.8108• 16 LIST OF FIGURES ,Z Figure. ?k No. �ro u 1 Vicinity Map n 2 Site Plan W =� 3 4 Generalized Subsurface Generalized Subsurface r ^� ��� �i V ONq F - kiCAL AN[] INC. 5 Log of Boring B-1 EhIV1R(]t,MFNTAL C0NSOLTANTS 400 N. 34th St. �F 6 Log of Boring B-2 •Suite 100 P.O. Box 300303 N¢ 7 _ _ Log of Boring B-3 Seattle, Washington 98103 206 e 632.8020 W-5148-03 r—sc---•r-rr::a„x.r�„r.._.T-- TABLE OF CONTE SHANNON &WIL_SON, INC. Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION .... .................................... I 1.1 Purpose and Scope ... . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .... .. . .. 1 1.2 Site and Project Description ............................. 1 2.0 EXPLORATIONS........................................2 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS ...................................... 3 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . .. .... . . .... . . ...... 4 4.1 Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. ... ........... 4 4.2 Site Stabilization ......... . . . ....... .... .. ........... 6 4.3 - Site Development ..... . . . . . . . . .... ......... . . ........ 8 4.4 Augercast Concrete Piles ..... . . . . . . ....... .......... ... 9 4.5 Excavations ............. . . . ................ .. . ... 11 4.6 Fill Placement and Compaction ............... ... 12 4.7 Wet Weather Earthwork ..................... .. 13 4.8 Erosion Control .. . . . . . . . ................. . ... . . .. . . 14 4.9 Earth Retaining Structures ....................... ... .. . 14 4.10 Sea Wall Design . . ............ . . . . . . . . .. . . 15 5.0 LIMITATIONS ................... .. ... 16 Figure No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LIST OF FIGURES Vicinity Map Site Plan Generalized Subsurface Profile A -A' Generalized Subsurface Profile B-B' Log of Boring B-1 Log of Boring B-2 Log of Boring B-3 W-5148-03 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) LIST OF FIGURES (cont.) Figure No. SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. 8 Log of Boring B-4 9 Grain -Size Distribution 10 Inclinometer Readings B-1 11 Inclinometer Readings B-1 12 Inclinometer Readings B-4 13 Inclinometer Readings B-4 14 Generalized Subsurface Profile C-C' Model for Stability Analysis 15 Typical Trench Subdrain Installation 16 Typical Rockery Detail 17 Typical Ecology Block Wall 18 Typical Section Ecology Block Wall 19 Typical Wall Subdrain and Backfill 20 Typical Sea Wall Design APPENDIX IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT W-5148-03 III vegetated with young alder and maple, and thick vines. SHANNON &WII_SON. INC. REVISED GEOTECHNICAL REPORT PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT BLOCK 21, BUENNA ADDITION KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Sco e tj This report presents the results of subsurface explorations and geotechnical engineering studies for the proposed development at Block 21 of the Buenna Addition in King County, Washington. This report presents our original geotechnical report dated July 1990 with several revisions that address recent developments, review comments, and additional engineering analyses that have been completed since 1990. The purpose of the work was to ] evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site and provide recommendations to increase the stability •,F 'tile „ l��: t c y o. site sue icile►raLly ►ur residential development and to provide recommendations -In for the design of the proposed Rabic residence. Our services included drilling four `'� exploratory borings at the site and performing geotechnical studies to develop design Y... recommendations. 1.2 Site and Pro'ect Descri tion The site is located on the bluff overlooking Poverty Bay in the Federal Way area south of Seattle. Its approximate location is shown on Figure 1, and tl;e layout of the site is shown oil the Site Plan, Figure 2. The site is rectangular, measuring 460 feet long in the east -west direction and 340 feet in the north -south direction. As indicated on Figure 2, the site extends from the beach almost to the top of the bluff; however, most of the site is 1ncateA nn a broad, bowl -shaped bench about half -way up the slope. In 1990 the site had a few large fir trees; however, most of those have now fallen due to sliding. The site is densely The bowl was created by sliding and erosion, and slides are still occurring at the site. We understand you plan to construct and live in a single-family home on this site. The residence is to contain approximately 14,000 square feet, including a garage, workshop and W-5148-03 SHANNON &WILSON, INC. other features. The proposed development will include stabilization measures at the site, site grading, and construction of access roads and utilities. 2.0 EXPLORATIONS The site was explored by means of four borings drilled at the approximate locations shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. All of the borings were drilled from the bench between the upper and lower bluffs. The borings were designated B-1 through B-4, and ranged in depth from 34 to 79 feet. Logs of the boring are presented on Figures 5 through 8. The borings were drilled by Associated Drilling Company of Seattle under subcontract to Mr. Lee Rabie on May 29 and 30, 1990 A trick -mounted B-61 drill rig equipped with a 3 3/8-inch I.D. hollow -stem auger was used. Standard Penetration tests were performed at 2.5-foot or 5-foot intervals in each of the borings. The Standard Penetration Test consists of driving a 2-inch O.D. split -spoon sampler a distance of 18 inches into the bottom of the borehole with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler each of three 6-inch increments was recorded, and number of blows required to cause the last 12 inches of penetration was termed the Standard Penetration Resistance (N-value). This value is an indicator of the relative density or consistency of the soils. Samples obtained in the field were classified by a geologist, sealed in jars, and returned to our laboratory where the classification of each sample was visually checked and its moisture content was determined. Grain size analyses were performed on two selected samples to aid in sample classification. The results of the Standard Penetration Tests, moisture contents and soil classifications are summarized on the boring logs. Grain size distribution curves are presented on Figure 9. Piezometers for measuring groundwater levels were installed in borings B-2 and B-3. They consist of slotted 3/4-inch PVC pipe. The annulus around the slotted portions of the pipe was backftlled with pea gravel and a cement seal and locking monument casing was placed W-5148-03 2 SHANNON &WILSON, INC. at the ground surface to prevent inflow of surface water. The piezometer installations are shown on the boring logs. Inclinometer casings were installed in borings B-1 and B-4 so that future ground movements could be monitored. The inclinometer casings are 2.5-inches in diameter and extend to the , bottom of the bore holes. They were grouted in place using a cement - bentonite - lime and water mixture. Initial readings were taken of the inclinometer casings on June 8, 1990. One set of readings was subsequently taken on July 12, 1990. The differences between the initial readings and the July 12, 1990, readings are presented in graphical form on Figures 10 through 13. The inclinometer casings were apparently sheared off and became inoperable during the winter of 1990-91. Site explorations have also included a geologic reconnaissance to map existing soil exposures, springs, cracks, slide scarps and other features. This included mapping both the upper and lower bluffs. Subsequent site visits have been made to observe conditions. 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS The results of our explorations are illustrated by the site profiles on Figures 3 and 4. The results of the explorations indicate that except for slide debris on the bench, the hillside is composed of dense to very dense sands and gravelly sands with occasional silts layers, overlying very stiff to hard silts and clayey silts. Dense to very dense sands with occasional layers of silt and gravel are exposed in the upper bluff. Geologic maps indicate these materials are advance outwash. Very stiff to hard sandy and clayey silts are exposed on the f P � lower bluff and were encountered in the lower portion of all borings. Till -like silty, gravelly sand was observed along the lower portion of the lower bluff and in the bottom of borings B-1 and B-4. These materials are probably glacial marine drift. All of these materials have been glacially consolidated, and are generally competent. Each of the borings encountered loose to medium dense silty sands and very soft to very stiff silts to depths ranging from about 27 to 43 feet below the ground surface, overlying the massive, undisturbed, very stiff to hard silts. These overlying materials are slide debris W-5148-03 3 SHANNON &WILSON. INC. from the upper bluff which have accumulated on the bench. The thickness of this slide debris can be seen to diminish toward the top of the lower bluff. Heavy groundwater seepage was observed from a number of locations along the base of the upper bluff. Water could also be observed seeping from the loose slide debris at the top of the upper bluff. Erosion and sloughing of the slide debris from the bench and down the lower bluff to the beach is active, and large cracks and slide scarps were present in this material along the top of the lower bluff. The results of the inclinometer readings taken in July and November 1990 indicate that the loose soils on the bench were sliding slightly during the summer and fall of 1990. These measurements indicate that the soils in the vicinity of B-4 above a depth of 43 feet, and in B-1 at a depth of 29 feet, moved between 0.1 and 0.2 inches to the north between June 8 and November 7, 1990. Figures 10 through 13 present the results of our 1990 readings. Our next set of readings was attempted on March 29, 1991. At that time we discovered that the inclinometers at borings B-1 and B-4 had been either sheared off or severely deformed at depths corresponding to the top of the hard silt layer, indicating that significant sliding had occurred. We also observed significant new tension cracks and set -downs on the ground ;,surface within the bench area and considerable sloughing on the upper and lower bluffs. Subsequent observations during site visits in 1992, 1993, and 1994 indicate that lateral movements amounting to 1 to 4 feet occur each year, during the winter months. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AISD RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Stability Our analyses indicate that the bench which comprises much of the site was created by erosion of the soils from the upper part of the slope. Heavy groundwater flow along the contact between the sands and the underlying hard silts undermined and eroded away the dense sands leaving a bench atop the less permeable silts and clayey silts. The resulting bench is underlain by glacially consolidated soils which are stable; however, the bench is covered to varying depths with very loose to medium dense sands and very soft to very stiff silts from the upper part of the hillside. The loose soils ranged in thickness from about 27 W-5148-03 4 SHANNON &WILSON, INC. to 43 feet in the borings, and are thicker in the upslope direction and thinner toward the lower bluff. These loose soils are accumulated slide debris. They are wet and are only marginally stable. Portions of this loose soil periodically slide down the lower bluff to the beach. Our inclinometer measurements indicate that a massive, block -type slide is occurring, with the slide surface located at the top of the underlying hard silt. The mechanism of failure appears to be the high groundwater pressures in the loose soils and a zone of very low (residual) shear strength material at the top of the hard silt layer. In our opinion, the sliding will continue to occur and the basin will a enlar encroaching g on the surrounding properties unless steps are taken to increase the stability of the site. As the loosened soils on the bench wash or slide to the beach, more of the steep upper bluff will be exposed to further erosion and over -steepening by groundwater seepage, and the bowl will become larger. This process has been going on for many years and will continue until the upper bluff and the loose debris on the bench become fiat enough to be stable, or until the groundwater seepage is intercepted and drained. Analyses have been performed to evaluate the behavior of the site and assess the potential effect of measures to increase the stability of the site using the PCSTABL5M computer program. Initial analyses were performed on the slope configuration on Figure 3, and analysis of the stability of loose soils on the bench (including movements observed in the inclinometer casing B-4) were based on the profile shown on Figure 14. Our analysis of the observed movements included back -calculating the shear strength of the slide plane at the top of the hard silt, assuming a factor -of -safety of 1.0, and then determining the effect of lowering the groundwater level in the loose soils on the site stability. Our calculations indicate that the angle of internal friction in the shear zone is about 15 degrees. This very low apparent shear strength may be the result of remolding of clayey soil or excess pore water pressures, or both. The results of these calculations indicate that lowering the groundwater level in the loose debris by 15 feet will increase the factor -of -safety of the sliding mass by about 37 percent. W-5148-03 5 SHANNON &WILSON, INC. 4.2 Site Stabilization Development of the site will require that the stability of the soils on the bench be increased to preclude further sliding. In our opinion, the stability of the loose soils on the bench can be increased by installing trench subdrains to intercept the groundwater and remove it from the site, and by installing vertical sand drains to reduce any excess pore water pressures which may be acting on the slide plane at the top of the hard silt layer. Controlling surface :S water through proper site grading, sloping and the installation of storm drains will also �i increase site stability. Our studies indicate that lowering the groundwater level in the loose soil by 15 feet will increase the factor -of -safety to about 1.37, at which the bulk of the loose soil mass will be mr stable. The trench subdrains should consist of slotted plastic pipe bedded in 3/8-inch washed pea gravel in the bottom of sand -filled trenches. A typical trench subdrain section is presented on Figure 15. Several such drains will be needed to provide the necessary drainage -'because the practical depth limit of trench subdrains is about 20 feet, and water would be able to pass under trench subdrains which do not reach into the top of the hard Zj silt. RThe proposed layout for the trench subdrains is shown on Figure 2. These locations are approximate and should be established in the field during construction. Additional drains may be required based on observations during construction. The subdrain trench extending from the manhole/catch basin at point C to point A should extend down into the very stiff to hard silts at least 1 foot in order to intercept all water flowing above that layer. The borings indicate that the top of the hard silt slopes downward to the east, so the subdrain should drain from C toward A. From the manhole/catch basin at A working toward B, and from C working toward B, the trench subdrains should begin at least 2 feet into the hard silt layer and be horizontal as they extend upslope until the trench becomes about 20 feet deep. They should continue about 20 feet deep to the manhole/catch basin at B. Manhole/catch basin B would be situated to collect surface water from the adjacent upslope properties as well as any trench subdrain flow from the direction of C. W-5148-03 0 .11 n [11 P Ll SHANNON &WILSON, INC. A tightline (non -perforated) pipe should be placed in the trench from B to A to drain manhole/catch basin B and from C to A to drain C. Most of the trench subdrain from B to C would flow toward C. A tightline should extend from A to the beach. Dams consisting of clayey soils or concrete should be placed immediately upslope of the manhole/catch basins to prevent water from continuing down the trenches and to force it into the perforated pipes. Perforated pipes should convert to tightlines at the dams, with the tightlines flowing into the manhole/catch basins. We recommend that slotted pipes consist of corrugated plastic pipe. Tightlines could consist of schedule 40 or 80 PVC pipe. The tightlines should be sized to carry surface runoff from up -slope properties as well as local flows. It is difficult to estimate the flow quantity from the trench subdrain system; however, we expect it could exceed 200 gallons per minute. Our stability analyses indicate that excess pore water pressures may be acting on the slide plane at the top of the hard silt layer. In order to reduce any such pressures, we recommend that a series of vertical sand drains be installed at 25-foot spacings along the trench subdrain route between points D and E as indicated on Figure 2. These sand drains should consist of 24-inch diameter vertical sand -filled shafts which extend down at least 5 feet into the top of the hard silt. They should be hydraulically connected to the trench subdrains. They will not completely drain the slide plane, but will prevent a hydrostatic head higher than the bottom of the trench subdrain from developing on the slide plane. Vertical drains should be filled with sand meeting the gradation specification for drainage sand and gravel as indicated on Figure 15. Most of the surface water at this site is introduced from adjacent upslope properties through several pipes which discharge over the upper bluff, and from stream flow over the upper bluff during rainy periods. In our opinion, surface runoff onto the site can be significantly reduced by connecting the existing pipes so that they discharge into manhole/catch basin B. Installing catch basins along roads and driveways and digging strategically placed ditches will also help control surface water. All water captured in catch basins should flow by tightlines to the beach. W-5148-03 7 SHANNON &WILSON, INC. A OYU engineer 5hellld be retained to d6p the storm drain g5tem3 including the deign 9f the manhole/catch basins, and to put the entire surface and subsurface drainage system onto construction drawings. 4.3 Site Development Once the recommended drains are installed and the pore water pressures reduced, the stability of the site will be significantly increased such that the site can be developed for residential use. There is always a risk of sliding on property located on or adjacent to a slope, and the owners must be willing to accept that risk. It is our opinion, however, that the site can be developed in such a way that the overall stability of the site is increased, and the risk of damage to structures at the site will be minimal. Maintenance of the drains will be required and the ground water levels should be monitored on a continuing basis to verify that the drains are functioning. As the two previously installed inclinometers were destroyed, we recommend that at least three new inclinometers be installed in conjunction with trench subdrain installation. We also recommend the installation of at least six additional observation wells to allow °measurement of the drain's performance. The locations for the new inclinometers and observation wells will be determined based on the final location and depth of the trench subdrain system. Observation wells should be installed prior to installation of the drainage system. We understand that before release of the building permit for the proposed residence, the City of Federal Way will required a letter from Shannon & Wilson, Inc. stating that the stability of the site has been sufficiently increased and there is less than a 25 percent chance of sliding at this site in a 50 year period. In order to verify that the stability of the site has been'sufficiently increased, measurements of the inclinometers and monitoring of water levels in piezometers by Shannon & Wilson, Inc. will be necessary at least once a month through at least one wet season after completion of the drainage system. Evaluation of that data, along with our observations of the drainage construction and post construction inspections, will be assessed to determine that the stabilization measures are functioning and effective prior to construction of the residence. If necessary, other stabilization measures such as the construction of a buttress and/or installation of horizontal drains could be W-5148-03 E:1 SHANNON &WILSON, INC. accomplished to further increase the stability of the site. Once the increased stability of the site has been established and the residence has been constructed, periodic measurements of the inclinometer casings should still be made on a yearly basis for at least three years. The steep bluffs above and below the bench will continue to slough and erode. Setbacks will be required to prevent construction too near both the upper and lower bluffs. We recommend that proposed structures be founded below a line extending up 1 vertical to 1.4 horizontal from the beach high tide line. Setback requirements from the upper bluff should be established for structures on an individual basis. Because of the loose nature of the existing soils on the bench, we recommend that the proposed house be supported on augercast concrete pile foundations. Driven piles should not be used as the vibrations from pile driving could cause sloughing or sliding on the slopes surrounding the site. Recommendations for augercast piles are provided in the following section. The toe of the lower bluff is not presently protected by a seawall and is subject to wave erosion. While the erosion does not presently appear to be severe, we recommend that a seawall be constructed in future years to minimize future erosion. Without a seawall, we estimate that the top of the lower bluff will regress back to the south at an average rate of 2 to 6 inches per year, although regression rates could be sporadic. Based on the anticipated amount of regression over a 50-year period (9 to 25 feet), it is our opinion that the proposed house should be set back from the edge of the bluff a sufficient distance such that it would not be adversely effected by slope regression in the near future. Thus, without construction of a seawall, a 50-year design life would require a 25-foot setback from the top of the slope. The owner should consider the design life of the structure, plans for future seawall construction and other factors when establishing the setback distance. 4.4 Augercast Concrete Piles The allowable capacity of augercast concrete piles will vary with pile lengths and diameter. They typically range in size from 12 to 24 inches in diameter, at lengths to about 60 feet. The length of individual piles can be varied within the capabilities of the drilling equipment. W-5148-03 w 0 SHANNON &WILSON. INC. They are installed by rotating a continuous -flight hollow -stem auger to a pre -determined depth. When the depth is reached, a high strength sand -cement grout is pumped, under controlled pressure, through the center of the shaft as the auger is slowly withdrawn. By maintaining pressure in the grout line and slowly extracting the auger no faster than an equivalent volume of grout is pumped, a continuous column of concrete is formed. A single large reinforcing rod can be installed for the full pile length through the hollow -stem of the auger, and/or, a reinforcing cage can be placed in the column of wet grout. We understand that three rows of columns are proposed to support the structure and that the spans between rows are 20 feet and 40 feet, respectively. Spacing of the columns within each row ranges from 7 to 20 feet. The maximum column load, located in the center row of columns, is expected to be 34 tons. We recommend that the proposed structure be supported on 16-inch (minimum) diameter augercast concrete piles, having a minimum penetration of 14 feet into the hard, clayey silt layer. Such pile would be capable of supporting an allowable design vertical load of 34 tons. The depth of bearing stratum should be determined for each pile on an individual basis during construction. We estimate that total pile lengths will be on the order of 40 to 50 feet, although the lengths may vary with location. We recommend that steel reinforcement be placed for the full length of each pile. Larger diameter piles, say 24-inches, are not required for bearing; however, since these piles will cross the existing failure plane, the increased shearing resistance of larger diameter piles would provide increased resistance to sliding. We understand that lateral design loads on each pile will be on the order of 2,500 pounds. Lateral forces would be resisted by passive earth pressure against buried portions of the structure, and from lateral pile resistance. We expect that each 16-inch-diameter pile will have sufficient lateral resistance to withstand a lateral force of 2,500 pounds with no more than 1/4-inch of lateral deflection at the ground surface. In a pile group, we recommend a minimum pile spacing of three pile diameters on centers. For this spacing, the concrete grout should be allowed to cure a sufficient length of time so that it would be self supporting prior to installing adjacent piles. Since all piles are to be installed in glacially consolidated soils, there will be no reduction in vertical pile capacity for group action. W-5148-03 ccl SHANNON &WILSON. INC. The quality of augercast concrete piles is primarily dependent on the procedure and workmanship of the Contractor who installs them. It is normal practice to install a pressure gage on the pump discharge line and a counter on the grout pump. The counter is used to fdetermine the approximate volume of grout pumped by counting the number of strokes of a displacement -type pump. The pump should, therefore, be calibrated prior to its use. In lieu of a counter and pump calibration, we recommend that a flow meter be installed in the grout line to allow direct measurement of the volume of grout purnped into each pile. The pressure gage is used to monitor the pressure of the grout to evaluate the rate at which the auger should be retracted, and if the auger or hoses are plugged. It is recommended, therefore, that a properly functioning pressure gage and flow meter be provided on the grout pump to assist in monitoring augercast pile installation. The auger should be withdrawn with slow positive rotation at a slow steady pull and should not be pulled until the grout has been pumped a few feet above the tip. The installation of augercast concrete piles, including measurement of the volume of grout purnped into each pile, should be monitored on a full- time basis. 4.5 Excavations "Excavation of the proposed trench subdrain will require a large backhoe capable of excavating to the required depths. Caving of the trench walls should be expected and use of a trench box and/or large steel sheets will be required. In some areas, dewatering through the use of wells or well points may be required to facilitate construction of the trench subdrains. At times during installation of the trench subdrains it may be desirable to stop work for a day or two and let the site drain into the already installed portion of the subdrain system before resuming work. The Contractor should be responsible for the control of ground and surface water within the contract limits during the construction period. In this regard sloping, slope protection, ditching, sumps, dewatering, and other measures should be employed as necessary to permit proper cornpletion of the work. All current and applicable safety regulations regarding excavation slopes and shoring should be followed. Safety during construction should be the responsibility of the Contractor. Unless included as a surcharge load on the shoring system, excavated material, or stockpiles of construction materials or equipment, should be placed no closer than a distance equal to the depth of the excavation from the top edge of the excavation. W-5148-03 Sl IArJrJON &Wll SON. INC. We recommend that permanent unsupported cut and fill slopes be no steeper than 1.0 Vertical to 2.0 Horizontal (IV to 2H). Where loose soil or seepage zones are encountered, flatter slopes may be required. 4.6 rill Placement and Compaction All fill placed beneath building areas and areas to be paved should consist of structural fill. Structural fill should consist of relatively well -graded sand or sand and gravel having a maximum particle size of about 3 inches. It should not contain more than about 25 percent fines (material passing the No. 200 mesh sieve) by weight, based on the minus 3/4 inch soil fraction. It should be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to a dense and unyielding surface and at least 95 percent of its Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557-70, Method C or D). The thickness of loose lifts should not exceed 9 inches for heavy equipment compactors and 4 inches for hand -operated compactors. Trench backfill could be placed in 18-inch thick lifts when compacted with a hoe-pac. In non-structural (landscape) areas where settlement on the order of an inch or more is tolerable, the compaction requirement could be reduced to 90 percent. Much of the existing soil on the bench would be suitable for use as structural fill providing it is free of organics and its moisture content is sufficiently close to the optimum. These soils may contain sufficient quantities of clay and silt to create a cohesive mixture when wet. As a result they may become muddy and difficult to handle when wet. At the time our explorations were made (in May 1990) the moisture content of the in -place soils was generally at or above their optimum. Some drying will be needed if these soils are to be used as structural fill. They will not be suitable for use as structural fill in wet weather. To the extent possible, cleaner soils (sands) at the site should be used as structural fill beneath roads and structures. Tile siltier soils should be used in yard or landscape areas where substantial settlements are tolerable. We recommend that imported fill contain no more than 15 percent fines. W-5148-03 12 L1 11 SH/-1NNON &WILSON. INC. We should review grading plans to verify that site grading will not adversely impact the 10 stability. lu4.7 Wet Weather Earthwork Many of the soils at the site contain sufficient quantities of silt and clay to produce a cohesive mixture when wet. Such soils may become muddy and difficult or impossible to place and compact if their moisture content significantly exceeds the optimum. The following recommendations are applicable if earthwork is to be accomplished in wet weather or in wet conditions: a. Earthwork should be accomplished in small sections to minimize exposure to wet weather. Excavation or the removal of unsuitable soil should be followed immediately by the placement and compaction of a suitable thickness (generally 8 inches or more) of clean structural fill. The size of construction equipment may have to be limited to prevent soil disturbance. In some instances, it may be necessary to excavate soils with a backhoe, Gradall, or equivalent to minimize subgrade disturbance caused by equipment traffic. b. Fill material should consist of clean, granular soil, of which not more than 5 percent by dry weight passes the No. 200 mesh sieve, based on wet sieving the fraction passing the 3/4-inch sieve. The fines should be non -plastic. c. The ground surface in the construction area should be sloped to promote the rapid run-off of precipitation and to prevent ponding of water. d. No soil should be left uncompacted and exposed to moisture. A smooth -drum vibratory roller, or equivalent, should be used to seal the ground surface. e. Excavation and placement of structural fill material should be observed on a full- time basis by a person experienced in wet weather earthwork, to determine that all work is being accomplished in accordance with the project specifications. The above recommendations for wet weather earthwork should be incorporated into the contract specifications. W-5148-03 13 I I SHANNON bWILSON. INC. 4.8 Erosion Control In our opinion, erosion at the site during construction can be minimized by implementing the recommendations in the Wet Weather Earthwork section, and can be controlled through the judicious use of fabric silt curtains and/or straw bales. The site should be seeded as soon as possible after grading, and vegetation should be encouraged. 4.9 Earth Retaining Structures We recommend that rockeries at this site be restricted in height to no more than 8 feet. Rockeries should be constructed in accordance with the Typical Rockery Detail provided in Figure 16. Ecology blocks may be used in lieu of rockeries to provide low gravity retaining walls. Ecology blocks consist of 2 x 2 x 6 foot solid rectangular concrete blocks. They are cast from excess concrete at concrete batch plants and are relatively inexpensive. Because of their rectangular shape, they can be stacked in a variety of ways to form gravity retaining walls tip to about 10 feet high. Typical ecology block walls are presented on Figures 17 and 18. Several relatively new types of earth retaining structures could also be used at this site. They include Keystone retaining walls and Criblock walls. "These wall systems are relatively inexpensive engineered walls which are easy to install, much more stable than rockeries, and more attractive than ecology block walls. Retaining walls should be designed for an equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pcf, plus one pound per cubic foot for each degree of upward inclination of the backslope above the wall. These pressures assume the walls flexible and are drained so that hydrostatic pressures cannot develop. Recommendations for wall drainage and backfilling are presented on Figure 19. Lateral forces would be resisted by passive earth pressure against the buried portions of structures and by friction against the bottom. In our opinion, passive earth pressures in backftll could be estimated using an equivalent fluid pressure of 280 pounds per cubic foot W-5148-03 14 1 SHANNON &WILSON, INC. (pco where the ground cannot become saturated and 140 pef where saturation is possible. These values assume that the structures extend at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade, and the backfill around the structure is a compacted granular fill. We recommend that a coefficient of friction of 0.5 be used between cast -in -place concrete and soil. An appropriate factor -of -safety should be used to calculate the resistance to sliding at the base of foundations. Base friction should not be considered beneath pile supported structures. 4.10 S e_a Wal l_ )g-sign Immediate construction of the seawall is not required, as beach erosion does not appear to be rapid and is not a factor in the stability of the soils on the bench. Continued erosion at the beach will result in gradual loss of property; however, and a seawall or other beach protection should be considered in future years to reduce beach erosion. A typical sea wall design is presented on Figure 20. The minimum recommended elevation for the top of the sea wall is elevation 19.5 feet, (MLLW), which is about. 5 feet above the highest observed tide. This is about 2 feet higher than typical older walls; however, we believe the increased height is prudent as some lower walls have been occasionally overtopped and damaged by storm waves, and the increased height will protect more of your slope. The backfill behind the sea wall should consist of 1-1/4-inch minus crushed rock which will provide a filter to prevent the loss of fine grained soils through the backfill. The backfill should be placed in lifts and compacted with construction equipment to a dense and unyielding condition. Immediately behind the wall the backfill should be compacted with a hand -operated vibratory compactor. We recommend that the ends of the sea wall be joined to existing sea walls on the neighboring properties. If this is not possible, the ends of the wall should be wrapped into the slope, as wave action tends to concentrate at the end of the sea wall. It is important that W-5148-03 15 I SHANNON &WILSON. INC. L] the base rock of the wall be keyed into the very dense or hard soils which underlie the beach gravels. We also recommend that we be retained to monitor the sea wall construction to verify the presence of competent bearing soils and the acceptability of construction materials 5.0 LIMITATIONS The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on site conditions as they presently exist and assume that the explorations are representative of the subsurface conditions throughout the site, i.e., the subsurface conditions everywhere are not significantly different from those encountered in the explorations. If during construction, subsurface conditions different from those encountered in the explorations are observed or appear to be present, we should be advised at once so that we can review those conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. If there is a substantial lapse of time between submission of our report and the start of work at the site, or if conditions have changed due to natural causes or constriction operations at or near the site, it is recommended that this report be reviewed to determine the applicability of the conclusions and recommendations considering the changed conditions and time lapse. We recommend we be retained to review those portions of the plans and specifications which pertain to earthwork, site grading and drainage to determine that they are in accordance with our recommendations. We suggest a meeting with you and your "contractor to discuss earthwork and drainage requirements and other aspects of the work. Full time monitoring of the drainage installation is strongly recommended, as its proper installation is essential to the success of your development. This report was prepared for the use of the owner/architect or engineer in the design of stabilization measures for the site. This report should be made available to prospective contractors or the contractor for information on factual data only and not as a warranty of subsurface conditions, such as those interpreted from the boring logs and discussions of subsurface conditions included in this report. W-5148-03 16 SHANNON &WILSON. INC. Unanticipated conditions are commonly encountered and cannot be fully determined by merely taking soil samples or making explorations. Such unexpected conditions frequently require that additional expenditures be made to achieve a properly constructed project. Some contingency fund is recommended to accommodate such potential extra costs. SHANNON & WILSON, INC. 1 EXPigES 7/25/ C Ralph N. Boirum, P.E. Senior Associate IZNF3:1'EK/rnb W51-49 03.R1-r/\V5HR Ikd/dgw W-5148-03 17 REPORT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES LANDSLIDE STABILIZATION BLOCK 21, BUENNA ADDITION FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON ri ,'i.. �� rr• . r MAY 11, 2004 For LEE RABIE r f I/ EOEN_GI_N GiEERS �r Fit No. 8157 May 11, 2004 Lee Rabic 9615 West Marginal Way Seattle, Washington 98108 GEOENGINEERS� Subject: Report Geotechnical Engineering Services Landslide Stabilization Block 21, Buenna Addition Federal Way, Washington File No. 8257-002-00 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering services related to evaluation of the landslide on the property identified as Block 21, Buenna Addition, Federal Way area of King County, Washington. The approximate location of the property is shown in the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. We developed our understanding of the project during a site visit in April 2004 and discussions with you while on site. GeoEngineers previously completed a landslide evaluation of the subject property related to regression of the head scarp. In 1990 and 1994 geotechnical reports discussing site development and landslide stabilization were prepared by Shannon and Wilson. The general layout of the property, including topographic information prepared by Lund Associates, is shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. Figure 2 indicates the subject property is high bank waterfront overlooking Poverty Bay. Most of the property is located on a large active landslide. SCOPE OF SERVICES The purpose of our study is to review existing information in our files and information provided to us by you as a basis for providing recommendations for stabilizing the existing landslide. We developed our scope of services during discussions with you while on site. We received.your authorization to proceed with our services in April 2004. The services completed for this project include: 1. Completing a site reconnaissance to confirm our understanding of conditions that resulted in the existing landslide. 2. Reviewing our files for information relevant to the subject property. 3. Reviewing the "Revised Geotechnical Report Proposed Residential Development Block 21, Buenna Addition, King County, Washington" prepared by Shannon and Wilson (S&W) and dated June 1994. The S&W report is included in this report as Attachment A. 4. Reviewing the "Drainage Report" prepared for Lee Rabic by ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC (ESM) and dated August 31, 2000. 5. Evaluating several trench drain alignment options. Earth Seianee + Tech nology iti• ! 1101 S. Favrceei Ara rile 200 - telephone 253 WA :x53r98q Z•3. _ _ :.TicsimYlr iiwi�i. t. Tae-F..'K e �..w... wrw - a.' Lee Rabic May 11, 2004 Page 2 6. Developing recommendations regarding installation of an appropriate site drainage plan. 7. Developing recommendations for site grading and drainage, including evaluating the use of on -site soils as structural fill and providing appropriate gradation and compaction criteria for structural fill. 8. Providing our recommendations in a report. SITE CONDITIONS GENERAL The property is located on an active landslide. Most of the property is located on a broad, bowl shaped bench about half way up the slope. The property is in a residential area adjacent to Poverty Bay in the Puget Sound area. The subject property is bounded by Poverty Bay to the north; and by residential property to the east, south and west. The property is generally rectangular in shape, measures about 460 feet by about 340 feet and encompasses about 3.6 acres. There is a bluff to the south of the site, which is the head scarp of the landslide. The landslide mass contains many smaller landslide features, including minor scarps, transverse ridges, and transverse cracks. The site is vegetated by young alder and maple trees, thick vines and other groundcover, including various species of bushes. We understand that Lund and Associates monitored the movement of four locations within the landslide debris field. The movement of the four points monitored by Lund and Associates is provided in the table below. TABLE 1 T ATL'D AT AVTl X7- T?TTrAT. 1X4nvF.tiTF1'-TT nF 1,ANT)S1.TT)F, MASS Test Movement from 6/90 to 4/95 Movement from 6/90 to 10/96 Movement from 6/90 to 6/97 Movement from 6/90 to 10/99 Movement from 6/90 to 5103 Hole North Elev. North Elev. North Elev. North Elev. North Elev. (ft) ! (ft) I (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 6.4 -4.3 9.8 -4.0 12.4 -5.8 15.6 -6.9 15.9 +6.9 2 3.2 -0.9 4.9 -0.7 6.7 -0.9 7.9 -1.1 8.4 -0.6 3 9.2 -2.8 16.2 -3.1 30.0 -5.1 41.1 -7.7 45.0 -7.9 4 6.9 -2.4 9.4 -3.2 15.4 -3.2 19.3 -4.2 20.9 -5.5 Based on survey information from Lund and Associates (Table 1 above) and our observations the landslide mass is moving laterally northward. The survey measurements show the landslide movement is characterized by intermittent periods of significant soil movement. This lateral movement has resulted in a significant amount of landslide debris flowing over the water front bluff and into Puget Sound. We anticipate the landslide will continue to move to the north, and landslide debris will continue to flow into Puget Sound until the landslide is stabilized. G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 8257-002-00 Lee Rabie May 11, 2004 Page 3 Portions of the main head scarp (generally south of the property) have retreated significantly. The amount and rate of retreat varies across the property. The retreat is most significant near the northeast corner of the property where the retreat scaled from aerial photographs has been about 48 feet from 1965 to 1996 and 28 feet since from 1978 to 1996. During the same period (1965 to 1996), the approximate average retreat of the main scarp is approximately 15 feet. The retreat of the bluff as determined from aerial photographs between 1965 and 1996 varies from as much as 60 feet to as little as about 12 feet. PUBLISHED GEOLOGY AND SOIL CONDITIONS The Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the Washington Agriculture Experiment Station indicates the mapped soils in the vicinity of the property include Alder -wood (soil units Agc & Agd) with slopes from 6 to 30 percent, Kitsap (soil unit Kpc) with slopes 8 to 15 percent, and Alder -wood and Kitsap soils (soil unit Akf), with slopes from 25 to 70 percent. These soil types present an erosion and landslide hazard. The Slope Stability Maps - Coastal Zone Atlas (CZA) produced by the Washington State Department of Ecology designates the slopes on the west side of the property as "U" (unstable) and "I" (Intermediate). The CZA also designates a small portion of the slope on the eastern portion of the property as "S" (Stable). When slopes are considered unstable, it is because of geology, groundwater, slope, and/or erosional factors. They include landslides and talus too small or obscure to be mapped individually. When slopes are considered intermediate it is because slopes are generally steeper than 15 percent except where conditions such as weaker material and/or abundant groundwater exist. These areas include slopes of sand and gravel, till, or thin soils over bedrock, which have no known failures. In our opinion, most of the property presently is unstable. SUBSURFACE SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS Subsurface soil and groundwater conditions were explored by S&W on May 29 and May 30, 1990. These explorations encountered landslide debris, including very soft to "medium dense" (stiff) gray silt and very loose to medium dense silty sand. In all of the explorations, hard gray silt was encountered below the landslide debris. Groundwater was encountered within 10 feet of the ground surface in all of the explorations advanced by S&W. More information regarding subsurface soil and groundwater conditions is available in S&W's revised Geotechnical Report, which is attached to this report as Attachment A. Inclinometer measurements taken by S&W indicate the landslide is a massive block -type landslide. The landslide surface is located at the top of the hard silt. The boring logs indicate that the hard silt layer encountered in each of the borings is very flat. Based on these explorations, we conclude the landslide failure plane is also very flat. The explorations indicate the landslide mass consists of highly disturbed G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 8257-002-00 Lee Rabie May 11, 2004 Page 4 soil that is derived from the upper bluff. The soil in the landslide mass has a very low strength due to being disturbed and saturated. At saturation, the friction strength of the soil is roughly half of its unsaturated strength. At saturation, the weight of the soil in the landslide mass is greater than the weight of the soil in the landslide mass in an unsaturated condition. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL The existing landslide is active and we anticipate that it will continue to move to the north mostly during or after periods of heavy rainfall. The landslide mass (debris) will continue to flow into Puget Sound until the landslide is stabilized. We agree with S&W, that the landslide can be stabilized by drainage of the landslide mass (debris). It should be understood that sloughing and sliding of the waterfront bluff and the head scarp buff will likely continue to occur after the site has been stabilized. In our opinion, all site stabilization plans should include collection of surface and stormwater, disposal of collected water in a location that will not adversely affect the stability of the steep slope, and a maintenance and inspection plan for the recommended trench drains. Recommendations addressing proper site grading are included in the "Site Grading and Earthwork" section of this report. Recommendations addressing proper slope maintenance and site drainage are included in the "Slope Maintenance" section of this report. SUBSURFACE DRAINS General We recommend a series of trench drains be installed approximately as shown on Figure 2. The location of the trench drains shown on Figure 2 should be considered approximate. The final layout of the trench drains will depend on constructability considerations. We recommend that all groundwater collected by the trench drains be collected and discharged at the toe of the slope or other approved location that will not impact the stability of the slope. We recommend the trench drains consist of 6-inch-perforated drainpipe bedded in pea -gravel; a typical trench drain detail is included as Figure 3. We recommend that one trench drain, the primary trench drain, extend at least 1 foot into the hard silt layer observed in each of S&W's borings. We recommend that the primary trench drain be located as far south on the property as practical. We recommend that additional trench drains be placed between the primary trench drain and the southern property line, approximately as shown on the site plan and on cross section A -A', Figure 4. Based on the topographic information shown on Figure 2, we recommend that trench drains between the primary trench drain and the southern property line extend a minimum of 30 feet below the ground surface. Because of the practical limit of trench drain excavations, we anticipate that several trench drains, with varying pipe drain elevations, will be necessary. G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 8257-002-00 Lee Rabie May 11, 2004 Page 5 To facilitate maintenance of the trench drain system, we recommend that a series on manholes or access points be installed along the trench drain system. At a minimum, a manhole access should be provided at both ends of trench drains that are more than 200 feet long and at the intersection of all major trench drains. Construction Considerations We anticipate shoring of the trench drain excavation will be necessary during construction. We anticipate that groundwater will be encountered during construction. Dewatering of the trench excavation may be necessary. If dewatering of the trench excavation is necessary, we anticipate that the water removed from the excavation during construction will contain some suspended soil particles. We anticipate that a settling and/or a detention pond may be necessary if dewatering is required. After the trench drain is installed, we do not anticipate that the water collected by the trench drain will contain suspended soil particles. None of the water removed from the trench should be infiltrated into the site soils. We recommend that water removed from the trench excavations during construction be discharged at the toe of the slope. We anticipate that the drainage pipe will be buried at least 25 to 30 feet below grade in some areas. We recommend that the hoop strength of the drainage pipe be checked to ensure the factor of safety against crushing is. at least 2.• We further recommend that the maximum opening in the drainpipe be no more than one-third minimum particle diameter of the pea gravel pipe bedding. We anticipate that the final trench drain alignment will depend on conditions encountered during construction. Therefore, we recommend a representative of our firm observe the installation of the recommended trench drains. SITE GRADING AND SURFACE DRAINAGE General Proper drainage is imperative for long-term stability. The influx of water is a major factor in the destabilization of the landslide. We recommend that the site be regraded to facilitate proper drainage of surface water and stormwater and to minimize the potential for surface water and stormwater to infiltrate into the site soils. We anticipate that relatively significant regrading and earthwork will be necessary to facilitate proper drainage of surface water and stormwater. We recommend that surface drainage consist of a system of catch basins and slot drains piped into a suitable discharge point. We also recommend that the entire site be regraded into slopes and flat areas to facilitate runoff and collection of stormwater. The site surface/subsurface should consist of densely compacted soil of low permeability. Topsoil can be placed over the compacted layer in landscape areas. In our opinion, areas covered by impervious surfaces such as asphalt, concrete, or structures will significantly reduce infiltration of surface water and stormwater and thereby increase the stability of the site. In addition, it is our opinion that sloped areas could be used to route surface water and stormwater to G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 8257-002-00 Lee Rabie May 11, 2004 Page 6 an appropriate collection and disposal system. To further reduce the potential for infiltration of surface water and stormwater on the site, all gently sloping or flat areas (landscape areas) could be underlain by a clay liner or an extremely low permeability geosynthetic and a system of drain lines that will adequately drain the area and discharge surface and stormwater to the primary surface water and stormwater disposal system. Stripped topsoil can be used for landscaping or other non-structural applications on the property. We recommend that stripped topsoil not be used as structural fill. Material that cannot be used for landscaping or other non-structural purposes should be removed from the project property and properly disposed of. We recommend that earthwork activities be scheduled for the normally warmer and dryer months, generally before November and after April. We expect that some of the on -site soil will be too wet to work or adequately compact and may need to be disposed off -site. In general, trafficability of the on -site soil will be difficult, due to the high fines content and natural moisture content of the soil. Wet Weather Considerations We recommend that only emergency grading and drainage work be done during wet weather. Soils exposed during earthwork activities should be protected from stormwater. Areas of exposed soil that are not protected from stormwater could increase the potential of movement and additional sloughing of the slope face. If earthwork activities are delayed due to wet weather, or a prolonged break in the construction process is anticipated, we recommend that an experienced geotechnical engineer or other qualified personnel be on -site to confirm the exposed soils are properly protected from stormwater. Structural Fill We anticipate that filling could be required to accommodate proper site drainage. We recommend fill for driveways and parking placed during site grading be placed and compacted as structural fill. The suitability of soil for use as structural fill will depend on the soil gradation and moisture content. As the amount of fines (silt and clay particles passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve) increases, soil becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult to achieve. The on -site native soils may be suitable for use as structural fill, provided they are at the appropriate moisture content at the time of construction. The native soil should be moisture - conditioned for compaction to within about 3 percentage points of optimum moisture and free of debris, organic material, frozen soil or particles greater than 6 inches in dimension. We recommend structural fill be placed in lifts not exceeding about 10 inches in loose thickness before compaction. We further recommend that structural fill used to establish grade in areas where additional improvements are not likely be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density (MDD) as G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 8257-002-00 Lee Rabie May 11, 2004 Page 7 determined by American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D 1557 test procedure. We also recommend that structural fill used to establish grade in areas where additional improvements are possible be compacted to at least 95 percent of the MDD as determined by ASTM D 1557 test procedure. SITE MAINTENANCE General As discussed above, proper drainage is imperative for long-term slope stability. The influx of water is a major factor in the destabilization of slopes. At no time should surface water be discharged to, or near slopes or retaining structures. Surface water from downspouts, foundation drains, upslope retaining wall drains, runoff from adjacent properties, and runoff from or other surfaces should be collected and discharged to the toe of the slope. If stormwater is infiltrated on the slope face, rapid deterioration of the slope could occur. Curbs or other appropriate measures should be used to direct surface water runoff to collection points. Existing drain lines including those associated with adjacent properties should be inspected and repaired if leaking. Drainage should not be infiltrated on the property. Erosion Control Weathering, erosion and the resulting surficial sloughing and shallow landsliding are natural processes that affect steeply sloped areas. To reduce and slow these natural processes, we recommend the following: ■ No discharge of concentrated surface water or significant sheet flow onto sloped areas or the bluff to the north. • Collect groundwater seepage, if any is encountered during construction. • No percolation of significant surface water during the rainy season should be permitted on the property. ■ Enhance vegetation along the top and face of the steep slopes. The vegetation should consist of ground cover, grass, shrubs, and low -growing (dwarf) trees, all of which have strong root systems and are drought tolerant. Temporary erosion control should be provided during construction activities and must be maintained until permanent erosion control measures are functional. Surface water runoff should be properly contained and channeled using drainage ditches, berms, swales, temporary ponds, and/or silt fences. Exposed soil areas should be protected with a temporary covering until new vegetation can take effect. Jute or coconut fiber matting, excelsior matting, or clear plastic sheeting is suitable for this purpose. FUTURE STRUCTURES We anticipate that structures may be constructed on the property. We recommend that no structure be placed on the property until it can be shown that the site has been stabilized. We further recommend that a geotechnical evaluation of the proposed building site be performed after the slope has been stabilized File No. 8257-002-00 G e o E n g i n e e r s Lee Rabie May 11, 2004 Page 8 and before construction of any permanent structures begins. Based on the information available at this time, we anticipate that permanent structures will be pile supported. We anticipate that light and/or temporary structures could be supported on a building pad consisting of 3 to 4 feet of imported granular structural fill compacted to at least 95 percent of the MDD. LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for use by Lee Rabie for use in evaluating and designing a portion of the property identified as Block 21, Buenna Addition, in the Federal Way area of King County, Washington. Our services were provided to assist in the stabilization of the site. Our recommendations are intended to maintain the overall stability of the site and to reduce the potential for future property damage related to earth movements, drainage or erosion. However, all construction on slopes involves risk, only part of which can be mitigated through qualified engineering and construction practices. Favorable performance of structures in the near term does not imply a certainty of long-term performance, especially under conditions of adverse weather or seismic activity. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in the field of geotechnical engineering in this area at the time this report was prepared. No warranty or other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. Please refer to Attachment B titled "Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use" for additional information pertaining to use of this report. 4+/ G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 8257-002-00 Lee Rabie May 11, 2004 Page 9 We appreciate the opportunity to serve you on this project and look forward to working with you again. We trust the above provides the information you require. Please contact us if you have questions or if we can be of further assistance. Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, Inc. Mark A. Rohrbach Geotechnical Engineer Gary W. Henderson, PE Principal l�c�sl�r=s • -� � - MAR:GWHjm:tt TACO:\8\8257002\00\Finals\825700200R.doc Disclaimer: Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table, and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. Enclosures: Figure 1 —Vicinity Map Figure 2 — Site Plan Figure 3 — Typical Trench Drain Figure 4 — Cross Section A -A' Attachment A — "Revised Geotechnical Report" prepared by Shannon and Wilson Attachment B — Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 8257-002-00 •7 0 N N sri 0 cc ro m ai or n E N IL 0 0 N O O LO N rn C7 O 0 N 0 0 I- LO N t m CL U 0 pO jr(, P:r ti SITEi�p? - •.irtir' ;�.yt?, _ r ail ,� :_-i. -_r - ti. • .. .. .. �: ,fiY- •�r=? .� .: 'i �K.-..,� ,...y a fr�; •J r" i1 � �' +�^• - e+r• _ 4. ' ' ._- ', .. ,Qi,v'�+ r• yr � ' fit;. _ -••�' ra'f �, i �� Y�' � R'' i ' � s Sri„ � "'A�•;ir-� ',a.�: �' r. y' :. j r, , • .:::r i• - - f. : d..l. :�kt i '::;�, it _ � � t- '. �,, :��.. �'-. _ , � • ~ _ � ����\y��'i 4i�t� 1'• (.j,-1 :;I ji'I�-_!' arh %t} �r :L�s - i � a •r` N• ^� zf W_ � .. »ram^ 44!s .y ��J-`'� "��c�'�'+ 'y,; • ' J•�`��r • � ii' K Ai � rr - � •ry -�.. .�.' Jim 1 a • l: � /' = �y � - , r r �r. • � v � � - stir i. `{ ' �.' - . yw - ' � c Data Sources: Interstates, state routes, and roads from TIGER 2000. County boundaries, cities, and waterbodies from Department of Ecology. Kitsap USGS quadrangle (4 meter resolution) of 1980 from TerraServer. unty All locations are approximate. Lambert Conformal Conic 0 1,000 2.0�0 King 5 Washington State Plane North eel _¢ cunt;. North American Datum 1983 ie1s" 1s Prc$ Note: This drawing is for informational purposes. It is intended to assist Gaunty in showing features discussed in an attached document. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resale, without permission. VICINITY MAP GEOENGINEERS FIGURE 1 ..r 0 0 0 0 } U U 0 N I 0 I 0 N O 0 r- L0 N 00 i 0 a U i 0 0 0 0 1`1- N CD i Co i 0 U POSSIBLE DRAIN LOCATION (SHOWN AS ILLUSTRATION ONLY NOT INTENDED TO BE FINAL LAYOUT) PUGET SO UND (POVERTY DAY)! fir! t - R1 -,V 7,5 I =0 nQ A' POSSIBLE DRAIN LOCATION (SHOWN AS ILLUSTRATION ONLY NOT INTENDED TO BE FINAL LAYOUT) o� POSSIBLE DRAIN LOCATION Notes: 1. The locations of all features shown ore approximate. 2. This figure is for informational purposes discussed in a related document. only. It is intended to assist in the identi=ication of features Data were compiled sources do not guarantee these data from sources as listed in this figure. The data are accurate or data since the publication of this figure. This figure is complete. There may have been updates to the copy is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as a Copy of a master the official document document. The master hard Reference: Drawing provided by Lund Associates. of record. sQ � 105 / .y4�. Z I PROPERTY JJJ f % BOUNDARY POSSIBLE DRAIN LOCATION (SHOWN AS ILLUSTR,�TION\ ONLY NOT INTENDED TO BE FINAL LAYOUT) ,h EXPLANATION: GEOENGINEERS� 0 POSSIBLE MAINTENANCE ACCESS POINT (SHOWN AS ILLUSTRATION ONLY NOT INTENDED TO BE FINAL LAYOUT) 1+ SHANNON AND WILSON BORING NUMBER AND APPROXIMATE ORIGINAL LOCATION 0 0 o APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF PRIMARY TRENCH DRAIN APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF ADDITIONAL TRENCH DRAINS A A' . APPROXIMATE CROSS L--� SECTION LOCATION 0 60 120 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET SITE PLAN FIGURE 2 �25 o u7 Q Dam in Trencl- Force Water Into 4 rl3 0 50 100 Approx. Scale in Feet N _ ;htline Discharge M fha pan,-11 PRO Dam In Trench To Force Water Into Pipe /rfr,/,/i NOTES 1. This drawing is based on the topographic map prepared for Lee Rabie by Lund & Associates dated March 30, 1990, revised July 4, 1990. 2. Vertical sand drains on 25-foot centers along trench subdrain between points "D" and "E". -LEGEND B-1 Boring Designation and Approximate Location A Genealized Subsurface Profile Location ------ Tightline PVC pipe .......... Slotted Plastic Pipe O Manhole/Catch Basin —� Direction of Flow Dam Rabie Property Federal Way, Washington SITE PLAN July 1990 W-5143-01 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG_ 2 A North 240 r 200 160 120 m LL c c 0 CU _m Lu 80 40 I• -40 Downed Trees NOTES Existing Cracks and Ground Slide Scarps Surface % 1 Hard, gray, slightly clayey SILT; laminated Very dense, gray, sandy, gravelly SILT to silty, gravelly SAND Hard, gray, slightly 7 clayey SILT; laminated Hard, gray, slightly gravelly to gravelly SILT Very dense, gray, and raven SILT Existing House Slump Block Surface Water B-2 B-1 Very Bose, brown, slightly fine gravelly, silty (loroj. -50' E.) SAND to slightly, fine gravelly, sandy SILT; frequent wood fragments and organics; wet ? ? tvlediurn dense, gray, fine Slide __--,Loose, gray -brown, silty, fine gravelly SAND; wet sandy SILT; moist to wet ? Very stiff, gray, slightly clayey SILT Debris Loose to medium dense, orange -brown, with trace fine SAND; moist to wet silty, fine gravelly, coarse SAND; wet Hard, gray SILT to slightly clayey SILT; laminated m ? m 0 Very dense, gray, silty, gravelly SAND (Till -like) U c s y.9 Y Glacial Marine Drift Very dense, brown, gravelly SAND to sandy GRAVEL; frequently iron stained 1. The subsurface conditions are generalized from materials encountered in the borings and observed on the slope. Variations between the profile and actual conditions may exist. 2. This profile was made from tape and hand - level measurements by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., and is approximate. Elevations are referenced to those on the revised site survey by Dennis L. Lund, dated July 4, 1990. 0 20 40 80 Scale in Feet Horizontal = Vertical LE— G t Seepage Observed Gravelly SAND Rabie Property Federal Way, Washington GENERALIZED SUBSURFJ PROFILE A -A' July 1990 W-51 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FI( Geotechniical consultants B North 240 — 200 160 CU a� w 80 40 0 -40 It Existing Ground Surface ZHard, gray, sandy, gravelly SILT Gradational slightly gravelly, ne sandy SILT Hard, gray, clayey SILT; laminated NOTES I. The subsurface conditions are generalized from materials encountered in the borings and observed on the slope. Variations between the profile and actual conditions may exist. 2. This profile was made from tape and hand - level measurements by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., and is approximate. Elevations are referenced to those on the revised site survey by Dennis L. Lund, dated July 4, 1990. - B' South 240 Yard Sand 200 Slide Block Surface 160 Water B-4 B-3 # Very loose, gray -brown, sfightly silty to silty fine SAND; (Proj. -t Z W.) frequent wood fragments and black organics; wet ery loose, gray to brown, sfightly Slide ' Loose, gray, fine sandy SILT with some organics; wet 120 6 gravelly, coarse sandy SILT; wet ?� Very loose, orange -brown f� LL Very loose to loose, gray, fine Debris Loose, olive -gray, slightly silty fine SAND; wet e_ Brown, fine silty fine SAND; wet ----iandy SILT to silty fine SAND; wet ? y e sandy SILT ' ? Sti� if, gray, slightly clayey SILT; moistCa -Loose, gray, slightly fine sandy SILT; wet Ca m ul CD Hard, gray, slightly clayey to E 80 clayey SILT; laminated; moist U C ? o�-- Very dense, gray, silty, fine SAND with trace. coarse SAND to fine gravel; moist to wet (TiII-like) 40 Glacial Marine Drift 0 20 40 80 Scale in Feet Horizontal = Vertical LEG—_ t Seepage Observed 0 C North 240 200 160 m 120 m m �-w 80 l v ' 40 Cho] -40 F NOTES w 1. The subsurface conditions are generalized =: from materials encountered in the borings. Variations between the profile and actual conditions may exist. 2. This profile is based on the site survey by Lund & Assocates dated March 30, 1990, tt revised July 4, 1990. N- 0 20 4o bu Scale in Feet Horizontal = Vertical C' South 240 200 160 120 6 0 LL 0 CU 80 w 40 R -40 Rabie Property Federal Way, Washington GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE PROFILE C-C' MODEL FOR STABILITY ANALYSES July 1990 W-5148-01 SHANNON 5 WILSON, INC.7FIG..14 Geotechn'rcal Consultants I SOIL DESCRIPTION ii a -o LL Standard Penetration Resistance r n c (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) Blows per foot Surface Elevation: Approx. 131.8 Feet o c7 tj 0 460 0 0 Very soft, brown, fine sandy SILT; moist 1= 2= Q :.......:: 6.5 Medium dense, gray, fine sandy SILT; moist to 4= c 10 ._ .... • : _ I wet o, .. . 14 6= Very stiff, gray, slightly clayey SILT; trace fine I sand; moist to wet 8= o 20 .� 9 = 10= ....... ::::::: ....S... ..... :.::::73 27 11 rard, gray SILT to slightly clayey SILT; zero 12= 30 slight plasticity; thin zone (0.4') with blocky, 13= ::::::: : ; ;Ali— ; :::::63 broken texture at a depth of 43 feet; moist ; : ; ::: ; ; :: = ..... . 40 ., . jj 16 50 :::: - - - ::: f :: .--- :.. 80/9" 49 Very dense, gray, silty, gravelly SAND with 17—::::: :::: 50/5" occasional silt and sand layers toward the top; # moist (Till -like) 18= :: a: ; ; 1 ::::::: 1 :::: 50/3" 60 ....... 19= .....-- 50/4" 20 :::: �!:: ! ::::::::: :: . . 50/5" 70 j.... .... ... 21 22— 80 ..... :::::::: ` 50/4" 79 BOTTOM OF BORING COMPLETED 5-29-90 NOTE Inclinometer installed to bottom - - - - - - - of boring. ::...:.. . ...::::: I :::..... . LEGEND 0 20 40 60 / % Water Content I 2" O.D. split spoon sample X Impervious seal 7T 3" O.D. thin -wall sample Water level * Sample not recovered r Piezometer tip Atterberg limits: P Sample pushed 1 0 --i--- Liquid limit Natural water content Plastic limit The stratification lines represent the approx. boundaries between soil types, and the transition may be gradual. Rabie Property Federal Way, Washington LOG OF BORING B-1 July 1990 W-5148-01 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotechnical Consultants FIG. 5 SOIL DESCRIPTION N a� a Standard Penetration Resistance r a m _ (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) Surface Elevation: Approx. 145.1 Feet o co � ' o A 0 20 Blows per foot 4 6 Very loose, brown, slightly fine gravelly, silty 0 1= 0 .' ........1........ .... ; SAND to slightly fine gravelly, fine to coarse, 2= �W ; ; ; ; ; ; : ; ; ; :#. ; : ; ; ; ; :: sandy SILT; frequent wood fragments and organics; wet 12 5 = 10 •� : : Loose, gray -brown, silty, fine gravelly, fine to 6= coarse SAND; wet 7= ....... 8 = 20 :�:::::::: 27 10= 11 12= 30- Loose to medium dense, orange -brown, silty, fine gravelly coarse SAND; some fine gravelly 13= zones; wet 14= 15= 16 = 42 17 40 ::::::: ; ::::: �:�.......8: ; Hard, gray, slightly clayey SILT; moist 46 18= ::::: :::::a• :: ; ; ; 73/10" BOTTOM OF BORING ...... = ... = :::. . 1 . COMPLETED 5-30-90 50 ...... ....... [ . . . . . . . : . LEGEND 0 20 40 60 9 % Water Content 2" O.D. split spoon sample X Impervious seal •T1_ 3" O.D. thin -wall sample Water level Sample not recovered Piezometer tip Rabie Property _r P Sample pushed Federal Way, Washington Atterberg limits: --6 Liquid limit Natural water content LOG OF BORING B-2 f' Plastic limit Julye 1990 W-5148-01 The stratification lines represent the approx. boundaries SHANNON & WILSON, INC. t, FIG. 6 between soil types, and the transition may be gradual. Geotechnical Consultants In SOIL DESCRIPTION U_ Standard Penetration Resistance L a = � z (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) Surface Elevation: Approx. 117.6 Feet cc o C7 o A Blows per foot Very loose, orange -brown, silty fine SAND; wet E ::::::: ; 4'S Very loose, gray to brown, slightly gravelly, 2= coarse sandy SILT; wet 9 5 3= 4 = cD 0 10 r . " ..... :f:._..... Very loose to loose, gray, fine sandy SILT to 5= �` ..... ::::�' silty, fine SAND; wet 6= 7= ........ 20 Stiff, gray, slightly clayey SILT; zero to slight 9= plasticity; moist 10= 27 11= 12= 30 ......... ' 85 Hard, gray, slightly clayey SILT; slight plasticity; ::::::: :::::::� :::: 64 moist 34 13= BOTTOM OF BORING ::::::: :...... ::::::: ' COMPLETED 5-30-90 40 . . , ------------- T: ....... . : . . . . . . . . . LEGEND 0 20 40 60 ! % Water Content I 2" O.D. split spoon sample Impervious seal TL 3" O.D. thin -wall sample Water level • Sample not recovered Piezometer tip Rabie Property Atterberg limits: P Sample pushed Federal Way, Washington �--0 ---1—Liquid limit y ' Natural water content LOG OF BORING B-3 Plastic limit July 1990 W-5148-01 The stratification lines represent the approx. boundaries SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. 7 between soil types, and the transition may be gradual. Geotechnical Consultants i Lll V SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: Approx. 135.4 Feet Very loose, gray -brown, slightly silty to silty fine SAND; frequent wood fragments and black organics; wet Loose, gray, fine sandy SILT; some organics; wet Loose, olive -gray, slightly silty fine SAND; wet Loose, gray, slightly fine sandy SILT; wet Hard, gray, slightly clayey to clayey SILT; slight plasticity; moist - thin zones (<1/2" thick) with blocky texture and/or slickensides at depths of 43 and 53 feet Very dense, gray, silty, fine SAND with trace coarse sand to fine gravel; moist to wet Mil -like) BOTTOM OF BORING COMPLETED 5-30-90 NOTE Inclinometer installed to bottom L0V_ y a� t o- n � a� U) 0 1= 2= 3= 12 4= 5= 6= 7= 8= 9= 28.5 10= 11= 33 12= 13= 14= 15= 43.5 16= 17= 18 = 19 20 21 22, 23. 76 78.5 24: of boring. LEGEND 2" O.D. split spoon sample Impervious seal I� 3" O.D. thin -wall sample Water level Sample not recovered Piezometer tip Atterberg limits: P Sample pushed --1— Liquid limit �— Natural water content Plastic limit The stratification lines represent the approx. boundaries between soil types, and the transition may be gradual. ii Standard Penetration Resistance ai s (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) o■ Blows per foot n 0 :.: 150.20,a 0'10 — Al 20 .+: 30 .......- 40 .64 ;:: '::::'72 60 70 80 - ' I ....... 0 20 40 60 A % Water Content Rabie Property Federal Way, Washington LOG OF BORING B-4 July 1990 W-5148-01 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. 8 Geotechnical Consultants .LHOIBM AS U2SUVOO IN33Lf3d 0 0 0 1 C 0 too* too, zoo* w COO" coo* < POO' VOW z < Z 900' 7 900' x w 800' - Boo* uj LU N z to' Cl) to, LU j, !'7 x 0 . zo --7 zol a Col — co W. *fO 90, 90. ooz DOL LLI U) z 09 ui z 91 z z < LU oz a L N uj 0 Ot w < J z < — LLJ VA LLI C4 w z VIE: 7 L 0 Z Wt. z w 10 N Ml s p t j p 1 7 1 III III II II!Ilill I� I II II II IIII I III lllii 0 u 9 z OL, U. oz Ole LU U) a: Ov < 0 09 os 00 L In LU -j FM DOZ 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 00 0 CO P- m LO 1HE)13M A13 H3N1zl 1N3OH3d CL —4 C:) C) o z 0 LL 7T ul < L) w 3z C) z C- < uj 0 LLJ N b.-4 _j Cn CO < < = Z Ca Ld A m < z uj cc Cn 0 LL- CD Z z LLJ -0 C4 a V) M (11 m LL C) C) LO, 4 LA rn C"; LU a —4 M. C; LO � 2 Z CIJ m I < I L� I V) WI nn Cn SHANNON & WILSON, INC. RABIE PROPERTY Casing No. B-1 DIGITILT DATA DEFLECTION VS DEPTH Run Date 07-18-1990 Job No. W-5148-03 Casing No. B-1 SOUTH (-) Direction Deflection, inches NORTH (+) Direction -0 an -0.50 -0.40 -0.30 .0.20 -0.10 +0.00 +0.10 +0.20 +0.30 +0.40 +0.50 +0.60 i Displacement Scale: 1 inch = 0.20 inch Dr awing Scale: 1 inch = 15 feet A Symbol Set Reading Date Comments 0 06 - 08 - 90 Initial —e— 3 07-12-90 —o— 4 11 -07-90 NOTES 1. The north, south, east and west directions are for reference only. The actual orientation of the North reading is N2E, and the readings are orthogonal. 2. To account for casing stickup and distance from top of casing to the measuring point, 2.8 feet should be subtracted from the readings for actual depth below the ground surface. Rabie Property Federal Way, Washington INCLINOMETER READINGS B-1 February 1991 W-5148-C SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. 1 Geotechnical Consultants SHANNON & WILSON, INC. DIGITILT DATA Run Date 07-18-1990 RABIE PROPERTY Job No. W-5148-03 Cas i ng No. B-1 DEFLECTION VS DEPTH Casing No. B-1 i SOUTH (-) Direction Deflection, inches NCRTH (+) Direction -0.60 -0.50 -0.40 -0.30 -0.20 -0.10 +0.00 +0.10 +0.20 +0.30 +0.40 +0.50 +0.60 I 1 1 I 10+ 1 I across slope 1 20+ 1 I I 1 30+ 1 I 1 I 40+ I I 1 I 50+ i 60�I 701+ I Displacement Scale: 1 inch = 0.20 inch 8 Drawing Scale: 1 inch = 15 feet Sy mbol Set Readi no Date Comments 0 06 - 08 - 90 Initial —o— 3 07 - 12 - 90 —o— 4 11 -07-90 NOTES 1. The north, south, east and west directions are for reference only. The actual orientation of the North reading is N2E, and the readings are orthogonal. 2. To account for casing stickup and distance from top of casing to the measuring point, 2.8 feet should be subtracted from the readings for actual depth below the ground surface. Rabie Property Federal Way, Washington INCLINOMETER READINGS B-1 February 1991 W-5148-03 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. 11 Geotechnical Consultants SHANNON & WILSON, INC. DIGITILT DATA Run Date 07-18-1990 RABIE PROPERTY Job No. W-5148-03 Cas i ng No. B- 4 DEFLECTION VS DEPTH Casing No. B-4 SCUTH (-) Direction Deflection, inches NORTH (+) Direction _n an -n 5n _n an -n no -n gn -n_io +0.00 +0.10 +0.20 +0.30 +0.40 +0.50 +0.60 1 1 1 I 10+ 1 1 1 across slope 1 20+ 1 I 1 1 30+ I 1 1 ' 1 40+ 1 I 1 I 50 t [ 60+ I 1 70 r Displacement Scale: 1 inch = 0.20 inch 80 I Dr aw i ng Scale: 1 inch = 15 feet t Sy mbol Set Readi ng Dat a Comments 0 06 - 08 - 90 Initial —e— 3 07 - 12 - 90 —o— 4 11 -07-90 NOTES 1. The north, south, east and west directions are for reference only. The actual orientation of the North reading is N26W, and the readings are orthogonal. 2. To account for casing stickup and distance from top of casing to the measuring point, 2.0 feet should be subtracted from the readings for actual depth below the ground surface. Rabie Property Federal Way, Washington r INCLINOMETER READINGS B-4 February 1991 W-5148-03 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. 12 Geotechnical Consultants SHANNON & WILSON, INC. DIGITILT DATA Run Date 07-18-1990 RABIE PROPERTY Job No. W-5143-03 Casing No. B-4 DEFLECTION VS DEPTH Casing No. B-4 SOUTH (-) Direction Deflection, inches NORTH (+) Direction -0.60 -0.50 -0.40 -0.30 -0.20 -0.10 +0.00 +0.10 +0.20 +0.30 +0.40 +0.50 +0.60 1 l 10+ I 1 upslope I downslope I 20+ 1 1 30 i t I 1 1 40+ 1 1 I I I 64+ I t 1 I 1 t Displacement Scale: 1 inch = 0.20 inch 80 Drawing Scale: 1 inch = 15 feet Sy mbol Set Reading Date Comments 0 06 - 08 - 90 Initial —e— 3 07-12-90 —o— 4 11 -07-90 NOTES 1. The north, south, east and west directions are for reference only. The actual orientation of the North reading is N26W, and the readings are orthogonal. 2. To account for casing stickup and distance from top of casing to the measuring point, 2.0 feet should be subtracted from the readings for actual depth below the ground surface. Rabie Property Federal Way, Washington INCLINOMETER READINGS B-4 February 1991 W-5148-03 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. F FIG. 13 Geotechnical Consultants FROM :ENERCO INC FAX NO. :2067621422 Nov. 03 2006 07:29PM P 1 ■ LEE RABI'E ENERCO 9615 W. MARGINAL WAY S ' • SEATTLE, WA. 98109 PHONE OR FAX 206 762 1422 To: MR. NEAL BEETS From: LEE RABIE Fax: 253 935 2409 Date; 11/02/06 Re: I'13ILMISSION FOR CLEANING Pages: 1 DRAIN DITCH CC: © Uroent X For Review 0 Please Comment ❑ Please Reply E I Please Recycle kA YOUR CALL ON NOV.1 , 2006 ASOUTTHE PRELIMINARY FINDINGS ON THE STATUS OF 3NG:Bf3li" BLOCK 21. BECAUSE OF THE LONG HISTORY r WILL TAKE TIME TO DEVELOP A PB APPROACH TO $TABLIZE SUENNA BLOCK 21. THERE IS AN INTERIMUM SIMPLE ACTION THAT ' WILL F�LP KEPT THE SURFACE WATER FLOWING OFF THE SITE BY CLEANING THE DRlAN DITCHES. THIS VJk,r FACILATE THE WATER TO FLAW REP1011-Y OFF THE SITE OUR CONSULTANTS, GEO ENGINEERS, MR GARY HENDERSON, M AND HONG WEST, MR, RALPH BaRUM PE, CONSUILED, MUST KE PTH THE SURFACE WATER OFF THE SITE, NOT ALLLOW PONDING AND TO SOAK iINTO THE SILTY SOIL, RAISING THE WATER TABLE, ENABLING INSTABILr Y. SURVEY FROM 1990 TO 1997 SHOWS TEST HOLE 3 MOVING TO THE BANK N. 30 FEET. SLIDING IS ACCLERATING ESTIMATED THE SLIDING N. FROM T14E 19W SURVEY TO 2006 WOULD SE 70 FEET. A LETTER GIVING PERMISSION TO CLEAN THE DRAIN DITCHEES, AND MAINTAING THE DRIVEWAY BENNIFIT THE UP HILL PROPERITIES, STATES ENVIROMENTAI_ CONCERNS THE SILT CONTAMINATION OF THE SOUND. PLEASE CALL THE CONSULTANTS AND CONFIRM THE IMPORTANCE. Geoff Engineers Ge0technfcalEngincefs Gcolofii%Ci Bnvlonmengaf Scient6its ,cdngincttm Ind, 1101 South Fmvcc:..a)-c _ Su:'.e 200 'r5a,= W'A %Aol Fie ('153) ;ibA933 k.er^dlt=:Iftir ;0 .mIS.0m Mimi +IONGwF-ST { dtA$10CIATES.IMC. Ralph N. Boirum, P.E.;• V40 F'10$40% f Pr ncio.:l Gemcnn;Csl Engineer 19730 - 64th, AVErue Was; Lyro-004-,, WA 9Fi034i -S90G Td.:;t'.6.774.0106 Faux, •206-775-7506 1 Crin a�,vil�X!m(!n::v, Tc.�c,�-.1t70ra:Cry, ( �n+:!•:�!`�,�C31 StiNiCRB rz Lee Rabie Property Lee Rabie purchased a vacant 3.59 acre site (tax parcel # 119600-2100) in 1989. 1) The following is a summary of applications received and/or processed by the City with respect to this property. Date Application For Status 8/09/90 LSM application, Site stabilization work for Cancelled: City cancelled application 90-101128-UP 3.59 acre parcel on in 1997 due to applicant failure to shoreline, containing GHA provide updated information as soils, steep slopes, requested by City. Numerous wetlands, stream, and attorneys for applicant disputed city undergoing rotational tilt requests. 10/02/92 New Single family New SF house, 11,760 SF Expired by limitation permit, on 156,380 SF lot 92-101677-SF 12/08/92 SEPA checklist, 90- For new 11,760 SF house Incomplete: Never issued as submitted 101733-SE checklist was incom lete 04/02/02 Complaint: Tree cutting with no Compliance: Code enforcement 02-101366-CR development application officer inspected site following call and could never find this work occurring. 06/11/03 Complaint: Owner bringing in 100+CU Enforcement: routed to City 03-102411-CR of gravel to make driveway Prosecutor in GHA without development permits 06/11/03 Violation: OCA for illegal grading and Closed: Went to trial, jury found 03/102412-VO fill work within GHA owner not guilty, 06/09/04 Administrative Applicant paid for City Closed: August 2004 inspection by Request: wetland consultant to City wetland consultant verified that 04-102305-AD determine if wetlands exist there was standing water and wetland at the site vegetation at site. 2) The following Litigation Chronology is provided by the City Law Department: Year Issue Status 1996 1996 -Complaint for Damages and Writ of Mandamus for City to Court dismissed issue building ermil, Court dismissed 1998 1998 - Claim for Damages for $7.5 million dollars; City failed to maintain drainage and increased stormwater and groundwater caused slides on property 1999 1999 Complaint for Damages from Tortious Conduct, Trespass Court granted City's and Water Dumping; City and uphill neighbors named as Summary Judgment defendants; water caused slides, Court granted City's Summary Motion and Judgment Motion and dismissed City from lawsuit dismissed City from lawsuit 2002 2002 Court of Appeals unpublished decision upheld dismissal; Court of Appeals water flow is in the natural channels and defendants acted in good unpublished decision faith to resolve the flow of water. upheld dismissal; 2003 Jury trial for illegal grade and fill within GHA Found Not guilty - Prepared by Deb Barker, Senior Planner July 21, 2006 s �r CITY OF • TO: Greg Fewins FROM: Ron Garrow DATE: December 22, 1993 _ SUBJECT: Rabie Project PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM For Your Information I have completed some reviews of the documents submitted in this latest round of communications. The following are my comments in relation to the documents highlighted: A. Paul Rennord Letter The letter by Mr. Rennord consists of statements of fact and provides no conclusions or analysis of changes -from conditions before the installation of the "French Drain" system. It appears that this document is provided for informational purposes only. In discussions with Cary, it also appears that King County crews were directed by the City to install the system to provide additional storage capacity for runoff and improve the infiltration capabilities of the area. Prior to, the installation, water just ponded at this corner of the road and overflowed the roadway more frequently. This installation was an attempt to decrease the frequency of road ponding and overtopping. II. N. Lehtinen Report 1. The company that conducted this report appears to be a structural firm. Their expertise in hydraulics, hydrology, geology, and groundwater should be supported by resumes of the staff before this report can be considered with any degree of professionalism. 2, Generally, reports presented to the staff for proposed projects are reviewed for consistency with applicable standards and practices and not with the intent of finding fault in minute details. If these minor details do not affect the recommendations of the report, they may only be brought to the attention of the writer for correction in future projects. However, due to the significant misrepresentations in this report, the questionability of the writer's expertise, and the resulting conclusions, a greater effort has been made in identifying the errors. 00326A an infiltration sy ..j would increase the retention capabO.es of the area and thereby decrease the overland flows beyond that point instead of increasing the flows that were there before construction of the trench. 8. The writer states that overflows from the "french drain" are routine. No information or historic data have been presented to support this statement. Also, the writer states that the water infiltrating into the ground from this drain is causing sliding and erosion and wetlands. Again there has been no geological information presented to support this statement. In particular, is groundwater flow in the area in a northerly direction or could it be in a northeasterly, northwesterly, or other direction? 9. The writer states that the wetlands are "alleged" to exist. Reports and site visits by others have confirmed their existence. 10. The writer states that the reddish -brown soils around the streams are very much out of place for this area. No basis for this statement is provided. Also,. if there may be a broken sewer line contributing to this discoloration, why doesn't it show further up the bluff where water would be seeping out of the hill? 11. The writer states that the City is the main contributor to artificially collected drain water which is being allowed to discharge onto Rabie's site. The City's only contribution to flows -is from the 9th Ave. S.W. right-of-way. This area is overshadowed by the remaining private properties in the drainage basin as are the amounts of associated impervious areas. 12.. The writer states that the City is illegally dumping storm water in a slide area. Since the writer does not appear to be an attorney, it is inappropriate to make such a statement. Also, has the writer reviewed historic development of the area and determined any non- conformance to storm water management design standards effective at the time of these developments? This has not been provided. The City does not disagree that erosion of the site is caused by groundwater seepage in the area. In question is the location of the origin of this groundwater and the means to minimize the amount of groundwater flow to the area. Diminishment of groundwater flows can be done by reducing the amount of infiltration into the ground at the origin of this aquifer. This, however, could only be accomplished over a very long time period and would require revisions in storm water management policies and standards. Also, existing systems would have to be retrofitted as redevelopment occurs in the area. These solutions are long range and do not relate to the time frame appropriate for the development of the Rabie site. The City is open to suggestions for a method to divert surface flows from the hillside above the Rabie site to reduce any contribution these flows may have on the erosion of the site. It has _ been suggested that a piped system be developed routing the water to the east and west around the bluff. Two systems would be apparently necessary. The first would be in the S.W. 295th '~ Street right-of-way directing flows to the west to the existing system along 10th Ave. S.W. A second system would be necessary along the north sides of the buildings near the face of the bluff. This would require the cooperation of the residents and the recording of easements for these facilities. 00828A �' . JC • �i •i/ivr/. _ PLAT _. KING COUNTY �tifECi MOTOMEORDS r 1/✓/� � �' VOL $ of PLATS Page �i- - - -_ WASHINGTON. KIM0MITY, WASHIMOT� J.. qp..t rlwl .f.rl.tfv:d.4 Jlly ,5 M OEM . M. AMo "049 ItMo1++RrelMo Oo� ri• Ly-:..IIWwy ladf��Y.MN1 0564: 11�17sf. W. i� it • _ - - - --i-•------- _ t ., /l �... •...v r...•:. sJ• iEE... /...�....k Jti..r r•.. �k.. y a...,y.....rwlow ..-•;.: �'V J..r. ;v A•..•rit. .� rjr e+y n/�l..w... .m... �lJr+nir:.rr..►. .vrAfr . ..Llaflle J!% eel. I � .•..•...� .: J,.J.. ►• e... n. /....:,..r..rtc...r,rJ... mis.w/r=rwf�.•..�ry . ../yn«r.. u I•. /.i..n.T t...rrNLSwr, IyJJ.rw.r%r dW +.r. �� -- �'� _' •� � • � .�•...... , ; .,, r..,r..w,..s�/r....,t rya.......y...i'...rt..d..G.r:A.i•/A+7 ..:girt. -_ : u ,i � �''� ,. ..rrf..c.ry...t,r�JrH..,ryr...rrr..riu.r.yrr.......•..�w'y .:__ w , .,...... ll..,i,.. ti 'Ir Ir '�i -•:r— -'i- 'IJ � 7 •• /...... ,.r., ,.... /" r7•..rwry/AyNaerral.. - fl�, . �' //•.. / /.i. .r.,• � // //u JVre. ri n.r.I..A�wwrr w.•w _�� I --17 :1 8 ,•.•r. J,,.. /.., ;.i r. Jr...r ur.. <., j..,J glwv.I r/..•lr...Ms..R JfI�.e _ _ •'" i /,•I, ...r.I w:.. Af ..... «. r+6an•....r /.i./+fr/: rdL.r a.+r n4r ArrWj'.ir..iSr: - - �.. �V 4 ..../ ....7. J..d....r. rt....r.r ..r• rti. rlrrrlr,J.•rxw�Mwptjjl0. G, j r ..r. n..r r......r....... r�a►�.�.ywrhr ads � : zi •L ,[ -:= I .. I;i � � s � r % • •� _ N i * T.. , r „�.: r r.cwJ... /w:, is •• r.�.� y:. �., . 4r/rr... ..... J .ii r •:..rr n•rr.a JtJ^.tl. ' i � .....� •/.:.,, ..//.. rrr .s..... J_IWn. x..ny �- __- •.u..�:/.w+r,..•n++Jfj•h•+.+.%r•...rfw�.wwr.fi+w,.hk/Ac�..w..r R'r,'<' sLL ♦•• •. • •• "E n• ,.... .r,.J ....I...Ir .......J..r J.i. wJr.t w. hy7•.w✓ r..n J!» f.+riir`N .J. .r...rr ]1 7 J. LOAer-y '3 2 I l 1 57375 t • II I Ir j /L. f'Py'yf .P!/'cr/. : •r,..-..,-r-....,,air/i/il.:,,.�•y�r, 32 31 is 14 t Chip 3111surancr, Tompally SEATTLE, WASHINGTON Capita! $500,000 $100,000 Guaranty Fund Deposited with State Treasurer Policy No. OrdeIVo. t Amount, For value, WASHINGTON TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, hereinafter called the company, a cor- poration incorporated under the laws of the State of Washington and duly authorized by the State Insurance Commissioner to insure titles in said state, duth hereby insure, subject to the annexed conditions, hereby made a part of this policy, -C. W. L I S K/ t! f S t'• N 11f Y: Y' Lv • representatives and assigns, hereinafter called the insured, against loss or damage not exceeding 1v iv r4UR TnCJUSARD `V '� w Dollars, which the insured may sustain by reason of any defect in the title of I := Il 1 d) U V E 1 U C L 1(if it ;i S W I F E flip vp hereinafter referred to as the seller, to all the estate or interest in the premises specified and described in Schedule A, hereto annexed and hereby made a part of this policy, or by reason of liens or encumbrances charging the same, at the date of this policy; saving and excepting, and this policy does not insure against loss and damage by reason of any estate or interest, defect, lien, encumbrance or objection noted in annexed Schedule l3, which is a part herfin ec�r t ism policy is to'b� cstaTilishcd in the mannef provided in said conditions and shOl be'paid upon Colllpliance by the insured with and as prescribed in said conditions, and not otherwise. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, WASHINGTON TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY has caused these presents to be signed by two of its officers and its corporate seal to be affixed; ,but this policy is void and of no effect unless attested by an Assistant Secretary. Dated this ......... -i if ..... day of ............ F.XQJJS.a ................:1J.� at. l • .� r'' 1...�.:ix;........ o'clock....�,.�,..1�I. President. Attest: Manager. • � l y � . .. 4ssistant Secretary. S n� • 4c ' I SCtelO r I 11L i Stt[: p FTDRRA W47 d J i Vinclnity MAR u.ri M_^5SMENT YpRt 7-IGMTLIN+= D15CHAFZaS -., J.T' a- 5L_-.cm $ , bue-1 NA k DOMCN nr R OL---r qS�w 76❑ Y V061J+•SL p' [7>s r'�L1Tj ?�G ."_a• CL K" ` � [I`G L4Lf►,7$Y, WA,Jt+N [3 ;,.1� "J Cti�Gri19E L1 +S GOL � urS ''r0. NE5t •ALP CV rACA*ef) Cl ^w • wV x.�JT''••�'Ecr `MC �C� =4l.rrC :� vA(,nT�t7 5tXlrM�vLST =C33C5 spa=" tir40 SW�+ -P -r YIt5M u'JAT z ANC '='P WcWr _,'0JK0 TAX poet li-rC4ZS&a11F•o1' 10rvt SIJ iSCAL 0ESMrrrT011 LEG. •Lf5t=w 21 E%Jllf/taJFlte4AL W.41 i-l+■. - fwt■ l thrw9h-72. Iwlu Eve. ■I•<[ 21. [wau Add lttea, a<evN lM .ASSIfLLI_ ::L`�'.-+� 5�1t I•�'�y1d- 01414EV.: MR+:.�� �*>SIE, �/� E115RCCJ 9Llej W. y to [se Ilat-[ne[es[ faeetaN la Veluu f •f flat., pa9• 27, le rlee raula9teec TLU-_ 17�,z-P421 CeutT. C:^Tre; �crosowi erk rTLV.Adv f,5 �� r� ~��• TCOLTHIC v[T1 /ettleea •t vacated .tevots Welelae as attached S► law: pppa ,• - T£cTi Gt714%iftjcmc i Or to 5jH* C -,N4iLT Rk'tillxtf« tiCY.TT that Mrtlem •t the Peet 20 feet of [N Laet ha:f of vauud lath Avvaee fevthweat l►lee he[w•a the eute[Ita•e of tee[nwaet 27f[h rt[eet ..Aeea [h.wtt 2e)H f[[e•t, Jac , 1 k1•[t�, ��}t 1�'3�=' �II7 •�b'•'i� {�'IX-E y� uC- �p Jy Pan. .7w d, b,hfTNlte wlTf •■ ueewat (er tud aN atllltT pe[Mvv■ ae <ve to laH la �..ttveae9 Iete [:N oYe[ ■et•[d la0 eoeee[ It l22l1170. '� .?CGt2}e.r.'a� r r�v�l�� �04F (1_ w•17: �lUptttWflTl�3.dr}� � $fit R'e15.0/ 44-s,c S+d t: ;,&-Ago 6,,FT. �j111-0lrt�a.a M.3£IA[a3 . 'yw1 SR gc.0'i'• c.-+c....t c c.am � cr. hbT tiacY-'TEa I-f� TEo 7TA TL%tVff 93 TA XLY MOM A L rV = wwrr7[.Y 2Y MIL 1ALM-La .' a:orLo ..r.*•0.' rsr..,o �• x1 AL i, L w xrrruf Ime ll. ir" M ADORLSS rer come tl,tc 9r�' OF NIL ►%Trees LrrrfR 0IF 9uT. ITee 4movT or Tnt srrr.2Lf[ItNA _ .- BLACK IL �rA.Tto .+nrA,. + � '� STJ4 c ' Adwft e*.Tr 46T }I.a,Y76 ! Tr iff Haar M to Miess am i. araa ON e a wMewes. Cy4l�yH.r Z402f4,•FT. "ff 1+{- a a ram'• - osi, .T wsf M r.•fhP • etry..ea. ./ a e ra.11.e IoaiYv oaa_ -J 1•f nMff.eT saw •lam Fat..nt M z i.r rT "W-TL . :euel..a yrinna 1 G.II� W rT wz17S= oe•i.3L 64• 1AFL T?-i ti1.f Ot±�fi .rSa�ldaea dr 1..&arY. -{'--- hsep a.a+r. w>eft nw ea.aa ea. rr [ •red r 1j h®I v.y t. wear g..raF r�ra Tlr ass w.d.y .. ..tu• •196 7T. F'f � ��- 'r1il1____ ifZE ,yRfyew.wM[1 �+••L. I••tifGAaJAjtr I<T'P7N0jlL e600 e- .I.1A-r! iA,6 �oEh d7taf5 St,A RfAGt• wasse ana+.d Aad- Is of a PR lh,a cuQ-,r r- rt rltaal lSa v1*AILAAaw.?dATePUAL �'P*WA4TSV OI•I•51TV. ' - - ii`�loaajr_-[IUM6'J t.,"rar.Tw AAArer�IAL.: 90R6TrQ l=100ATMBIC R-4•1 ARA45. 90WAAG6 4111 -6GPIAVIBL.. A?PPt�x. ai5.L: ,Y• F.Y. 2-IaRIca. NaRt'RoN. a3fc 3A' 6iku aas+tfrt a�a�Ti�j �bT•.l_6ir� 'Fi"I-409 c:tv AVTt4• A?F0.a,l. Imo 'LfaoGY. J,p ,,ITufL+�/O►+wcrt aN.rWAIRV Ror_M n.AU.AeST' a.TPr.ex. 7. ALA, MAT0FS,IAG414AU, L'E CPL4FAOT69 •?FfLS.IAaIIWad#wlLAcs1 F�ifrPOR?. '� - U..4c 1.rr•l u.�o y 1 :Flgr�. suFtrxar+l4?WatT Spa' i i. JJ. oATt5D JUIdgr J 994 _ _ _M, 3t,.LQ1YL .aa1 £► G:r+•u odoo E _ S. W. 296 TH s ST. � I a��r ° 1615M13E7 � �'' , rr 1 _r eHa � c� yts . rt S. W. _93F 1 J •a' NO T OPEN LS 1 �G I�'r 2 • +� � e� '� ECi xflrt4l a 65 2 �jii tSKft fO 701. RA"I i 15 i413 R I! Sf7 6 5 4 3 E 31 t6 �>a � �Eo �194TH -CZ" tASJrNGWT NOT 3 OPE. ib �. i. v A 7 °Ts ) w p f _ 40 i LS - ` 44 N 4 1 i ~ bA F. 5}4 71G�5f4'y� { �ilz f2 �5 4 4ir - 'Iona 4 I I r a >7 }j 7 •-PiOt �ACCesS Easement AoeDRRms Tv rrs Has +Z 'tl�IlaMb Tii rt=.[Rf i tIP /3ie!'J1. 0:1 2*■ =mower ar-Rzm COIRRT. w � ultutlaAttsoe. egcuis Aa ITr�we - } SS.IIRIT2� AT 1W i"X&&3C U* OF YACA!!, SO 2ftlW ST. AO' 10W AR A" mmm Sewtw Amm 7 w f�RTtaliw� op S�SO.'am Pvc >ti f.e0� IMF TfOCi• WNW AWW A WAGUJ6 L� 0W A- C�rC 24.00• F9W I p To A 10111t or f:mwwv 2 TIN= "am A COri cumin", TV TTIC ..a- OP 90 D� Aa osaT�AiCI aw► 622..0 nWr T 00, S�4.00 r=r TO ?Mr- _ ! ww Lin m TRY LAw! iW Mr 0W •IYCIRJ� Eft'M AWV aF TIMM= r j Saw!! AIa= Ltd Lxm 20/ /m 10 Im C am wAmom =a ag nw Mr. I Twat!= wNr Aso& am C2R�wR 20, r�i Im Tg muw ow m 29w•*r s:. } zaca, RUT F' rn- urn .,, s.n[.+.trre,rertd• : ;6&a 7� �- ~" - �-rVA776 +4.45 StTCrt �5- Berr!=LC33LD""; - .rr e,n �(OIUT FF.. ODT aP t m 95 .E1LE '9RF Lea =?ACES a� src3NrFrcrdi7T�Ize . PEK arf' a� PEOEA4c UTAY, ZwiuG CaoE Il,rrtf Re�.t1L .sob•JVRFFKFDRPW PrR SNALN1pJ �tI1LS�5 CFWTGHNICAC,: J?VMTYl -SI B-o3 1'"a ^'• mo, UEAVE H4 Lech4 41 � /- .cam 'S.$a'�I'fZ�E Lb E rgpja_ / �.Y- IImo' JYIf '. _ I.. - �#� sIv-•[ -T� -I, w J r _ � - = -_;�r• _�= _: k:--=: � � � ,r�>•Ie� , �.�.y��J, i- �� al.erac� r� I': E � �-� • � r, J _ -ram a + r �r .. I�f I ,--. , 1 I r+..� ?y .' all-�� �r fte r{s8lev+.C�x�: ;„f.• 'k}?-lie���;t• •y +� - _ n mot• ���>i-f.� t- w. .» I v r f I /�i.� +S-. '+�` ILT - -� '��� .• -I 7 a>p�w -I pJi t(rl .51 ` `VEL. -� r J t ' �, 1 `�,-- I +„ oa.[ �,�;_� I " '5toeacZll.�T-/� l- OK N]L� ? rt J ,eqt.' te.,d. _ . fy� +►e� G .•� zs_srrisAe>r ex6r u plmcy - -�.� •� "� :� � : ` .�' � `ice 1�I I -�'-�� � f�, � `r 15A*eP4rJj'r -m �r•r h■ GG`3+$1Fr . ax Ip'(�' -} _ ti• I .' ! I�.., L a J ••-..:..:_�tla� y I` / //• j' "'"^+moo �s�•.. � ar.a� M.H. ■t - I � • � %� � `�1_�,rF vetration c Re4 }�/ �, _ I..a.•++ura�4 � s,la*.l v4ja�_►tia��t•� Pwc- N ul z IV 11rt1,�VCS..lt�r� 97 It 1\1c�orc 'omnrunily f )e�•clopment �erviccs � r al W"IN, ,ay South 1_ \VA 0,99- 00 i and I)eternrination it l3uenna 13lock 21 note wed material provided to fire by your staff people and by Mr. Lee Rabie, owner of the � raced parcels of land. This material includes various affidavits regarding a petition for ;lamas, wetland reports, and correspondence in the Rabie file at your offices. I have , led several site visit over the last year and conclude that the slippage of soil on this ctively eliminated any wetlands which existed in lire past, i find several statements n or your staff people to he in error, and request corrections or clarification and of your decisions. w, this project has been pending since hefore Federal Way became a city. On August Rabie tiled an application in the City of Federal Way for a grading permit on his site, o dewater and stabilize a slope. As you also know, much of the water on this site is from a storm water drainage system above it1r. Rabie's property, flows across the As, and falls over the bluff and onto Buenna Block 21. it is Mr. Rabie's position that roperly managed its road runoff; the issue of wetlands on his property would be much alit ilowever, the City has elected to refuse to accept responsibility for its inadequate ;tern, instead foisting the problem off onto local landowners. s not asking for much: he simply wants to manage the road nrnoff in the safest, most finer possible. The City has been throwing roadblocks in his way since the inception ,ct, demanding outrageous fees for applications that amount to spiteful harassment. of a little common sense world reveal that there is no ritional excuse for regulating if "wetlands" on this site, and that the process the City has insisted on is excessive lion We ask flint the City step hack, review its position from an unbiased perspective, r whelher the people of Federal \had• ate truly being served by the tax -wasting I the city has taken in light of the lack of wetland functions -served by the designated Nir Rnhie's property. the material in support of the Of'V's decisions, i noted that staff frequently took tl)e all wetlands within the City are regulated wetlands, regardless of size or quality." Deb Rarker told me that all wetlands are regulated because the City has no 12101 SE 71sr PLAcr NrWCASi1.E, WA 99056 (206) 277-8I -14- i {eggry Aloof March 5, 1997 ! Page 2 nrechanisill for not iegulatilig some wetlands From a philosophical and scientific standpoint, 1 have no objection to the position of protecting all wetlands- Wetlands are important elements of the ecosystem and need to be protected however, the City's regulations do not support this position. in the Atarch 1990 Comprehensive Plan, in effect at the time of htr. Rabie's permit application, there is a (distinction between "wetlands" and "regulated wetlands." Wetli dsof course, are "Those areas that are inundated or saturated by groundwater...," the defin tion,used b) the ('ores of Engineers. Reg► lalerl wetlands, on the other hand, are Class I and Class 11 wetlands identified by King County, or any wetland that meets or is functionally related to a wetland that meets criteria listed in the Comprehensive flan related to wetland functions (see below). Since the on -site wetlands do not nti?et these criteria, they ore 1101 regrrluled ► ellarrcls. Purthernuire the i 2 most recent field visits have revealed that these: areas are not "wetlands" at all, The affidavits of your staff people make a number of statements that directly conflict with the filcts of the case, or leave a great deal of room for interpretation. Nis. Barker's declaration dated January 17, 1997 slates " . even if the City were to determine that the wetlands on the Rabie property were riot "regillatecl wetlands,"..." sllggesting that such a determination is possible, although she had told rile in person last year [lint it was nit, Mr. Moore, your own statement in your 1/17/97 declaration is that the Shannon and Wilson wetland report (ror whicli ynu provide no (late, i assume you tefer to the report (fated September ld, 1993) identifies the areas on Mr. Rabie's site as meeting the "inundated or saturated" definition, and that the wetlands are therefore regulated. You base this on Section 22-1356 of the Federal Way Since tile City' regulations in effect at the time of permit application make a distinction b tweeenrwetlands and s regulated wetlands, Your statement is clearly incorrect. Furthermore, you quote his. Susan Meyer of' WI I Pacific as stating that "'I"he well -Inds, therefore, do have value for enhancing water quality. Since surface water was not addressed in the [Shannon and Wilson] wetland report,..." However, the actual text of the wetland report reads "These wetlands do not provide water purification . functions or prevent flooding in downstream areas." On June 22, 1993 and on January 13, 1994 N1s. Meyer sent memos to City staff; neither of these memos male the statement that the on -site wetlands serve the functions generally attributed to wetlands that would make them regulated wetlands The conclusion of the report was that the on -site wetlands do not have these values; furthermore, surface water was addressed Whether this mistake was yours or Nis. Meyer's in 'et another ►nemo, the effect is the same. If your decision was based on fault rnformal!c!n} !� } Highly probable that your (decision itself is faulty. y , then it is Four final statement is "the City would consider the areas on Air Rabie's property as regulated wetlands because the wetlands serve an important water duality enhancement purpose." Can ou please tell rile where you Found this staletllent`? y ►vellands are capable of r()vidin Alone of the material I have seen suggest that the enhancement "It is apparent that You haveneverseenually l(liler"wetlandslpi,rt ue water quality question; no rational 12101 SF 71sr I'r nc r: 11r:1WAsrr r, NVA 98056 (2C 6) 277-811.1 Ur, Gregory Moore farch 5, 1997 age 3 uofessional could consider an incised Glitch with no in -stream vegetation to be a wetland with important" water duality ftmclions 1\11 Fewins continues this line of rrrisinforntation with his 1/17/97 declaration statement "It continues to collect and filter water, even though its location ;hanger from time to time because of the slides " There is less filtering going on in these wetlands Alan in your average road -side ditch, hir Fewins really makes a leap with his next sentence Fven if the majority of the property were to slide anti become a ravine, the wetland would still xist and still continue to function; it would simply be in a different location and configuration " Fhe obvious logical flaw in this statement is that if the site slid, the wetland would still exist Does Mr Fewins think that the combination of wetland hydrology, hydric soil, and hydrophytic Vegetation appear instantaneously as soon as the earth stops moving? The natural processes of erosion create and destroy wellands on an on -going basis I have to ask what psychic ability lets �hirm know that the wetland will still exist in the future Since the slippage on the site of the last year has, in fact, obliterated the former wetlands, it is clear that Mr Fewins stepped far out of line with his tentatt:s in the respondents' answer in opposition to petition for \vtit of mandamus, several statelnents are made that are absurd at face value. The City claims that Mr. Rabie's permit has been delayed by the complexity of his proposal, and goes on to point out that he wants a 17,000 square foot house on a property with 11,000 squate feet of wetlands (a large portion of which was off -site). It is appropriate to point out that this number is from a report 3 1/2 years old, and that the wetlands have substantially decreased in size since that time Results of a preliminary study underway to document this change indicate that in fact there are NO wetlands on Mr. Rabie's property, regulated or otherwise Does the City have Borne code for err ding arge houses" ,oho square i 3 foot house is a good deal less complicated than ten 1,700 square foot houses, which would easily fit on the site. Do 11,000 square feet of non-functional wetland, a tiny fraction of the entire site, deserve protection, especially as the geological activity on lite site is rapidly causing the wetlands to disappear? Can the City justify within the limits of its own regulations the requirement that Mr. Rabie proceed with ridiculous hearings to determine whether or not the wetlands should be 1 regulated at all, when the matter is a simple decision to be made by the Planning Official without any special applications or fees? The City's response states "the Petition seeks to compel the Cily... to make its determination of whether a wetland is "regulated" contingent upon a particular wetland's value and functions -- that does not exist in the City's code." I direct your attention to Section 8o 145 of the Comprehensive Plan, in effect at the lime of permit application It reads as follows 80.145 Mega!a-t-Q-dAYg4i1 nds-_I)elermin ati()it _Lq- Wgtl ncl end —Regulated_ Wetlaiul. (ienelat - This Section contains procedures and ctite►ia for determining Whether an area, other than those areas defined as regulated wetlands 12101 SF 71sr PLACE t F%V(-nsti F, VIA 99056 (206) 277-9114 N Ir. 0 e[gor y N tool e N iar ch 5, 19O1 rage I under Section 3 10 725 a of this Code, is a regulated wetland under this Code. Evaluflliijlt - jfhe Planning Official shall make an initial evaluation based on information provided or available to the City to determine if the subject property contains or is within 100 feet of any mapped or unmapped wetland which may constitute a regulated wetland under this Code. a. An evaluation of the area in question based on the definitions in this Code of "Welland" and "Regulated Welland." 11CICrsnilialivn - The Planning Official shall use the information provided under paragraph 2 of this section to determine whether a regulated wetland exists on or within 100 fret of the property, and, if so, the precise boundaries of that regulated wetland. The definition of "regulated welland" includes the following. !� Any wellancl whether or not mapped, that nieels, or is functionally related to, a wetland that meets one: or more of the following criteria: 1) Serves significant biological functions 2) Serves signifcant drainage and sedirttentation functions. 3) Shields other areas front wave action, erosion or storm damage 4) Serves as valuable storage area for stor rn an(i flood waters. 5) Is a prime, natural recharge area F) Serves significant water purification functions Although a site -specific %vedand may trot meet the criteria described above, it will be c011sidered a regulated Welland if it is Functionally related to another wetland Ihal rneels the criteria it is clear that the Code provides a d'tslirtcliort between "wetlands" and "regulated wetlands." It is clear that a tvellartd artist provide some significant function, or befiirc:tiomilly related to one 11rat does, in older to be regulated_ 11 is clear Flom lire original wetland report and lice 1993 and 1994 evaltratiorrs try the City's corttracted wetland professional that the wetlands on -site did not provide these functions and were not related to any llrat did. Wlral is not clear is why the Pity insists on regulating what is clearly not a regulated wellancl. The City's response to the petition for writ of nrandan►us brings tip quotes that, out of context, snake the wetlands on Mr. Rabie's property sound like they are of the saute duality as the Ilylebos 12101 SE 71sr i'r ,v•r: Nr:WcAsrr r, WA 98056 (206) 277-R I i 4 Mi. Gregory Ntoore Ma► ch 5, 1997 Page 5 wetland syslein The City response reads "First, N-It. Rabic asserts that the Rabic wetlands perfirrm only linriled wellancl frinetions, "'any and that the City's consultant agrees with this conclusion. A briefglance at the reports indicates otherwise." It would have to be a brief glance indeed to miss the point that the const►llartts are not calling this a valuable wetland system. The water quotes f Slr idsA and Wilson wetland telrnrt as saying the site wetlands Provide a seasonal wafer source f�rr birds and wildlife, anci Ihat raccoon tracks were observed in the nerd. I have seen crows and raccoons visitint; rnu[l puddles on dirt streets, NO that doesn't slake the nerd puddles valuable wetlands. The City [litotes N9s. Meyer as saying the wetlands have value for enhancing the water that comes [gut of the C`ity's stotnr drainage System however, no water duality enhancement is likely to [recur in a chanrtelized system with no vegetation, (lowing down a slope of sufficient gradient that it is causing erosioll rattler than depositing sediment. The City's response indicates that on May 15, 1996, the Cily issued a "regulated wetlands" [Ieterlrrirralicfll (if this is the first time, why has the city been attempting to regulate the wetlands for so long, prior to staking the determination?) It is our conlention that tltis decision is faulty for the reasons stated above and should be withdrawn. Furthermore, if tile City earl issue a "regulated wetland" determination without a hearing, then it can also issue a "non -regulated wetland" determination without a healing, and more importantly, without applications, fees, or Process 1, 11, 11I, or IV. 0110 of the arguments against the writ of mandamus is the rule of deference, stating that "defer ence should be accorded to the special expertise of administrative agencies." The problem with this argument is Ihat in this case, [Ile City has no special expertise, relyiny, instead on an independent contractor. The City's decisions appear to be based in large part on nrisunderslanding or outright disregard for' the special expertise of both the Colliracted professional and the opinions of other plofessiorlals working oil the project. Furthermore, the City has read importance into isolated sentences and phrases in [lie reports of professional wetland specialists, which when taken in context clearly tlo not indicate that the site wetlands had any significant values The City states that Nlr Rabie has misread the City's Cocle, that there is no requirement to make a determination of whether a wetland is regulatedbased on the wetland's functions and values; I direct your attention to the previous section oil the wetland vs regulated wetland dichotomy and suggest that perhaps it is the City who has misread the Code In fact, the City quotes its own code for the definition of "regulated wellancl;" while the quote may be correct for the version quoted, it is not relevant for this site which is vested tinder older regulations if this is the basis I'm your decision, Nfr Mome, as claimed in the response, then you admit your own errors. To say that someone with no technical expertise in a specialized field is entitled to "considerable judicial deference" is absurd. Would you visit a dentist fir open heart surgery, since any doctor 121[r I SF 71si 1) ,err NEWCAS1IF, WA 980.16 (206) 277_91 111 N Ir Gregory Moore Nlaivii 5, 199Z 1rai_►e 6 could he accorded deference under this arg►nnent,? In a nremorandrrrn fiom you to Planning Staff, dated March 27, 19%, you list as one criteria for regulating man-made wellands "the ecological functions and values of the site " This is followed by a reason not to regulate wetlands as "limited functions and values " Given these remarks, how can you continue to insist that wetlands with no values should be regulated? '1 he response states "Notlting in federal Way's code._ requires the Director to separately evaluate the function or value of a wetland before determining that it meets the "regulated wetland" definition; the Director is merely required 10 "use this infMination"...to determine if the area is a "regulated wetland " " This is extremely confusing first you say nothirig requires evaluation of . the functions or values of a wetland, then you say the Director is mcrely_r_egrlireki to use this r inlormation to determine if the wetland is regulated Yet the Comprehensive plan does require consideration of function, What would be the point of using the information provided in the report to determine whether a wetland is regulated, if not for the purpose of identifying valuable versus valueless wetlands? Do you propose to not regulate the high value ones? Of course not. 'i hen why do you insist on regulating wellands that, as the report put it, "provide limited habitat Functions and are not responsible for significant hydrologic firnclions do not provide water purification functions or prevent flooding in downstream areas." Your response states "Thus, while the definition of "regulated wetlands" crntlemplates that, in some circumstances, the Director will need to consider the values and firnclions..." You admit that it is occasionally necessary, but refuse to engage in sltch consideration on a highly deserving site Such failure is without justification. Your assertion that Mr. Rabieisargument would "elevate the "functions and values" portion of a consultant report over that narrative definition in 22-1" is also faulty. Of course, the Code at issue is the Comprehensive plan, not the newer Title 22. More important, however, is the fact that Mr. Rabie does not want one section of the regulations to be treated with greater weight than another, on the contrary, he wants all sections given equal weight, including the section that says "The Planning Mcial shall make an initial evaluation based on information provided or available to the City to determine if the subject proper ty contains or is within 100 feet of any mapped or unmapped wetland wltidi.may constitute a regulated wetland under this Code" (emphasis added), and the definition of "wetland" vs "regulated wetland." "I he City's response goes on to reiterate the need to protect wetlands such as those on the Rabie property to protect wetland functions, but continues to ignore the lack of functions that such wetlands provide, to ignore the fact that most unregulated uplands and roadside ditches serve similar or better functions, and to ignore the potentially hazardous geologic movement of this site, which has already caused the wetlands to disappear, and which pray be alleviated by allowing the proposed development to progress I-1I0I SF 71sr i'r m-i: F. W.A 99056 (�06) 27;-R11 1 lge 7 Ile; (ily's A1.1111me11t [holes 1 onde'rpmd v. Unhirh"(711 tis saying; "aclioll is no( nibllfaly and I,liciolls when exercised lloticstly And nl►on due consideration..." II is our contention Ihat 1lu►ugh the issue has been );ivCn exressivc collsideinlion, it has lint leek given dne considel atiorl, Id Illat the ('ily 111's invesied so 111lidl energy and become so entrenched ill ils pogilioll trial it must clvelmIlie IIle it lei lia nIId ie:kimMedge 111a1 Ilse alleged welIaricts e111 the ltabie site do iti11, laL 1, filClil )►t ('seI Vall[►IT 1 li[', I Ily 1s gl asl►it1l; al - .;If awC, ailylliilig tltal will !et iltet:t avoid fae:ilig C 1111111 of this issue, that there ate no Ie€gtilaled wellands oil this site ill accol dance Willi Oly pll,'ltiolls. ►I all ot'lhe reasc►ns slated above, we Relieve it necessaly (ill the City to leconsider its liositioll gaiding the alleged wellancls oil this site. 'I here ale tto wella�i(IS air this site. The CIIylmisl cide whelher to insist that Ihele ate wetlands, lut�of an unre ulaled nature which mill lie letmined by an adntinistlative decision, o' acknowledge Ilt1( there ale no tveilail(Is al all, based i teem field woik which shows That nn«•I�n the site is [lie "satinated of inundated" linilion L►f wetlands met — - 61 4 Fj e look tiirwaid to your lesl,c►nse to Ibis letter. Although the I►latter is a silnl►le bite, there is 1� doubtedly a gleal deal of 111mightf ll dis easrnlahle resjic►ttse. ritssiL►It that will be nccrssaiy before ynll can formulate we feel Mat 3l1 clays ►Viill be more tint, surilicient, and anticipate recciv;rig ur response within that time finine so flint Mr. habit's building l►ermil may be issued without N e Ill ivolous delays. iccrTly anc N1 Ryba Al, nd Specialist LeeRabic, Flie,co Inc. , Q615 W N11iginal \�'ay S, Seattle WA 99109 M1 Ken Nyberg, (('ily Nlanai;el ) Skip i 1icst (hlaycic ) .lack I)ovcy I lopb FIdel Maly Gales Roll Gintz Klichacl 1'111, i'hil \-'alkins — 12101 SF 71sr i'i m-r. htr«r,1slt is WA 98056(206) 277-811.1 1t1 COPY MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO: Bob Sterbank, Deputy City Attorney FROM: Deb Barker, Associate Planner DATE: January 15, 1997 RE: Letters on file from Attorney Russell Davies to City of Federal Way CDS Sorry about the faxing delay this afternoon. Based on a check of both Planning and Public Works files, I have found the following letters from Attorney Russell Davies to sent to staff s attention: • November 16, 1995 (Received November 16, 1995) • January 16, 1996 (Unreadable fax, original received January 30, 1996) • January 19, 1996 (Received January 30, 1996) February 6, 1996 (Received February 12, 1996) ■ April 5, 1996 (Received April 9, 1996) Neither file sets contain letters dated October 29, 1995 nor March 25, 1996. Reviewing Exhibit F of the Rabie petition, the October 29, 1996 letter looks like the November 16, 1996 letter. Computer notes reflect that the October 26, 1996 meeting minutes were received with the November 16, 1995 letter. Phone call notes indicate a March 22, 1996 call from Russ Davies about what procedures other wetland related projects have used to discern fairness with interpretation, etc. This fax contains the requested copy of the January 16, 1996 letter. Call me at 661-4103 if you have questions or need additional information. Thanks- DRAFT (206) 661-4034 June 9, 1997 J. Darrin Jensen Law Office of J. Darrin Jensen 616 Reed Street Sedro-Wooley, WA 98284 RE: LSM 90-0004920687NR (Lee Rabie) Dear Mr. Jensen: We have received your letter dated March 31, 1997, to Gregory Moore, Director of the City of Federal Way Department of Community Development Services. Mr. Moore passed your letter on to me, and asked that I respond as a courtesy. The letter raises several different legal and factual issues/claims; I have grouped some of them together for purposes of this response. 1. Dana es/Takin s Claims. The general overall gist of the March 31 letter is that the City has allegedly deliberately delayed processing Mr. Rabie's development application, thus damaging and "taking" his property. March 31, 1997 letter fi-orn J. Darri.n Jensen to Gregory Moore at 1, 2. Since you are at least the fourth attorney to represent Mr Rabie, you may not be aware that Mr. Rabie recently sued the City of Federal Way in King County Superior Court, raising exactly the same claim. Mr. Rabie sought aWrit of Mandamus to compel the City to take action, and requested damages allegedly resulting from the City's failure to act. After substantial briefing and argument, however, the Honorable .lance Niemi concluded that Mr. Rabie had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required, and that Mr. Rabie's lawsuit was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The Court therefore dismissed Mr. Rabie's Petition for Writ of Mandamus, including the claim for damages contained therein, in its entirety. A copy of Judge Niemi's Order Dismissing Petition for Writ of Mandamus, dated January 23, 1997, is enclosed. The Order was a final appealable decision, and Mr. Rabie's failure to appeal J. Darrin Jensen June 9, 1997 Page 2 it means that each of the claims threatened in the March 31 letter are barred by the doctrines of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel.' 2. Status of Wetlands on Rabic Property. The March 31 letter also asserts, based on a letter dated March 5, 1997 from Diane Ryba to Director Moore, that the wetlands on the Rabic property "have now disappeared." The March 31 letter blames the wetland's alleged disappearance upon "the lack of stabilization resulting in the [land] slides...." March 31 letter at 2. There are at least two responses to this argument. First, please be aware that although Ms. Ryba's March 5 letter implied that the status of the wetlands on the Rabic property has changed, Ms. Ryba did not submit any documentation (in the form of site visit reports, wetland delineations, or the like) in support of her assertion. Director Moore invited her to do so, by letter dated March , but neither Ms. Ryba nor Mr. Rabic ever responded. In the absence of any such documentation, the City cannot rely on claims by Ms. Ryba or by you concerning the status of the wetlands on the Rabic property. Second, and perhaps more important, any change in the wetlands on the Rabic property has resulted from Mr. Rabie's illegal, unauthorized grading activities rather than landslides. In -response to Ms. Ryba's letter and your March 31 letter, City staff inspected Mr. Rabie's property last month. Staff members observed that a ditch had been dug, by hand, to drain each of the two wetlands on the Rabic property. The fact that the ditches were dug by hand, rather than created by earthquake or landslide, was apparent from the piles of side cast material present along the length of each ditch. Notwithstanding the digging, wetland plant species appeared to still be present. In light of the site visit, and until the City is provided detailed information from a qualified consultant demonstrating to the contrary, the City can only conclude that the wetlands remain on the Rabic property. L illt Tetra e HomeownersAssociation v. Island Coun 126 Wash. 2d 22, 891 P.2d 29 (1995) ("resurrecting the same claim in a subsequent action is barred by res judicata. When a subsequent action is on a different claim, yet depends on issues which were determined in a prior action, the re -litigation of those issues is barred by collateral estoppel.");Anderson v. National Bank, 146 Wash. 520, 528, 264 P.8 (1928) (res judicata applied to every point which properly belonged in the litigation and which parties exercising reasonable diligence might have included in it); M_ igra v Warren City School Diet. Board ofEducation, 465 U.S. 75, 104 S.Ct. 892, 79 L. Ed. 2d 56 (1984) (full faith and credit clause of United States Constitution mandates subordination of claims under 42 U.S. C § 1983 to state claim preclusion law). J. Darrin Jensen June 9, 1997 Page 3 Moreover, the ditching and draining of the wetlands violates FWCC sections 22-1094 (requiring approval for land surface modifications) and 22-1358 (no construction or land surface modifications may take place within a regulated wetland, except those approved via Process III). To remedy this situation, Mr. Rabie must apply for and obtain a Land Surface Modification Permit to remedy the conditions caused by his illegal draining of the wetland. Failure to do so may result J. Darrin Jensen June 9, 1997 Page 4 in the City commencing an enforcement action against Mr. Rabie pursuant to FWCC sections 22-121- 128, and may also subject Mr. Rabie to civil and/or criminal penalties pursuant to FWCC 22-11. 3. Ruoff from City Roads. The March 31 letter also asserts that the primary cause of the wetlands on Mr. Rabie's property is runoff from "the drainage system installed by [sic] the City's failure to alleviate the problems from the street runoff in the area." March 31 letter at 2.2 It is unclear whether Mr. Rabie asserts that runoff from City streets, or runoff from a City -owned drainage system, is the cause ofthe Wetlands. If the former, please be aware that the Court of Appeals, Division 1, recently held that: A municipality, in constructing a road upon a dedicated street in a plat, even though it changes the surface, and increases the flow onto adjacent property (because the roadway is impermeable, for example), does not incur liability. DiBlasi u. City of Seattle, 85 Wash. App. 514, 520 (Div. I March 31, 1997)(emphasis added). If Mr. Rabie instead believes the landsliding is caused by drainage from a catch basin at the southwest corner of 9th Avenue S.W. and S.W. 295th Street, his concern is similarly misplaced. According to the September 24, 1993 report prepared by Mr. Rabie's consultant, H. N. Lehtinen, water collected in a drainage ditch along 9th Avenue S.W. percolates into the ground via a "french drain." Other water flows over S.W. 295th street onto adjacent property where according to Mr. Lehtinen it is allegedly collected by a property owner in an eight -inch tightline and discharged on top of the upper bluff. The City is not liable for any of this drainage. The water infiltrated via the "french drain" becomes groundwater. The City is not liable for groundwater flow from the basin which finds its way over the bluff onto Mr. Rabie's property, because liability only attaches to actions affecting surface water, and the ground water is following its natural flow over the bluff. The city is also not liable for water which flows off of S.W. 295th Street. DiBlasr, 85 Wash. App. 514. Finally, the City is not liable for water being discharged by an adjacent property owner through an eight -inch tightline. Mr. Rabie's complaint is with the owner of that tightline--not the City. 2Mr. Rabie included this claim in his briefing on his Petition for Writ of Mandamus and request for damages. Because the Court dismissed this Petition as well as the claim for damages incorporated within it, any claim now for damages based on the claim that drainage from the City's drainage system has caused a landslide is barred by res judicata. J. Darrin Jensen June 9, 1997 Page 5 4. Conclusion. As discussed above, the City is not liable to Mr. Rabie, either for alleged delay on the City's part in processing Mr. Rabie's applications, or for alleged drainage. As Mr. Rabie's attorney, we understand you may feel obligated to disagree; however, the City has provided this analysis as a courtesy and does not wish to be involved in a protracted letter writing campaign such as those waged by Mr. Rabie and his previous attorneys in the past.3 Mr. Rabie should obtain any necessary permits and repair the damage done by his illegal excavation. If he wishes to proceed with development of his property, he should also submit any changed information concerning the wetlands and other information required by the City (detailed in the City's previous letters), and proceed with the process. If he does not repair the damage to the wetlands, he may face civil or criminal penalties. If he does not submit within 15 days of the date of this letter the information necessary to allow further processing of his applications, the City will have no choice but to close W. Rabie's application file and cease any further processing. Sincerely, BOB C. STERBANK Assistant City Attorney BCS: db encl. ICALetterkabieres.1tr 3 The City does not have the resources to respond to a chain ofletters. Accordingly, while the citymay beunable to respond to future letters along the lines of the March 31 letter, the City's silence should not be taken as acquiescence in or agreement with any statements made in such letters. LEE RABIE ENERCO 1NC 9615 W. MARGINAL WAY S. SEATTLE, WA. 98108 MR. NEAL BEETS, CITY MANAGER 33325 8TH AVE. S P O BOX 9718 FEDERAL WAY, WA. 98063-999718 DEAR MR. NEAL BEETS OCT.3, 2006 REFYWNEALBEETS 1.906 THIS IS THE FIRST TIME, IN FIFTEEN YEARS, A CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MANAGEMENT, HAS SPENT TIME IN A FACT FINDING TOUR OF BUENNA BLOCK 21. THIS PROVIDES A PRECIOUS OPPORTUNITY TO: STABLATION 1. TO INTERCEPT THE SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE DRAIN WATER, INCLUDING GRAY WATER FROM UP HILL SEPTICS BY ROCK AND SAND FILLED TRENCHES TO PLACE THE WATER IN TIGHT LINE PIPE TO THE BEACH. TE SHANNON & WILSON GEO STUDY FINDS TO LOWER THE WATER LEVEL 17 FEET WILL CREATE A STABILITY FACTOR OF 1.37. STOP THE ENVIROMENTL DISASTER 2. BY CAPTURING THE WATER, BEFORE IT TURNS TO MUD AT THE LOWER BANK BETWEEN THE HARD CLAY AND TOP DEPOSTED SALTY SANDS. SINCE THE LAST ICE AGE 13,000 YEARS AGO, (VASHON GLAL1F,R), ThIS WILL STOP THE CONTAm llvA-l10 vF rUGE T SO N-1j. PROTECT LIFE AND PROPERTY 3. STABLIZING THE WEDGE IN THE BOWL STOPS THE SILTY SANDS FROM MOVING AWAY FROM THE UPPER BANK, THIS HAS CAUSED THE UPPER BANK TO ERODE. CORE OF ENGINEER PICTURES SHOW NOMINALLY 1 FOOT A YEAR EROSION OF THE TOP BANK. IN THE PRESENT GEO CONDITION. IF THIS IS ALLOWED TO CONTINUE THE HOMES ADJOINING THE UPPER BANK IN GEO TIME, ARE IN DANGER OF SLIDING INTO THE BOWL, AND COULD EASILY CAUSE LOSS OF LIFE. WITH STABLIZATION ONCE THE ANGLE OF REPOSE IS REACHED THE UPPER BANK WILL STOP THE ERRISON. EMERGINCY PERSMISSION NEEDED 4. IMMEDIATE PERMSSION IS REQUESTED TO MAINTAIN THE DRIVEWAY, AND CLEAN OUT THE DRAIN DITCHES ON THE NORTH AND WEST SIDE OF THE BOWL. PETE VON REICHBAUER VISITED THE SITE IN 2005 AND MENTIONED THAT IN CASE OF FIRE, IT IS IMPORTANT TO HAVE ACCESS FOR FIRE TRUCKS ON TO THE SITE. ALL THE GEO ENGINEERS HAVE STATED AND ADVISE THAT THE WATER HAS TO MOVE OFF THE SITE AND NOT BE ALLOWED TO POND, WHICH WOULD FACILITATE THE SLIDING. 6. WOULD ASK THAT THE FIFTEEN YEARS OF ENGINEER REPORTS COULD BE USED AS THE BASES FOR THE PERMIT, THERE IS $100,000.00 SPENT FOR THE MANY REDUNDANT REPORTS. THE FOCUS IS TO SPEND THE MONEY ON STABILIZION AND NOT MORE ENGINER REPORTS. AS YOU SUGGESTED A MEETING WITH STAFF TO REVIEW AN APPROACH TO SOLVE A PROACTIVE SOLUTION TO THIS SITE. SINCERELY: LEE RABIE po Iri • .. It db t::�~x�Z�°Cx oil d,-im 0.0 > n��d��ryyr�n z r-1 yOil > ITI N 'y �,.� /ro f..3 Cy O r v N C'� N �•] �- ] 'x �d y � C z. >oi m7dzM.A0�`�Am5 00 L -xz�O�Cypz�����C z*4�x�t��C yy'tzC� N ON ,r � , F- a�cz�;. � 4. .' - -. ""`fir. �� _ .�•.,� • A • - - . � .mow.++" " .r ; �` Y s ; tar ■' • � � ���"-` ter_ s i E " • �` '��� � _ _ �'. � � mot. � , `. ie � - �.-� 1 • � 'r. :ti�' . � ' �:� _ - - fir. y': -' � �"�- �•' v•'"�' it � �'� � j ,;' ,�� M , . ir•+-,way :`�.,... ti . . MY OF TO: Greg Fewins FROM: Ron Garrow DATE: December 22, 1993 SUBJECT: Rabie Project PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM For Your Information I have completed some reviews of the documents submitted in this latest round of communications. The following are my comments in relation to the documents highlighted: A. Paul Rennord Leiter The letter by Mr. Rennord consists of statements of fact and provides no conclusions or analysis of changes -from conditions before the installation of the "French Drain" system. It appears that this document is provided for informational purposes only. In discussions with Cary, it also appears that King County crews were directed by the City to install the system to provide additional storage capacity for runoff and improve the infiltration capabilities of the area. Prior to the installation, water just ponded at this corner of the road and overflowed the roadway more frequently. This installation was an attempt to decrease the frequency of road ponding and overtopping. II. N. Lehtinen Report 1. The company that conducted this report appears to be ax structural firm. Their expertise in hydraulics, hydrology, geology, and groundwater should be supported by resumes of the staff before this report can be considered with any degree of professionalism. 2. Generally, reports presented to the staff for proposed projects are reviewed for consistency with applicable standards and practices and not with the intent of finding fault in minute details. If these minor details do not affect the recommendations of the report, they may only be brought to the attention of the writer for correction in future projects. However, due to the significant misrepresentations in this report, the questionability of the writer's expertise, and the resulting conclusions, a greater effort has been made in identifying the errors. 003046A Q I- •hn rlref ePnh-OhP writer etntec the intent to determirofle volume of surface water runoff from the properties onto the Rabie property. Volume of runoff should be reviewed when runoff is concentrated in a closed depression and a flood plain is to be identified or in the calculation for detention pond sizing. Otherwise runoff rates are to be considered and for specified rainfall events or for specified transmissibilities through soil. 4. The writer used a modified rational method for determining runoff from the area upstream of the site. A 25-year, 24-hour event was used in these calculations. The Rational Method or any modified version thereof is not used for determining runoff from a drainage basin. This method has been found to be inaccurate and the current standard in King County and the City of Federal Way is the Santa Barbara Unit Hydrograph Method. The -Rational Method is -manly -to predict a ran ative k r to determine capacity for conveyance elements of a storm drainage system. The 25-year. 24-hour event is one that has the probability of occurring one every 25 years or it is a storm that has a 4% chance of occurring any year. This is an extremely infrequent event. The general practice in determining the amount of runoff from a basin on an annual basis is to use the average storm event which is 64% of the 2-year, 24-hour event. For design of detention facilities, the 2-year and 10-year, 24-hour events are used, these also being more frequent events than the 25-year event presented in the Lehtinen report. 5. The writer defines the "natural drainage basin" for surface and subsurface waters flowing onto the Rabie property as a 10 acres area directly uphill of the site. for surface runoff, the contributing area has been incorrectly defined. If proper site observations were made by the writer, the contributing area to the general vicinity of the Rabie property would have been verified as being only that area north of S.W. 296th Street, east of loth Ave. S.W., and west of a ridge slightly eastward of 9th Ave. S.W. All areas south of S.W. 296th Street are routed either east or west in ditch systems in S.W. 296th Street. Further observation would have noted that approximately a third of the runoff from this area is routed west and north along 10th Ave. S.W. beyond the existing houses and west of the Rabie property. The total area contributing surface runoff to the eroding area of the site is approximately 5.29 acres. With regard to the subsurface flows, there is no information provided as to the geology of the area that would support the possibility the flows originating in the upstream 20 acres depicted in page 5 of the drawings or even 30 acres as used in page 10. Without this supporting information, where is the line really drawn on the upstream aquifer boundaries tributary to the site? 6. Runoff from the 25-year storm event is used in attempting to calculate the runoff from the basin for the entire year. The volume calculated on page 15 is for the rainfall event and not the entire year. 7. The writer contends that the "french drain" system in the uphill shoulder of S.W. 295th Street is inadequately designed and that "water artificially collects and discharges upon adjacent lands in quantities greater than, or in a manner different from, its natural flow. If the street did not exist, runoff from the uphill area would flow in the same direction as the runoff currently flows whenever it overtops the roadway. Also, the placement of an infiltration A., would incr ease the retention capa131'l —es of the area asdhthere yat e __,.Crease the overland flows beyond that point instead of increasing the flow de before constntction of the trench. rmation Or fates that overflows from the "french drain" are routine. Also eth� writerstatesstates that g The writer s this statement historic data have been presented to supportthis 'nfiltrating into the ground from this drain is causing bn gresentegdato 5lips�n an the water t informal p wetlands. Again there has been nogeological statement• In particular, is groundwater flow in the area i ry a northerly direction or could it be in a northeasterly, northwesterly, or other direction. 9 The water sta tes that the wetlands are "alleged" to exist. Reports and site visits by others have confirmed their existence. ry ch Out Of 1p_ The writer state s that the reddish -brown soils around the streams Also,, if there umay be a place for this area. No basis for this statement is provided. osn't it show further up the broken sewer line contributing ttothi this coloration, Flthe hill? y bluff where water wouldseeping 11. The write r states that the City is the main contributor to The CityIcollected only codrain i ontto which is being allowed to discharge onto-� wia s srt is area . overshadowed by the flows is from the 9th Ave. S.W • �g y' rivate roperties in the drainage basin as are the amounts of associated remaining p p impervious areas. storm water in a slide area. Since the 12. The writer states that the City is illegally dut is n appropriate to make such a statement. writer does not appear to be an attorney, non- Also, has the writer reviewed historic development of than e�fde atithettim of these conformance too storm water management has not been provided. sign standards developments? This sion of the site is caused by groundwater seepage in the area. The City does not disagree that eroin of this groundwater and the means to minimize the In question is the location of the Origin however, amount of gr oundwater flow to the area. Diminishment of � � vfdth'staquifer5 This, e done y reducing the amount of infiltration into the ground at the origin uire revisions in storm listed over a very long time period and would req could only be accomplished existing systems would have n� b� ]at o�lt�ehde water management polies and in the area.ards. Also, These solutions are long range and as redevelopment occurs time frame appropriate for the development of the Rabie site. ide to suggestions for a method to divert surface flows e fjows may have on thr, from of the site. o It has ve the The City is open gg Rabie Site to reduce any piped system tem betdeveloped routing the water to the east anld west around been suggested that a piped syste apparently necessary. The first would be in t the bluff. Two systems would be app y ng stem along 1Dth Ave. S.W. A Street right-nf-way directing flows taehetnorths3destof the buildings near the face far the second system would be necessary along bluf f. This would require the cooperation of the residents and the recording ° casements these facilities. U08N<'A • W&H Pacific Memo Ll It is recommended that the memo from Susan Meyer be constrained to wetland issues and not to treatment of runoff from rights -of -way covered by codes, erosion control methods as part of construction unless directly beneficial to the protection of wetlands, design of storm drainage systems, restrictions in construction time frames unless they directly relate to the protection of a wetland, and beach stabilization. If the wetlands are going to be sacrificed for the stabilization of the site, there may be not issues of relevance to W&H Pacific. Under the recommendations, the timing restriction is too confining. Also, temporary erosion control facilities may be used to minimize siltation on the beach. Even if minor amounts were to get to the beach, these silts would eventually be washed away into the Sound by the tide and wave action. The second recommendation is a storm water system design issue and if diverted from the on -site wetlands, has no bearing on the W&H Pacific analysis. The fourth recommendation is also not a wetland issue. The final recommendation may not be necessary if the wetlands are to be sacrificed. If discoloration is an issue, this sould be investigated by the applicant. If the City is going to question the qualifications of the writer of the Lehtinen report, the City's consultants and staff should also limit themselves to comments in the area of their expertise. Landau Associates Report Attached is a copy of the draft report on which I have made some comments. This report should also restrict itself to the areas of expertise by Landau & Associates. Relative to the use of the P.E. stamp referenced in the Landau report, it is true that this is no longer the correct format for the stamp. It is doubtfull that the State Board would do anything other than advise the engineer to utilized the correct stamp. A check with the Board of Registration confirmed that he is registered and he is current with his registration. His number is 24628 with an expiration date of 7/20/94. He should just be advised to get a corrected stamp. This was a requirement by the Board in 1991. 00829A goo ifAl ol 4lip 44 40 41 r 4W' b- vo