Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
05-102533
DEVELOPMENT I May 11; 2005 Ms. Deb Barker Associate Planner City of Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 0 5-102533 RECEIVED CITY OF FEDERAL WAy QUILpING 0EPT. RE.: File #05-100226-000-00-PC — PROCESS III & IV SUBMISSION Crestview H Apartments Dear Ms. Barker We are submitting this letter with our application for Crestview II's Process III & IV submission. I have addressed all the comments generated from our preapplication conference, which you compiled in your letter to me dated February 23, 2005, Major Issues Process IV— waiting to hear back from City's consultants on this issue Proposed Parking and significant tree retention — see report from traffic engineer Mark Jacobs and landscape plans Detention vault — vault has been resized per 1998 KCSWDM, see civil plans Frontage improvements — coordinated WSDOT's requirements, see civil plans Planning Division A. Land use review process — we acknowledge the review process and are submitting for process III at this time. We understand that based on the City's consultants review of the wetlands, may push us into process IV B. SEPA — see attached application C. Public notification — see attached (4) sets of stamped envelopes addressed to neighbors within 300 feet of property D. Application fee — we acknowledge all fees associated with this process, see attached check E. Critical areas — we have hired a geotechnical engineer and will submit the soils report shortly regarding the steep slopes and existing soil conditions. We P.O. BOX 66826 ♦ SEATTLE, WA 98166-0826 ♦ PHONE (206) 241-9098 ♦ FAX (206) 243-0654 ♦ E-MAIL Crestview II Apts. Process III & IV Application 1 May 11, 2005 acknowledge all the other issues itemized and are working with the City to address them. F. Density — addressed and in compliance G. Setbacks and lot coverage — addressed and in compliance H. Perimeter landscaping — see landscape drawings and letter for landscape architect I. Interior parking lot landscaping — addressed and in compliance. See landscape drawings, and site plan J. Significant trees — addressed and in compliance. See landscape drawings, and site plan K. Landscape modifications - addressed and in compliance. See landscape drawings L. Height/FaVade Length — See elevations for compliance M. Community design guidelines — per your request we are providing a written narrative. The narrative follows the sub sections listed in the FWCC Site design and building and pedestrian orientation • The site has a category II wetlands which will be enhanced • Pedestrian areas (walkways and recreation areas) have been incorporated on -site and link all the apartments with the on -site amenities. We will provide benches, tables and landscaping • All open spaces have visibility from the apartment units and the main recreation building is centrally located so as to allow on -site staff to view all the amenities and buildings ■ We will avoid tall trees and overgrown landscaping • Adequate site lighting has been provided to safely light all the pedestrian pathways, recreational areas, parking areas and building entrances • All entry doors will have deadbolts on them as additional security • All buildings will be clearly marked with addresses and numbers. The exterior of the buildings and the site will be maintained to give pride of ownership to the resident. This should reduce the fear of crime. • Driveways and parking stalls are brightly lit and clearly marked • Parking lot landscaping is per the FWCC requirements • Parking garages are located at the ground floor with units above and will be architecturally consistent with the apartment buildings ■ Garbage and recycling areas are clearly marked, screened and centrally located Page 2of5 Crestview II Apts. Process III & IV Application May 11, 2005 Building design ■ Building are placed on site to emphasize the natural topography • Primary entrances to buildings will be clearly marked and lighted and the buildings are modulated such that the main entrance is obvious ■ Buildings more than 60' in length have used fagade modulation and canopies/arcades to create the modulation ■ Building massing will be broken down by using different colors and widths of siding. The ground floor will have the darkest color and the widest siding and the top the lightest with the narrowest siding. The modulations (indents) will have different colors to emphasis them as well • Building facades have features such as balconies, offset and cascading roof forms, individual windows with trims District guidelines * Significant trees have been retained ■ Areas between buildings and parking lots have been landscaped • Parking lots are beside buildings and are broken into rows with no more than 10 stalls * Pedestrian walkways are provided throughout the site and connect all building with open space amenities • Windows overlook common recreation areas * Units on ground floor have private outdoor spaces adjacent to them for the residents use only * Buildings do not exceed 120 feet in length N. Parking — See attached parking study by traffic engineer Mark Jacobs. Parking has been provided at the ratio of 1.5 stalls per unit O. Open space — addressed and in compliance. See site plan and cover sheet for open space, tot lot and recreational area locations and calculations P. CPTED — see attached application and site lighting plan Q. Garbage and recycling — addressed and in compliance. See site plan and cover sheet for location and calculations R. School mitigation fee — acknowledged S. Affordable housing — acknowledged. We will set aside 10 percent of the units for the lifetime of the project for families having incomes that are 80 percent or below the median county income T. Short Plat — see attached short plat #1087026 Page 3 of 5 Crestview H Apts. May 11, 2005 Process III & IV Application Land Use Issues — stormwater See attached letter from Civil Engineer Right-of-way improvements Dedication of additional right-of-way — we will make sure the dedicated area for street frontage improvements will have a clear title prior to recording Building permit issues We acknowledge items 1 through 11 and will incorporate them into the drawings when submitting for building permits Public works traffic division See attached Traffic Impact Analysis done by Mark Jacobs We acknowledge items 1 through 6 and have incorporated them into the site plan being submitted Building Division Codes, building criteria, building permit requirements, review timing, other permits & inspections - we acknowledge all the above and will comply with those requirements Site -specific requirements • We are providing automatic sprinkler systems in all buildings. The rec. building will have a full 13 system and the apartment buildings will have 13-R — see cover sheet • We will be using quick response standard sprinkler heads and are not using area separation walls to enable the deletion of the required sprinkler system — see cover sheet • We have provided the required number of Type -A units per IBC 1107.6.2.1.1 — see site plan and cover sheet for locations and number of units • We have provided the required number of accessible parking stalls for Type -A and Type-B units per IBC 1106.2 — see site plan and coversheet • We have provided a two-hour occupancy separation between parking garages and the apartments above • Buildings have the minimum separation per IBC table 602 — see site plan • We will included the structural drawing for the vault below Bldg D for the drainage review requirement Lakehaven Utility District We acknowledge the water, sewer and general comments and will comply Page 4of5 Crestview II Apts. Process III & IV Application May 11, 2005 Federal Way fire department ■ See attached water availability certificate indicating the fire flow (waiting from Lake Haven) see deposit slip for order. • See civil plans for location of fire hydrants per the requirements (Ross, Greg, am I correct to say this) Fire apparatus access road We are providing one access road - see site plan for location and dimensions. All requirements will be incorporated into the permit drawings for fire department review Fire extinguishing systems and automatic fire detection system We are installing a full 13 system in the rec. building and 13-R system in the apartment buildings along with a fire alarm system Portable fire extinguishers These will be installed in accordance with NFPA 10 Fire department access to buildings All comments noted and will be complied with Additional comments We have a total of 136 units with automatic sprinkler systems installed and one fire apparatus access road This concluded the list of comments. If you have any other questions please feel free to call me. Page 5 of 5 4--fSheldon & � jAssociates, Inc. _ 5031 University Way NE #204 • Seattle, WA 98105-4341 Ph 206-522-1214 • Fax 206-522-3507 MEMORANDUM DATE: August 19, 2005 TO: Deb Barker, Associate Planner, City of Federal Way FROM: Suzanne Bagshaw, Wetland Ecologist Kevin O'Brien, Wildlife Biologist RE: Review of Sensitive Areas Report and Enhancement Plan Proposed Buffer Averaging and Conceptual Mitigation Plan for Crestview II by Talasaea Consultants, Inc., dated 25 May 2005. BACKGROUND As requested by the City of Federal Way, on May 6, 2005 Suzanne Bagshaw and Kevin O'Brien conducted a field visit to the proposed site for the Crestview II project. The purpose of the site visit was to evaluate the existing conditions of the wetland and stream buffers onsite. We paid particular attention to the existing habitat in areas where buffer reductions and buffer compensation are proposed. Because the submittal package did not include the original wetland delineation report, we did not verify the wetland or stream delineations onsite during that site visit. We reviewed the following preliminary documents with respect to our findings from the site visit: Letter to Greg McKenna of F&M Development from Jason Walker, RLA, ASLA, of Talasea Consultants, Inc., dated 16 March, 2005, re: Crestview II Federal Way, WA; and Summary of Sensitive Areas and Proposed Project Impacts and Mitigation Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan, Buffer Averaging and Enhancement, Crestview Phase II, Sheet W1.0, by Talasea Consultants, Inc.; dated 17 March, 2005. Our review comments are contained in a memorandum from Sheldon & Associates, Inc. (S&A), dated May 25, 2005. The applicant submitted a revised sensitive areas report and mitigation plan on May 25, 2005 - before they received the S&A review. Jason Walker, RLA, ASLA, of Talasaea Consultants, Inc., sent a letter, dated 15 July, 2005, to the City of Federal Way in response to the May 25, 2005 S&A review. We reviewed the following documents for this current memorandum: • Letter from F&M Development to Deb Barker, RE: File #05-100226-000-00-PC — Process III & IV Submission, Crestview II Apartments, dated May 11, 2005; • Sensitive Areas Report and Enhancement Plan Crestview II Federal Way, Washington, by Talasaea Consultants, Inc., dated May 25, 2005 (referred to as the mitigation plan in this review); Preliminary Technical Information Report for Crestview Apartments Phase II Federal Way, Washington, by Brett M. Allen, P.E. of Sound Engineering, Inc., dated May 2005; Wetland & Stream Analysis Permitting Restoration Design Environmental Education Sheldon & Associates, Inc. Memo to Deb parker on Buffer Averaging and Conceptual mitigation Plan for Crestview II August 19, 2005 • Environmental Checklist; stamped with 05-102531 and received date May 31, 2005; • ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey of the Crestview Apartments page 2 of 2, by Butler Surveying Inc., stamped with 05-102533 and received date May 31, 2005; • Sheets Cl and C2 of the Crestview Phase II Federal Way Preliminary Utility Plan, by Sound Engineering, Inc. dated May 11, 2005; ■ Crestview Phase II Federal Way Landscape Plan Sheets L 1.1, L 1.2, L 1.3; and Irrigation Plan Sheets L 2.1, L 2.2, L 2.3; by Lynn William Horn, LSA, dated January 19, 2005; • Crestview Phase II Site Plan Sheets A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, by Ross Deckman Architect; dated May 10, 2005; • Letter from Jason Walker, RLA, ASLA, of Talasaea Consultants, Inc. to Deb Barker, City of Federal Way, dated 15 July, 2005, RE: Crestview II Federal Way, WA; Response to 25 April, 2005 and 28 June, 2005 Letters (The Talasaea letter incorrectly identifies the S&A Memorandum as 25 April, 2005, instead of May 25, 2005); is Memorandum from Sheldon & Associates, Inc. to Deb Barker, City of Federal Way, dated May 25, 2005, regarding Review of the Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan, Buffer Averaging and Enhancement, Crestview Phase II and Sheet W1.0 by Talasaea Consultants, Inc., dated March 17, 2005; and Federal Way City Code (FWCC). INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY For clarity, much of the text from the May 25, 2005 S&A review for the Crestview II project is included in this review memorandum. The numbering system in this review memorandum expands upon the numbering system established in the previous review. New sections have been added, both below previous items (e.g. B.1.1.a), and at the end of the memorandum (i.e. section F). These sections are labeled as NEW. This review is divided into six sections (A through F). Summarized requirements of those sections appear below: A. Request to Change Stream Rating and Suffer Width: The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to warrant reclassifying the stream from major to minor (FWCC 22-1). B. Wetland A: Provide the original data sheets and original map of the surveyed wetland flags for approval by the. City. C. Activities within Wetland and Stream Buffers per FWCC: Provide corrections to the submitted buffer modification criteria. Buffer modification (including: buffer reductions, mitigation plan, construction of the proposed foot -trail, outlet from the detention vault, and placement of the proposed debris pile in the wetland) requires approval through Process IV evaluation. D. Mitigation Plan: Square footage of buffer impacts/reduction must be corrected. The mitigation plan must address several issues and comply with FWCC. E. Additional Information Require : More information is required for approval, especially information regarding the potential impacts of stormwater on the Wetland and Stream. F. Required Corrections and Additions to the Mitigation Plan: The revised mitigation plan must provide additional information and corrections. Page 2 of 15 ,—) Sheldon & Associates, Inc. Memo to Deb t3arker on Buffer Averaging and Conceptual mitigation Plan for Crestview II August 19, 2005 A. REQUEST TO CHANGE STREAM RATING AND BUFFER WIDTH: Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Section 22-1 defines two categories of streams: major and minor. Streams are defined as: "Stream means a course or route, formed by nature, including those which have been modified by humans, 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 in draining from higher to lower elevations. A stream need not contain water year round. In a developing setting, streams may run in culverts or may be channeled in a concrete, rock or other artificial conveyance system. This definition is not meant to include irrigation ditches, stormwater facilities or other artificial watercourses unless they are used by resident or anadromous salmonid fish, or the feature was constructed to convey natural streams which existed prior to construction of the watercourse." Major streams are defined as: "Major stream means any stream, and the tributaries to any stream, which contains or supports, or under normal circumstances contains or supports, resident or migratory fish. If there exists a natural permanent blockage on the stream course which precludes the upstream movement of anadromous salmonid fish, then that portion of the stream which is downstream of the natural permanent blockage shall be regulated as a major stream." Minor streams are defined as: "Minor stream means any stream that does not meet the definition of `major stream.' " FWCC Section 22-1306 (a) (1 and 2) require a 100-foot setback for major streams and a 50-foot setback for minor streams. A.1. The onsite stream is listed in the Federal Way Stream Inventory as Major. The unnamed stream is presumably a tributary to McSorley Creek, which is a fish -bearing stream, providing habitat to both resident fish and anadromous salmonids. As a tributary to McSorley Creek, the unnamed on -site stream has been categorized as a major stream. The sensitive areas letter requests -changing that rating to Minor. A.1.1. Provide more information regarding natural permanent blockages downstream and flow rates of the onsite stream. A.1.1.a NEW: The applicant has cited a number of reasons for reducing the stream category from major to minor, including presumably degraded water quality, primary use of the stream as a stormwater conveyance, and the presence of low flow as a natural barrier to fish movement. While changing the rating from major to minor for the onsite stream reach may be warranted, the applicant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to make that determination. The applicant has stated that the unnamed stream receives stormwater as a principal source of recharge, and that water quality is poor (pp. 2 & 3, Talasaea letter dated 15 July 2005). This assertion, although unsupported by any water quality data, is likely to be true. However, water quality is not a factor in FWCC stream categorization. Furthermore, the role of Wetland A in reducing any potential contaminant load to the on -site stream reach was not taken into account. The applicant has concluded that "this stream is currently being treated more as a stormwater conveyance through current land use practices" (p. 2, Talasaea letter, 15 July 2005). Such a usage does not preclude the stream from meeting the FWCC definition of a stream (see above), and such a usage is not a factor in FWCC stream categorization. Page 3 of 15 ) -) Sheldon & Associates, Inc. Memo to Deb darker on Buffer Averaging and Conceptual mitigation Plan for Crestview II August 19, 2005 The on -site stream has been observed to show low or no flow during a portion of the year. The applicant has asserted that this constitutes a "natural blockage" to fish movement. While true for a portion of the year, flow is likely to reestablish during late fall and winter months, as water conveyed to and impounded within the upstream wetland releases flow into the stream. FWCC stipulates that natural permanent blockages to fish passage must be present to allow for fish -bearing stream reaches upstream of the blockage to be considered minor. Seasonal low flow does not constitute a natural permanent blockage. Historically, streams with low summer flows in the PNW are often used by anadromous salmonids for overwintering habitat and refugia from high flow events in larger streams. Fish may use such streams on a seasonal basis, and the quality of the habitat may fluctuate due to seasonal changes in flow rate, but this is not considered a natural, permanent blockage. Furthermore, presumed low flow rates in the stream do not necessarily constitute a "natural' barrier, as the hydrology of the stream has likely been fundamentally altered by human activity and development. Because the applicant has failed to provide sufficient evidence of "... a natural permanent blockage on the stream course which precludes upstream movement of anadromous salmonid fish..." (FWCC 22-1) downstream of the onsite stream reach, a change in stream category from major to minor is not warranted at this time. B. WETLAND A B.1. The sensitive areas letter and mitigation plan use wetland and stream boundaries determined by a previous wetland delineation report. That original wetland delineation report was not included in the submittal package. Although the wetland flags that we saw during our site visit appeared to be located appropriately, our observations do not constitute either a wetland delineation review or approval from the City. B.1.1. Approval of a mitigation plan requires approval by the City of either the original wetland and stream delineation report, or of a new wetland delineation report which satisfies criteria listed in FWCC 22-1356(b)(1 through 7), including data sheets and functions assessment. B.1.1.a NEW: Some correction required on this issue. Although the current sensitive areas report (dated May 25, 2005) characterizes the onsite wetland to a greater extent than the previous report (dated March 16, 2005), some required information is still missing. The data sheets from the original delineation (March 19, 2004 by Habitat Technologies), and most importantly, the original wetland map signed by a surveyor licensed by the State of Washington, which shows the surveyed locations of all of the labeled wetland flags and data points, must be submitted and approved by the City. If these documents are unavailable, the applicant has the option of re -delineating the wetland, surveying the new wetland edge, and submitting a new wetland delineation report which satisfies FWCC 22-1356(b). If a new wetland edge is delineated and approved by the City, all maps, plans, reports, and other documents in the submittal package for this project must be revised. Page 4 of 15 Sheldon & Associates, Inc. Memo to Deb darker on Buffer Averaging and Conceptual Mitigation Plan for Crestview II August 19, 2005 C. ACTIVITIES WITHIN WETLAND AND STREAM BUFFERS PER FWCC NEW: CA and C.2 The applicant is applying for buffer modification under Process IV evaluation, so items CA and C.2 from the May 25 S&A review (requests for buffer averaging and buffer reduction respectively) do not need to be addressed. C.3. BUFFER MODIFICATION: The proposed impacts to the wetland and stream buffers qualify as buffer modification [FWCC 22-1359(f) and FWCC 22-1312(c)]. C.3.1. Wetland buffer modification must satisfy five criteria, and requires approval through Process IV evaluation [FWCC 22-1359(f)(1-5)]. C.3.1.a NEW: Provide information and/or corrections: Responses to the five criteria for wetland buffer modification are listed on pages 5 and 6 of the report. Below are required corrections and/or additions to those responses: 1) Proposed buffer modification will not adversely affect water qualit :Provide detailed TESC plans to protect the wetland, stream and their buffers during all construction or construction -related activities. Provide detailed stormwater plans (see section E). Planting flow -tolerant shrubs in the onsite section of the stormwater channel at the SE and SW corners of the wetland would satisfy FWCC (see item D.4.1.a). 2) Proposed buffer modification will not adversely affect the existing ualit of the wetland's or buffer's habitat: Reduction of buffer width will have some negative impact on wildlife habitat. Site preparation for the proposed project includes cutting down a number of large conifers (approximately 18) in the proposed buffer reduction area. This section of buffer currently provides good wildlife habitat (see the description in section CA of May 25 S&A review), and it will be a number of years before the proposed plantings are sufficiently mature to provide significant habitat improvements. Construction of additional apartments adjacent to the area where buffer reduction is proposed will result in increased human intrusions into the reduced buffer. Because no direct impacts to the wetland are proposed, FWCC does not require wetland mitigation (see item D.3.1.a). Placement of the proposed debris pile in the wetland will constitute a wetland modification, and must satisfy FWCC 22-1358(d)(1-9) (see item D.3.1.a). 3) Proposed buffer modification will not adversely affect drainage or storm water retention capabilities: Generally, we agree that the proposed buffer reduction will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities of the wetland. However, FWCC stormwater regulations stipulate that developed peak flows must be detained to provide outflows to the wetland, stream and buffers that do not exceed pre -developed peak flows (see item E.1.3) — provide information. Placement of the proposed debris pile in the wetland will constitute a wetland modification, and must satisfy FWCC 22-1358(d)(1-9) (see item D.3.1.a). 4) Proposed buffer modification will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards: Sections of the foot -trail proposed immediately adjacent to slopes greater than 40% must comply with FWCC development standards for geologically hazardous areas (FWCC 22-1286) — provide information and detailed drawings (see item C.4.3.a). In order to decrease channel erosion, planting flow -tolerant shrubs in the stormwater channels at the SE and SW corners of the wetland rather than proposed channel construction and placement of in -stream LWD would satisfy FWCC (see item D.4.1.a). Hydrology modeling must be done to demonstrate that any increase in water levels resulting from the proposed placement of a debris pile in the wetland will not flood adjacent property, destabilize steep slopes adjacent to the wetland, or alter downstream hydroperiod (see item D.3.1.a). Page 5 of 15 ^) -) Sheldon & Associates, Inc. Memo to Deb darker on Buffer Averaging and Conceptual Mitigation Plan for Crestview II August 19, 2005 5) Proposed buffer modification will not be materially detrimental to any other j)roperty in the area of the subiect property nor to the city as a whole including the loss of open space: There must be no net loss of wetland or stream buffer square footage (see item D.1.1.a). C.3.2. Stream buffer modification must satisfy six criteria, and requires approval through Process IV evaluation [FWCC 22-1312(c)(1-6)1. C.3.2.a NEW: This issue has not been addressed. In addition to requesting a reduction of the 100-foot major stream buffer, current plans locate the outlet structure for the stormwater detention vault within the reduced stream buffer (either at the edge of the wetland, or 25-feet west of the wetland). Both of these proposed actions qualify as buffer modification and require approval by Process IV evaluation [FWCC 22-1312(c)(1-6)] (see item E.1.2.a). Provide responses to the six criteria for stream buffer modification. C.3.3. Buffer modification requires approval of a buffer enhancement plan as part of the Process IV evaluation [FWCC 22-1359(f)]. C.3.3.a NEW: see section F for required corrections and/or additions to the buffer mitigation plan. C.3.4. FWCC 22-1359(g) requires revegetation of wetland buffers. C.3.4.a NEW: This issue has not been addressed. Provide corrections and/or additions: The mitigation plan must identify all areas in the buffer where clearing is proposed for installation of the mitigation plan, and where temporary construction impacts will occur. The mitigation plan must provide for these areas to be replanted, monitored and maintained. Provide special planting instructions for areas of the buffer with moderate and steeper slopes. See comments in sections E 5, E 6 and F below. C.3.5. All FWCC Surface and Stormwater Management regulations apply to any activity in wetland and stream buffers (FWCC Chapter 21) (see Section E below), and standard best management practices must be employed. C.3.5.a NEW: This issue has not been addressed. Provide detailed TESC plans to protect the wetland, stream and their buffers during all construction and construction -related activities. Provide detailed stormwater plans (see section E). C.4. FOOT -TRAIL: C.4.1. The foot -trail must be located outside of the proposed fence along the proposed wetland/stream buffer perimeter. C.4.1.a NEW: Provide corrections: There are inconsistencies among the plans sets as to the locations of the foot -trail and the fence which are supposed to be constructed along the outside perimeter of the wetland and stream buffer (e.g. site plan sets and landscape plan sets differ from the mitigation plan set). In order to protect the buffer from human intrusions, the buffer perimeter fence must extend all the way to the north and south property boundaries. No buffer "credit" will be given for areas located outside of the buffer perimeter fence (towards the buildingsL Provide corrections so that the location of the foot -trail is accurately and consistently shown on all plans submitted for this project. Provide corrections so that the buffer perimeter fence extends to the north and Page 6 of 15 Sheldon & Associates, Inc. Memo to Deb barker on Buffer Averaging and Conceptual mitigation Plan for Crestview II August 19, 2005 south property boundaries, and is accurately and consistently shown on all plans submitted for this project. See comments in sections E 5 and E7 below. C.4.2. Issues pertaining to the proposed foot -trail will be decided using Process IV evaluation (FWCC 22-388). C.4.2.a NEW: See comments under items C.3.1.a and C.3.2.a. C.4.3. Sections of the foot -trail proposed immediately adjacent to slopes greater than 40% must comply with FWCC development standards for geologically hazardous areas (FWCC 22-1286). C.4.3.a NEW: This issue has not been addressed. Provide information and detailed drawings for sections of the foot -trail adjacent to slopes greater than 40% which provide for the protection of the steep slopes below the foot -trail. D. MITIGATION PLAN D.1. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF WETLAND AND STREAM BUFFER IMPACTS: The mitigation plan appears to under -represent the square footage of buffer impacts and proposed buffer reductions. D.1.1. All existing buffer area located outside (buildingward) of the proposed buffer perimeter fence will count as buffer impact/reduction. Provide corrections. D.1.1.a NEW: This issue has not been addressed. Provide corrections and/or additions: on the mitigation plan (Sheet W1.0) dated 25 May, 2005, there are areas located outside (buildingward) of the proposed buffer perimeter fence that are not included in the shaded buffer reduction area. All existing buffer area located outside of the buffer perimeter fence will count as buffer impact/reduction. Provide corrections to the maps as well as to the total square footage of proposed buffer impact/reduction used in all reports, plans, and other documents submitted for this project. D.2. FINAL MITIGATION PLAN: The current mitigation plan is conceptual. The final mitigation plan must comply with FWCC 22-1359(f). The mitigation plan must include (but is not limited to): mitigation sequencing information; goals and objectives; measurable/quantifiable performance standards; engineered site plans; planting plan; plant schedule; installation and construction specifications; maintenance plan; five-year monitoring plan; as -built report and annual monitoring reports; financial guarantees; and contingency plans. The mitigation plan should generally be consistent with Washington Department of Ecology Guidance on Wetland Mitigation in Washington State. Part 2: Guidelines for Developing Wetland Mitigation Plans and Proposals, April 2004, Ecology Publication 04-06-013b, and King County Critical Areas Mitigation Guidelines (http://www.metrokc.gov/ddes/forms/Is-not-samit.pdf, http://www.metrokc.gov/ddes/forms/Is-not-samit.pdf) [FWCC 22-1243 and 22-1270]. D.2.1. The issue of buffer mitigation should be fully addressed in the Process IV submittal. Provide a final mitigation plan consistent with FWCC 22-1359(f) as specified in FWCC 22-1358(e) above in section D.2. D.2.1.a NEW: see section F below for required corrections/additions to the mitigation plan. Page 7 of 15 Sheldon & Associates, Inc. Memo to Derr Barker on Buffer Averaging and Conceptuai Mitigation Plan for Crestview II August 19, 2005 D.3. WETLAND ENHANCEMENT: The mitigation plan mentions enhancement plantings in the wetland. Wetland enhancement is not required by FWCC because no direct impacts to the wetland are proposed, and the existing wetland is in fairly good condition. D.3.1. Unless wetland rehabilitation or wetland modifications are proposed [FWCC 22- 1358(c) or (d)], the reference to wetland enhancement should be deleted from the mitigation plan. D.3.1.a NEW: This issue has not been addressed. In addition to the plantings mentioned in D.3, the current mitigation plan proposes to place a large woody debris (LWD) pile in the wetland, towards the north end where the wetland becomes constricted. Although planting trees may qualify as wetland rehabilitation, placing a pile of LWD does not [FWCC 22-1358(c)]. This proposed activity would constitute a wetland modification [FWCC 22-1358(d)]. Wetland modification must satisfy nine criteria, and requires approval through Process IV evaluation [FWCC 22-1358(d)(1-9)]. In addition to construction impacts (it would be necessary to drive heavy equipment through the buffer and wetland to place LWD), the LWD pile would cause major alteration of existing wetland hydrology. On pages 7 and 8, the mitigation plan points out that the resultant change in hydrology would kill some alder trees and alter the species composition of existing wetland plant communities. No hydrology modeling or engineering details have been provided for this activity. Placement of the LWD pile may expand the wetland, which might result in seasonal flooding offsite to the east (immediately upstream of the LWD pile), and destabilization of the steep slopes adjacent to the wetland edge onsite. In addition, some concern exists for the potential for the "attenuated release" of water from the wetland to dry up the stream for a longer period of time than currently, particularly during the late fall, winter, and early spring months. Because the proposed project does not include any direct impacts to the wetland, FWCC does not require wetland mitigation (FWCC 22- 1358). D.4. RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT OF THE STORMWA TER CHANNEL AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WETLAND A: See the May 25 S&A review for description of the channel. D.4.1. Provide detailed engineered drawings and construction specifications for proposed enhancements to the stormwater channel located at the southeast corner of Wetland A. D.4.1.a NEW: This issue has not been addressed. Provide detailed engineered drawings and construction specifications for proposed enhancements to the two stormwater channels located at the SE and SW corners of Wetland A. Given the low gradient and the relatively small degree of erosion of the onsite sections of these two channels, it is not apparent that placement of downed logs, stumps, and coir logs would provide any benefits above those that will be provided by the proposed plantings. Additionally, placement of logs and other structures in the channels would require heavy machinery to be driven through the buffer. Provide information to address these issues. Page 8 of 15 __\I Sheldon & Associates, Inc. Memo to Deb tsarker on Buffer Averaging and Conceptual Mitigation Plan for Crestview II August 19, 2005 D.5. CONDITIONS OF ADDITIONAL BUFFER AREAS: The mitigation plan shows three areas of "give" buffer. Two of the proposed "give" areas are located adjacent to the existing parking lot on the west side of the parcel. Both of these areas are degraded. The third give area is located at the SE corner of the parcel. See the May 25 S&A review for description of these proposed "give" areas. Synopsis of D.5.1 — D.5.3: all proposed "give" areas must be enhanced, maintained, and monitored as part of the mitigation plan. D.5.1.a.1 NEW: see section F below for required corrections/additions to the mitigation plan. D.6. CONDITIONS OFFSITE TO THE SOUTH D.6.1. Provide a vegetation management plan. D.6.1.a NEW: This issue has not been addressed. Provide corrections and/or additions: Although the mitigation plan requires maintaining less than 20% cover by non-native invasive species (including Himalayan blackberries) during the five-year monitoring period, it does not provide a long-term vegetation management plan to deal with non-native invasive species. E. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED E.1. The sensitive areas letter states that stormwater will be treated and detained and then "...released through a series of dispersal trenches located in the enhanced buffer of Wetland A." E.1.1. Provide information describing and locating all stormwater dispersal structures. E.1.1.a NEW: This issue has not been addressed. All proposed discharges to buffers require engineering details for the outlet structures to minimize adverse effects to the sensitive areas (e.g. gabion baskets, splash pads, infiltration galleries at the outer edge of the buffer, etc.). This includes outlets from roof drains. Provide information and detailed engineered drawings. E.1.2. Placement of any stormwater structures within a buffer qualifies as buffer modification and requires approval by Process IV evaluation [FWCC 22-1312(c) and 22-1359(f)]. Placement of any stormwater structures within reduced sections of the buffer will not be allowed unless approved by the Hearing Examiner. E.1.2.a NEW: This issue has not been addressed. Provide corrections and/or additions: Page 2 of the Preliminary Technical Information Report states that stormwater from the detention vault will be discharged to the low point of the wetland. There are inconsistencies among the various plan sets as to the exact location of this discharge point — its location is depicted either at the edge of the wetland (e.g. Sheet C2 of the preliminary utility plan), or 25-feet away from the wetland edge (e.g. Sheet C1 of the preliminary utility plan and Sheet W2.0 of the mitigation plan). Sheet W2.0 of the mitigation plan shows proposed plantings and placement of LWD below that stormwater outfall. Provide corrections and provide detailed engineered drawings for the outlet structure and dispersal pad which must be designed to minimize adverse effects to the wetland, stream and their buffers. Provide specific TESC plans for protection of the buffer, wetland and stream during construction of the outlet structure. Page 9 of 15 �l "—) Sheldon & Associates, Inc. Memo to Deb Barker on Buffer Averaging and Conceptual Mitigation Plan for Crestview II August 19, 2005 Provide specific information as to the extent and location of temporary construction impacts to the buffer (i.e. clearing limits, proposed use of heavy machinery, etc.), and address those impacts in the mitigation plan, including maintenance and monitoring for that area. E.1.2.b NEW: The outlet is proposed to be located within the wetland and stream buffers. This qualifies as buffer modification and requires satisfaction of specific criteria and approval by Process IV evaluation for both the wetland and stream buffers [FWCC 22-1359(f) and 22-1312(c)]. E.1.3. Compliance with Federal Way stormwater regulations requires that developed peak flows be detained to provide outflows that do not exceed pre -developed peak flows (FWCC Chapter 21). Provide information. E.1.3.a NEW: This issue has not been addressed. Provide information. E.1.4. The applicant must demonstrate that the functions of the wetland, stream and their associated buffers will not be adversely affected by: stormwater discharge; any post -development changes in water quality or water quantities; or by de -watering. E.1.4.a NEW: This issue has not been addressed. Provide information. E.2. Is stormwater that currently enters the wetland from the stormwater structure at the SE corner of Wetland A treated? E.2.1. NEW: This issue has been addressed with information provided in the 15 July 2005 letter from Talasaea. E.3. Provide information about the ditch and broken stormpipe along the south boundary of the parcel (see D.5.1 in the May 25 S&A review). E.3.1. NEW: This issue has not been addressed. Provide information. E.4. Provide information about outflow from the stormwater culvert located immediately offsite to the south of the SW corner of the parcel. E.4.1. NEW: This issue has not been addressed. Provide information. E.5. NEW: Provide information and corrections: The preliminary utility plan (Sheets C1 and C2) shows construction of a retaining wall adjacent to the buffer, east of buildings E, F, and G. Although it appears to be separate retaining wall, it is also labeled as storm water quality vault. Provide information and detailed engineered drawings for the proposed retention wall. Provide specific information as to the locations of the foot -trail and buffer perimeter fence with respect to the retaining wall. Provide specific TESC plans for protection of the buffer during construction of the retaining wall. Provide specific information as to the extent and location of temporary construction impacts to the buffer, and address those impacts in the mitigation plan, including maintenance and monitoring for that area. E.6. NEW: Provide information and corrections: Sheet W2.0 of the mitigation plan (and other plans such as Sheet C1 of the preliminary utility plan) shows a water main extending through a section of the "give" buffer east of building J. Provide specific information as to the extent and location of temporary construction impacts to the buffer (i.e. clearing limits, proposed use of heavy machinery, etc.), and address those impacts in the mitigation plan. The mitigation plan must provide for this area to be replanted with species approved by the utility provider whose roots will not interfere with the underground water main. The mitigation plan must also provide for that area to be maintained and monitored. Page 10 of 15 Sheldon & Associates, Inc. Memo to Deb rsarker on Buffer Averaging and Conceptual mitigation Plan for Crestview II August 19, 2005 E.7. NEW: Provide information and corrections: Sheets L1.1 and L1.2 of the Landscape plan show a different planting plan for the buffer than the mitigation plan. Correct Sheets L2.1 and L2.2 of the irrigation plan to show revisions to the irrigation plans. Correct the location of the foot -trail on all of the above plan sheets. Those sheets as well as others (e.g. Sheet A1.3 of the open space site plan) depict the proposed "give" buffer area located west of building J and other proposed "give" buffer areas as usable open spaces. No buffer "credit" will be given for areas located outside of the buffer perimeter fence Towards the buildin s . Buffer areas may not be used as Way areas or recreational areas. Provide corrections. F. NEW SECTION: REQUIRED CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE MITIGATION PLAN TEXT AND MITIGATION PLAN SHEETS F.1. ACCURATE SQUARE FOOTAGES: Provide information: The mitigation plan must provide accurate square footages of proposed buffer reduction (see item D.1.1.a) and proposed additions to the buffer. The mitigation plan must provide accurate square footages of proposed buffer enhancement areas which distinguish between the square footages of densely planted areas and the square footages of areas where only scattered plantings are proposed. The different enhancement areas must be clearly designated on the mitigation plan sheets. Any proposed enhancements to Wetland A will not count towards required buffer mitigation. F.2. Provide corrections: Any changes or modifications to the mitigation plan during installation or the monitoring period requires approval from the City of Federal Way. F.3. Provide corrections: Text on Sheet W2.2 refers to created wetland areas. This project does not include any created wetland areas. FA. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS F.4.1. Provide a separate numbered list of performance standards. The numbered performance standards will be used in the monitoring reports to verify whether the performance standards are being met. Quantitative and well as qualitative performance standards must be included. F.4.2. ' Provide corrections: The mitigation plan proposes 100% survival of all installed plants for the first year after planting, and 85% survival of all installed plants through the remainder of the five year monitoring period. In addition, there must be visual evidence that the installed trees and shrubs are vigorous (e.g. new growth and no visible signs of stress). F. 4.3. Provide corrections: The mitigation plan must provide a quantifiable performance standard to measure species diversity of installed plants. For example, establish a minimum of 6 installed shrub species and 4 installed tree species in the buffer enhancement area by year 3 of the monitoring period. This same range of species diversity must be present at the end of year 5. No single installed shrub species will constitute more than 30% of the total shrub cover in the buffer enhancement area by the end of the fifth year of monitoring. F. 4.4. Provide corrections: Correct performance standards for control'of non-native invasive species. In some places, the maximum allowed percent cover in the enhanced buffer areas is 10%, and in others it is 15%. Clearly designate the enhanced areas on mitigation plan sheets, and differentiate between areas proposed for dense plantings and those proposed for scattered plantings. It is Page 11 of 15 I-) Sheldon & Associates, Inc. Memo to Deb Barker on Buffer Averaging and Conceptual Mitigation Plan for Crestview II August 19, 2005 unclear whether the mitigation plan intends for a 20% maximum cover of non-native invasive species in the entire buffer area, including area outside of the designated enhancement areas. This standard may be difficult to achieve. F. 4.5. Provide corrections: Because no direct impacts are proposed to the wetland, enhancement of the wetland is not necessary, and some of the proposed actions will require approval through Process IV evaluation. Unless enhancement of the wetland is approved, control of non-native invasive species will not be required in the wetland. F. 4.6. Provide corrections: If construction of the LWD pile in the wetland is not approved by Process IV evaluation, remove Objective 1 D and its performance standards from the mitigation plan. F.S. MONITORING METHODS F.5.1. Provide corrections: The proposed 10-foot-wide band monitoring plots will not accurately represent both the densely planted enhancement areas and the scattered plantings. At a minimum, the permanent monitoring plots should directly measure 10% of the total mitigation area square footage, and count at least 10% of all installed plants. In order to satisfy the performance standard of 100% survival after the first growing season, all installed plants should be counted during the first monitoring visit. There must be permanent representative plots from both the densely planted enhancement areas as well as the scattered plantings. There must be permanent representative plots of the different communities (i.e. stormwater channels, plantings adjacent to the foot -trail, etc.). Show proposed permanent monitoring plots in the revised mitigation plan, and the actual permanent monitoring plots in the as -built report. As stated below, all plants must be flagged before or during installation to improve the accuracy of the monitoring events. F.5.2. Provide corrections: In addition to plant survival and the other observations specified in the mitigation plan, the following measurements and observations must be made during the monitoring events and included in the reports: vigor of installed plants, percent aerial cover by desirable native species, percent aerial cover by non-native invasive species, etc. F.5.3. Provide corrections: At a minimum, a.sufficient number of permanent photo points must be established to provide accurate panoramic representations of the vegetation status for all mitigation areas including: enhanced areas adjacent to the foot -trail, enhanced stormwater channels, and scattered plantings. Show proposed permanent photo points in the revised mitigation plan, and actual permanent photo points in the as -built report. F.6. SITE PREPARATION F.6.1. Provide corrections: To avoid soil compaction and damage to desirable existing vegetation, heavy machinery, such as bulldozers, will only be allowed in buffer areas where grading or construction is approved. F.6.2. Provide corrections: Blackberries may be removed from buffers with bush -hogs in buffer areas with little or no slope (less than 3:1 H:V). Bush -hogs may not be used in buffer areas with moderate or steeper slopes. Blackberries may be removed from buffers with a backhoe, as long as the backhoe remains outside of the buffer while the arm reaches into the buffer. Otherwise, blackberries must be removed by hand. Page 12 of 15 �) Sheldon & Associates, Inc. Memo to Deb Barker on Buffer Averaging and Conceptual Mitigation Plan for Crestview II August 19, 2005 A double layer of cardboard with 12" of arborist mulch should be applied on top where blackberries are removed. Mitigation plants can be installed through the cardboard. F.6.3. Provide corrections: Pesticides will not be used in the buffer areas. Only herbicides which are approved for use in wetland and stream buffers, such as Rodeo@), will be used. Herbicides will be applied by wiping or painting onto newly cut stems or foliage. There will be no spraying of herbicide in buffer areas. F.6.4. Provide corrections: The City of Federal Way must approve the proposed locations of the buffer -perimeter fence and the foot -trail before installation. F.7. PLANT SCHEDULE F.7.1. Provide corrections: The mitigation plan designer, Talasaea Consultants, Inc., and not the contractor, will be responsible for verifying plant locations and quantities of plants on the Plant Schedule with those represented on the plan. In the event of a discrepancy, plant quantities shown on the Plant Schedule are to prevail over quantities shown on the plans. F.7.2. Provide corrections: All plants must be lower Puget Sound genotypes of species native to Federal Way. Horticultural varieties will not be accepted. F.7.3. Provide corrections: The following substitutions or changes require approval from the City of Federal Way: substitution of plant species; substitution of live -stakes, B&B, and/or bare -root plants for containerized plants; and changing the locations or sizes of enhancement areas. F.7.4. Provide corrections: For the densely planted areas, trees will be spaced at 8-11 feet on center. F.7.5. Provide corrections: In restoration/enhancement plantings, smaller containerized plants have been shown to have better survival and establishment than lager B&B or bareroot plants. Use 1 to 2 gallon containers in the densely planted areas. Larger B&B plants may be used for the scattered plantings, however, all wrapping material must be removed as the plants are installed (see item F.8.3). F.7.6. Provide corrections: Slough sedge (Carex obnupta) is grown as plugs, not cuttings. F.7.7. Provide corrections: Willow (Salix spp.) live -stakes must be harvested and planted while they are dormant. This period is usually December through February. F.7.8. Provide corrections: In restoration/enhancement plantings, live -stakes of red -stem dogwood (Corpus sericea) have been shown to have a low survival/establishment rate. Either increase the number and density of dogwood live -stakes, or install 1-2 gallon plants. Live -stakes must be harvested and planted while they are dormant. This period is usually December through February. F.7.9. Provide corrections: All grass seed used in the buffer area must either be native species or sterile varieties such as Re-greenO. For information, contact companies which supply native grass seed such as Fourth Corner Nurseries (800-416-8640) or Briargreen (800-635-8873). F.7.10. Provide corrections: Although mountain ash (Sorbus sitchensis) is native to Washington State, it rarely occurs at lower elevations. Substitute a more appropriate species such as grand fir (Abies grandis) or cascara (Rhamnus purshiana). Page 13 of 15 Sheldon & Associates, Inc. Memo to Deb Barker on Buffer Averaging and Conceptual Mitigation Plan for Crestview II August 19, 2005 F.B. INSTALLATION F.8.1. Provide corrections: A biologist must be onsite to oversee plant installation. This will increase plant survival and thus will save money for the applicant. F.8.2. Provide corrections: All plants must be flagged or otherwise labeled before installation to improve monitoring. F.8.3. Provide corrections: Planting holes will be no deeper than the ball of the root. Correct illustrated planting details (Sheet W2.2) to conform with planting directions written by Susan Buis of Sound Native Plants: http://www.soundnativeplants.com/PDF/plantingtips.pdf and http://www.soundnativeplants.com/PDF/Planting%20diagram.PDF. The 1-2 gallon containerized trees should not require staking. F.8.4. Provide corrections: In restoration/enhancement plantings, it has been shown that when the soil in the planting hole is amended (with topsoil, fertilizer and/or moisture -retention granules), that the plant roots fail to grow out into the native soil. While the plants may be healthy at first, over the long term, this results in decreased establishment and survival of woody plants. Do not add topsoil, fertilizer, or moisture -retention granules into the planting holes. F.8.5. Provide corrections: Provide specific instructions for plant installation on moderate to steep slopes. F.8.6. Provide corrections: Mulch will be provided as specified in the mitigation plan, however, mulch must not touch the stems of the installed plants and it should consist of mixed wood chips (arborist mulch) or equivalent. Bark mulch or compost are not acceptable. F.9. MAINTENANCE F.9.1. Provide corrections: Maintenance will be conducted throughout the five year monitoring period. F.9.2. Provide corrections: Irrigation: In addition to specifications on the mitigation plan, irrigation must be provided until the installed plants are established. The establishment period is likely to be longer than 2 years. The plants should receive a sufficient quantity of water - approximately 1" per week. During extremely warm weather, the plants may require more frequent watering. Watering frequency should be tapered off during the second and third years. F.9.3. Provide corrections: Do not: prune, fertilize, or remove dead material from installed plants. F.9.4. Provide corrections: Remove all stakes after the first growing season. F.9.5. Provide corrections: Mulch will be replaced during maintenance work to maintain a minimum of 3" depth of a 2'-3' diameter circle around each installed plant. Mulch must not touch the stems of the installed plants. Mulch should consist of mixed wood chips (arborist mulch) or equivalent. Bark mulch or compost are not acceptable. Mulch will be maintained for a minimum of three growing seasons or until installed plants are well established — whichever period is longer. F.9.6. Provide corrections: Non-native invasive species control will occur a minimum of two times per year— in the spring and late summer. Non-native invasive species Page 14 of 15 Sheldon & Associates, Inc. Memo to Deb Barker on Buffer Averaging and Conceptual Mitigation Plan for Crestview II August 19, 2005 will be hand weeded or cut with the lightest possible equipment. Weed -whips will not be used in buffer enhancement areas. For Himalayan blackberry control: canes should be cut back and cardboard and woodchips will be reapplied; and/or the crowns will be grubbed out as needed. Herbicide use may be necessary. In the late spring or early summer, blackberry canes should be cut to within 6" of the ground and immediately painted with Rodeo@ (a glyphosate herbicide). Application will be by wiping or painting only - herbicide will NOT be sprayed in the buffer. More frequent maintenance will prevent non-native invasives from becoming re- established. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this memorandum. Suzanne Bagshaw can be reached at 206-522-1214, extension 15, or at suzanne@bogstomper.com. Kevin O'Brien can be reached at 206-522-1214, extension 11, or at kevin@bogstomper.com. Suzanne Bagshaw, Ph.D. Wetland Ecologist y c9i3— Kevin O'Brien, Ph.D. Wildlife Biologist Page 15 of 15 A�kCITY OF Federal August 22, 2005 Fl. CITY HALL Wa 33325 8th Avenue South - PO Box 9718 y Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www. cityoffederal wa y. com Mr. Greg McKenna F&M Development 17786 Des Moines Memorial Drive Burien, WA 98148 RE: Permit #05-102533-000-00-UP; WETLAND CONSULTANT REVIEW Crestview II — Proposed Wetland and Stream Buffer Intrusions Dear Mr. McKenna: Sheldon & Associates, the City's wetland consultant, has reviewed information submitted by the applicant for the above -referenced Process IV application for Wetland and Stream buffer intrusions. Their August 19, 2005 memo is enclosed. Sheldon reviewed technical information submitted in May 2005 for the Process IV application as well as the most recent technical letter from Talasaea Consultants dated July 15, 2005. A summary of findings begins on page 2 of the Sheldon memo. Based on review of the submitted information and review of the Federal Way City Code (FWCC), Sheldon has identified specific issues and requirements that the wetland and stream buffer intrusion proposal must address. The applicant and their consultant should respond concisely and succinctly to the issues raised by Sheldon. As previously indicated, if the proposal does not address all of the code based requirements, staff will be unable to recommend approval to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner. It should be noted that copies of the original wetland map of surveyed flags and original data sheets for the surveying have not been provided to the City despite several requests. This information must be submitted to the City before Sheldon will be authorized to review any future information submitted by the applicant. Please contact me at 253-835-2642 if you have any questions about this letter. Sincerely, Deb Barker Associate Planner enc: August 19, 2005 Sheldon Memo Resubmittal Form c: Suzanne Bagshaw, Sheldon & Associates, 5031 University Way NE #204, Seattle, WA 98105-434198 05-102533 Doc.I.D 32954 Deb Barker -Crestview II -- - - - -� - -- --- -- -- -- -- -- — ------ —_.- f-TTPage 1 From: "suzanne" <suzanne@bogstomper.com> To: "Deb Barker"<Deb. Barker@cityoffederalway.com > Date: 09/14/2005 4:22:11 PM Subject: Crestview II Hi Deb, I just wanted to let you know what was happening. On Monday (9/12/05), Jason Walker and one of his colleagues from Talasaea called me. They wanted to discuss the major/minor stream rating. I told them that the most important factor is that the onsite stream is part of a salmon -bearing stream (McSorley Creek). I told them that they would have to verify the following with you and Greg Fewins, but that it was my understanding that they have 3 options at this point: 1) they can provide the information requested in the S&A review so that the City can reconsider changing the onsite stream rating; 2) they can submit the application keeping the minor stream designation, and leave it up to the hearing examiner to decide; or 3) they can proceed with Process IV evaluation (satisfying criteria, providing compensation, etc.) using the major stream designation, and include a disclaimer stating that they disagree with the major rating. I also told them that either of the first two options would likely take more time to process, so the third option would probably save the applicant (his client) both time and money - especially since they already have to go through Process IV evaluation for wetland buffer reduction in that area. I got the feeling that they are particularly concerned that keeping the stream rating as major may decrease the number of units that they are allowed to build, or may trigger an EIS. I told them that you would need to address those issues. One thing that I did not discuss with them was whether reductions and impacts to the stream and wetland buffers would be treated together or separately. If they decide to go with the major stream rating, I am sure that they will ask that question. Since the stream buffer is located totally within the wetland buffer in the area where they are requesting reduction, it may be reasonable to only require them to compensate for the wetland square footage impacted, and not require additional compensation for the stream buffer impacts (i.e. not count the impacted square footage twice). This is what the City did at Christian Faith Church, where the stream buffer was located totally within the wetland buffer. Although CFC had to satisfy Process IV criteria for impacts to both the wetland and stream buffers, the square footage of required mitigation was based on wetland buffer impacts - they did not have to include additional mitigation for stream buffer impacts. I am going to be out of town all of next week (vacation to Michigan), but will be in the office through this Friday, and will be back on Monday Sept. 26. Thanks, Suzanne Deb Barker -Crestview II T _ Page 2 CC: "Kevin O'Brien" <kevin@bogstomper.com> Deb Barker -TAL-927 Comments about stream classification; Crestview I1 project. _ Page 1 :���- - - - - - �1 From: "David Teesdale" <dteesdale@talasaea.com> To: <suzanne@bogstomper.com> Date: 09/27/2005 2:06:36 PM Subject: TAL-927 Comments about stream classification; Crestview II project Dear Dr. Bagshaw: We are reviewing the comments from Sheldon and Associates, Inc., regarding our most recent submittal to the City of Federal Way and are currently preparing responses to these comments in a formal submittal to the City. The matter of whether the stream onsite is correctly rated as a Major or Minor stream obviously requires further discussion. We understand the City' s position, the code, and the definitions of Major and Minor Streams. We understand from our recent telephone conversation with you (09-12-05) that classification of streams is a policy issue. We also believe that the stream in question is more correctly classified as a Minor Stream. The crux of the argument appears to hinge on the phrases "Normal Circumstances," and "Natural Barrier" in the code. Our contention is that the "Normal Circumstances" of the stream preclude use or potential use by resident fish or anadromous salmonids. Barring the change from Major to Minor Stream classification, we believe that the project has sufficient merit and grounds to proceed with modification of the stream set -back under the provisions of §22-1312(c)(1-6) through formal evaluation of a Process IV review. Consequently, we believe that it would be mutually beneficial and cost-effective to come to a resolution on this issue in particular. We would appreciate your consideration of our arguments and reasoning. The following paragraphs outline our arguments regarding the stream classification. (From the 19 August 2005 Memorandum) "A.1.1.a The applicant has cited a number of reasons for reducing the stream category from major to minor, including presumably degraded water quality, primary use of the stream as a stormwater conveyance, and the presence of low -flow as a natural barrier to fish movement. While changing the rating from major to minor for the onsite stream reach might be warranted, the applicant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to make that determination...." These issues have been addressed in a revision of the Sensitive Areas Report. However, some clarification is warranted. The original report did not speculate that the water quality of the onsite stream is poor, rather that an observation of water quality at the outflow of the culvert under South 272nd Street was turbid. At the time this observation was made, there was no flow within the onsite stream reach. Additionally, there was no flow from the subject property to the inlet of the catchbasin at the southwest corner of the Waterstone Apartment complex. The water within the headwater area of McSorley Creek obviously comes from another source. The stormwater entering the onsite stream reach appears to generally flow through the wetland area quickly with little residence time. We acknowledge that the wetland could improve water quality of this storm water, but the assertion made in the report was that the water quality improvements Deb Barker - TAL-927 Comments about stream classification; Crestview II project. Page 2 provided by the wetland are more than offset by other factors off -site and downstream of the subject property. It was our aim to show that the water quality issues of McSorley Creek are not necessarily improved by the onsite wetland. We acknowledge that this is not a factor in determining fish presence. We acknowledge that streams with seasonal low flow, or no flow, are often used by resident and anadromous salmonids for refugia and overwintering. The original Sensitive Areas Report referred to the low flow as a potential natural barrier. This language has been amended. We also call to attention some of the definition in FWCC regarding Major Streams. These are streams that, under normal circumstances, contain or support resident or migratory fish. The normal circumstances of this stream are: 1) it is dry during the summer months from the headwater areas to the catchbasin mentioned above, 2) approximately 1,100 feet of this stream currently resides in a pipe under the Waterstone Apartment complex, 3) the hydrology of the stream and wetland is currently controlled by stormwater runoff systems of surrounding development, and 4) the catchbasin will present an insurmountable (normal circumstance) barrier to fish migration. We acknowledge that the pipes, catchbasin, and stormwater controls do not constitute a "natural barrier." However, these conditions do constitute the normal circumstances for this stream since it is unlikely that the current conditions will ever change. No flow or ponded water from the headwaters of the stream to the catchbasin inlet means that there is no possibility for resident or anadromous fish to survive anywhere upstream of the catchbasin during the dry summer months. Therefore, when flows return in the wetter months, there will be no upstream populations of resident or anadromous fish to repopulate the onsite stream reach. The possible flow regimes for the 1,100 foot -long pipe were analyzed using Manning's equation and compared to the ability of various salmonids to swim against this flow. Under low -flow scenarios, most salmonid species should be able to swim up the pipe to the catchbasin. However, under these conditions, there will likely be no flow into the catchbasin, or insufficient flow to provide the hydraulic backwater salmonids require for leaping. This also ignores the issue that the catchbasin is protected by a metal trash rack, and the angles necessary to provide successful leaping will not be present. Under conditions where flow is likely to be present in the on -site stream, the hypothetical flow within the pipe at any diameter examined will be great enough that no species of salmonid could reach the end of the pipe (please see the revised Sensitive Areas Report for a more thorough discussion of this topic and data used in the analysis). In summary, we assert that the "normal circumstances" for the onsite stream reach preclude the possibility of usage by resident or anadromous fish at any time of year. The onsite stream should be rated as a Minor Stream. We acknowledge that such a change would be subject to evaluation through a Process IV review. Changes to stream ratings within the City of Federal Way are not without precedent. Recently, some streams have been reclassified from Major to Minor based on the results of habitat studies. These streams include 0390B-1 and 039013-2, and 0387. However, if the stream remains rated as a Major Stream with 100-foot setback Deb Barker - TAL-927 Comments about stream classification; Crestview II project. Page 3 buffers, the project can still proceed under the criteria outlined in FWCC §22-1312(c)(1-6) through a Process IV review. These criteria are the requirements for modification of stream setbacks in the City of Federal Way. These points shall be addressed below. 1. The project will not adversely affect water quality. The project is designed to protect water quality and to enhance it to the maximum extent practicable. 2. The project will not adversely affect existing wildlife habitat within the stream or setback area. The mitigation plan for the project is aimed at improving and increasing potential habitat for wildlife. 3. It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities. The project aims to increase potential for stormwater retention within the adjacent wetland area. No changes in drainage are planned. 4. It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards. The proposed setback adjustment is located in a relatively flat area. The project will not cause unstable earth conditions or create erosion hazards. The project is designed to reduce erosion potential within the stream. 5. It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property, nor to the city as a whole, including the loss of significant open space. The project has been designed to protect other properties in the vicinity through careful attenuation of stormwater flows off of the development site, and within the stream itself. No properties will be affected off -site. A significant portion of the subject property is being retained as open space Natural Growth Protection Area. 6. It is necessary for reasonable development of the subject property. The City has density standards based on area zoning that developers must adhere to. In order to meet those densities, the development must intrude within a portion of the stream setback. Additionally, the project is designed to provide "Affordable Housing," which has been shown to be critically needed within the metropolitan Puget Sound Region. We appreciate and thank you for your consideration of these issues regarding the stream. David R. Teesdale Wetland Ecologist Talasaea Consultants, Inc 15020 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, Washington 98074 CC: <deb.barker@cityoffederalway.com>, 'Bill Shiels" <bshiels@talasaea.com>, "Jason Walker" <jwalker@talasaea.com> ID Sheldon & XMMUN"DEVELOPME BY EpARTMFN Associates, Inc. NOV o 3 2005 5031 University Way NE #204 • Seattle, Washington 98105-4341 Tel 206-522-1214 ■ Fax 206-522-3507 Transmittal Date: November 2, 2005 To: Deb Barker, Interim Senior Planner City of Federal Way P.O. Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 RE: Crestview II: Memo from the October 28, 2005 meeting Transmitted by: ® Mail ❑ Courier ❑ Fax ❑ E-mail We are sending you the following material: Crestview II: Memo from the October 28, 2005 meeting Transmitted: Reply: ® For Review ❑ Ae Requeoted Ex Requested ® For Approval ❑ For Your Use ❑ Not Requested ❑ For Comment [] For Signature Remarks: Hi Deb, Since the e-mail didn't work, let's try old-fashioned snail mail. Here is a brief memo regarding the meeting for Crestview II last Friday. I included all of the major points that I could remember that Kevin and I made, and I included a couple that you and Greg made regarding the proposed sewer line across the wetland and stream. Let me know if you have any questions or would like any changes. Thanks, From: Suzanne Bagshaw Wetland Ecologist 206-522-1214 ext. 15 suzanne@bogstomper.com Wetland & Stream Analysis Permitting Restoration Design Environmental Education Sheldon & Associates, Inc. 5031 University Way NE #204 • Seattle, WA 98105-4341 Ph 206-522-1214 ■ Fax 206-522-3507 AMT1C07: lLlfl ITJ DATE: October 31, 2005 TO: Deb Barker, Interim Senior Planner, City of Federal Way FROM: Suzanne Bagshaw, Wetland Ecologist, Sheldon & Associates, Inc. CC: Greg Fewins, Deputy Director of Community Development Services Planning Division, City of Federal Way RE: Meeting for Crestview II on October 28, 2005 Deb, Thanks for running the meeting so well on Friday. The important points that Kevin and I made were: 1) All square footage of existing buffer located outside of the new buffer perimeter fence counts as buffer impact. The applicant must accurately identify and account for all buffer impacts in the mitigation plan. 2) All trails and/or recreation areas must be located outside of the buffer perimeter fence. No "buffer credit" will be given for area located outside of the buffer perimeter fence. 3) The applicant may wish to decrease the proposed square footage of impacts to wetland and stream buffers in order to provide recreational open space required by FWCC for the project. 4) Instead of continuing to request a change in stream rating from major to minor, the applicant can apply for stream buffer modification (as specified in both S&A review memos). They already have to satisfy all of the criteria for wetland buffer modification, and there is only one additional criterion for stream buffer modification. We pointed out that using this tactic would likely save the applicant time and money. 1 made that same point to Jason Walker and David Teesdale of Talasaea during our phone call on September 12, 2005. 5) The applicant must provide more complete and accurate information about the impacts of buffer reduction to wildlife habitat; and must provide complete answers to the FWCC criteria for wetland and stream buffer modifications. 6) The applicant should concentrate the mitigation effort and dollars at the north end of the wetland buffer where the impacts will occur. 7) Placing a pile of logs in Wetland A does not make ecological sense. Among other impacts, it would entail driving heavy machinery across buffers and the wetland to install large woody debris, and would significantly alter existing hydrology and hydroperiod. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". 8) The applicant would not be allowed to cut down trees in sensitive areas to use as part of the mitigation plan. Wetland & Stream Analysis Permitting Restoration Design Environmental Education Sheldon & Associates, Inc. Page 2 of 2 Memorandum to Deb Barker regarding the October 28, 2005 meeting for Crestview II October 31, 2005 9) Process IV will require a much more detailed planting plan. In particular, the applicant must identify areas and square footages where they propose dense plantings vs. scattered plantings; and they must address all of the items included in the review memos. 10) The applicant must provide detailed information about the proposed stormwater facility; the locations and detailed designs for all stormwater and roof -drain outlets; and how the outflow will affect pre -development hydrology, hydroperiod, and water quality. 11) You and Greg pointed out that it is the City of Federal Way's policy to discourage installation of sewer lines across wetlands and streams, and that the City is only likely to support such action if no other alternative is possible. 12) You and Greg pointed out that the applicant must provide evidence of a good faith effort to attain sewer easements across adjacent properties to avoid construction of a sewer line across the onsite wetland and stream. 13) Installation of a sewer line across Wetland A and the onsite stream would constitute direct impacts to those sensitive areas, and must satisfy Process IV criteria. 14) The mitigation plan must provide FWCC required compensatory mitigation for the impacts of the sewer line to the wetland, stream, and their associated buffers. 15) The applicant must provide detailed plans for sewer line design and location. They must provide detailed information about all impacts of the sewer line to sensitive areas including: temporary and permanent impacts; as well as potential impacts. 16) The applicant must provide detailed information about how potential impacts of the sewer line to sensitive areas will be avoided, and must provide contingency plans. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this memorandum. I can be reached at 206-522-1214, extension 15, or by e-mail at: suzanne@bogstomper.com. Suzanne Bagshaw, Ph.D. Wetland Ecologist '. Deb Barker - RE: Crestview II (05710314-000-00-AD) (TAL-92A Page 1 . From: "Jason Walker" <jwalker@talasaea.com> To: "'Jason Walker"' <jwalker@talasaea.com>, "Deb Barker (Deb Barker)" <deb.barker@ci.federal-way.wa.us> Date: 01 /25/2006 5:38:45 PM Subject: RE: Crestview II (05-10314-000-00-AD) (TAL-927) Hi Deb, We have reviewed your fax sketch of the reduced impact site plan concept. Thank you for providing this level of clarification to assist us in addressing the City's concerns, and to hopefully allow us to reach a consensus of acceptable impacts and mitigation for this project. The project team has been working to revise the site layout, recreational open space areas, and critical areas impacts to address your comments and the recently received comments from Sheldon and Associates, from 31 October 2005. In the attached, revised, concept plan (attached PDF), we have removed all buildings from the 100' wetland and stream buffer, similar to your sketch. As you may have been considering in your sketch, the primary buffer impacts we would then need to examine are recreational uses and some surface parking. As you are aware, we need to provide recreational open space at 400 square feet per unit (44,800 square feet total). It is my understanding, from our 28 October meeting, that "buffer modification" would need to occur to allow any type of recreational uses within buffer areas. We believe we can minimize this impact by providing only passive recreational uses (i.e., trails and benches) in the modified (impacted) buffer. We can likely accommodate active recreational uses elsewhere on the site, outside of the 100' buffer. Some grading impacts would also be necessary at the outer 50-100' fringe of the modified buffer to grade the trail and adjacent building pads, but we would do our best to retain much or all of the existing vegetation and significant trees in this area. Landscape plantings within the recreational areas could also be done with native plant materials, further increasing habitat functions adjacent to the critical areas. Compared to the previously submitted site plan concepts, we believe that this option would significantly reduce buffer impacts, allowing the majority of existing trees and vegetation to be retained, eliminating most all impervious surfaces, and providing compensatory mitigation by means of buffer replacement, restoration, and enhancement to further increase the buffer functions. Dave Teesdale (Talasaea Ecologist) and I believe that we can address the impacts, mitigation, and other potential effects to the satisfaction of the City; however, before all studies, plans and documents are revised we would again appreciate your preliminary review of this concept to let us know if this option is potentially achievable to obtain the City's support through a process IV review and hearing. Deb Barker - RE: Crestview II �Or10314-000=00-AD} (TAL-927) - - - �.� Thanks again, Jason Walker, RLA, ASLA Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 15020 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, WA 98077 Tel: (425) 861-7550 Fax: (425) 862-7549 jwalker@talasaea.com From: Jason Walker [mailto:jwalker@talasaea.com] Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 3:05 PM To: Deb Barker (Deb Barker (deb.barker@ci.federal-way.wa.us)) Cc: 'Greg McKenna; Greg Fewins (Greg Fewins (greg.fewins@cityoffederalway.com)); 'ross deckman ; 'Brett Allen'; 'suzanne@bogstomper.com; David Teesdale (dteesdale@talasaea.com) Subject: Crestview II (05-10314-000-00-AD) (TAL-927) Hi Deb: From comments received from our 28 October meeting, the project team for Crestview II has prepared a revised conceptual site plan (attached PDF). To reduce project impacts, two buildings (totaling 24 units) have been eliminated. To accommodate the recreational area requirements, 400sf of recreational open space needs to be provided for each unit. The majority of the buffer modification is proposed to provide required recreational open space. Buildings F and G were retained in their previous locations; these buildings are proposed to be constructed above a detention vault, combining impacts that would otherwise be separate. You may recall during our meeting that we also discussed the potential need to provide a sanitary sewer connection across the northeast portion of the site. Upon subsequent study, the proposed sewer line connection across the stream was determined to not be necessary. By the request of the City, the project was evaluated by F&M Developments to consider increasing the building heights to 4-storys to further reduce site impacts. It was determined by F&M that 4-story buildings of this type would create substantial additional costs and hardships for the project, and that ❑eb Barker - RE: Crestview 11 (C5-9 D314-000-00-AD) {TAIL-927)-- .- - - �• -- �— reasonable economic use of property could not be achieved with 4-story buildings. We understand a more detailed effects analysis is required for Sheldon Associates to evaluate the project impacts and mitigation. Additionally, we understand from our meeting that the City is acutely concerned with the provision of localized mitigation for directly adjacent impacts. We will address these concerns by providing a more detailed mitigation plan to better explain the impacts that are proposed, their potential affect on water quality and habitat, and where mitigation will be provided. With a better demonstration of these issues, and with the further measures provided to identify, avoid and minimize project related impacts, we trust that a consensus can be achieved between the applicant and the City to allow the project to be supported through a Process IV hearing. The attached site plan is provided for your preliminary review. We expect to have a revised project submittal into the City before the end of the year. Please contact me if you or Sheldon Associates have any comments on the site plan concept at this time. Regards, Jason Walker, RLA, ASLA Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 15020 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, WA 98077 Tel: (425) 861-7550 Fax: (425) 862-7549 jwalker@talasaea.com CC: "'Greg McKenna"' <ghm@farrellgroup.net>, "Greg Fewins (Greg Fewins)" <greg.fewins@cityoffederalway.com>, "'ross deckman"' <RDArchitect@compuserve.com>, "'Brett Allen <ballen@soundenginc.com>, <suzanne@bogstomper.com>, "David Teesdale" <dteesdale@talasaea.com> Deb Barker - RE: SOW for Crestview II review of resubmittals — Page 1 From: "Suzanne Bagshaw" <suzanne@bogstomper.com> To: "Deb Barker"<Deb. Barker@cityoffederalway.com > Date: 04/14/2006 1:01:53 PM Subject: RE: SOW for Crestview II review of resubmittals Hi Deb, Yes, Kevin can start with his review of the SEPA checklist since that time is already funded, but he will have to examine the revised plans to verify the applicant's statements (and also to see what the applicant hasn't mentioned). However, between having a really bad sinus infection and a big project that is due next Thursday, Kevin won't be able to start until the end of next week at the earliest (more likely the following week). Thanks, Suzanne -----Original Message ----- From: Deb Barker[mailto: Deb. Barker@cityoffederalway.com] Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 12:40 PM To: suzanne@bogstomper.com Subject: Re: SOW for Crestview II review of resubmittals Thanks Suzanne. I will route the SOW to the applicant and will advise you of funding. Can work on the revised SEPA be done absent review of other revised documents? Regards Deb Barker Associate Planner, City of Federal Way PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-2642 deb.barker@cityoffederalway.com >>> "Suzanne Bagshaw" <suzanne@bogstomper.com> 04/13/2006 3:12 PM >>> Hi Deb, Here is the SOW for Phase 3 review of the Crestview II resubmittals. You will notice that I reference the previous Phase 2 SOW (which I included), and apply some of the funds from that SOW to the current SOW. Please let me know if you have any questions. I may be out in the field all day tomorrow. Thanks, Suzanne Deb Barker Crestview Ill SEPA From: Deb Barker To: suzanne.bagshaw@otak.com Date: 7/24/2006 10:03:40 AM Subject: Crestview II SEPA Hi Suzanne - Welcome back to a whole new world. This e-mail is an FYI to update you on my status of this project review. I am on schedule to issue an MDNS for Crestview II this Wednesday, July 26, 2006. The only condition is traffic mitigation $$, as wetland and stream buffer intrusions are to be dealt with in the Process IV hearing and associated staff report to the hearing examiner. Reviewing your SOW dated July 22, 2005, 1 do not see that there is funding for your review of the SEPA staff evaluation at this issuance stage. While this is not ideal, I don't think there is anything to. add to the SEPA staff evaluation since the section on the wetland and stream buffer component is VERY BROAD in nature, providing a summary of the proposed intrusions and proposed mitigation. The report states that analysis of the intrusions and proposed mitigation will be completed in conjunction with the Process IV review. On 7/21/06, at my request, the applicant submitted a revised SEPA checklist that is still inexpert and leaves a lot to be desired, but does eliminate illogical responses of "NA" and "None." I will forward you a copy this week. Please let me know if you have any questions about this. I hope that your trip was great with lots of plants identified. Regards Deb Barker Senior Planner, City of Federal Way PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-2642 deb.barker@cityoffederalway.com Deb darker -RE: Crestview II $EPA From: "Suzanne Bagshaw" <suzanne.bagshaw@otak.com> To: "Deb Barker"<Deb. Barker@cityoffederalway.com > Date: 7/25/2006 2:44:20 PM Subject: RE: Crestview II SEPA Hi Deb, Thanks for the update on Crestview. Looking at the Crestview II Phase 3 Scope dated April 13, 2006, Task 3.1 indicates that there is still approximately $750.00 left from the Phase 2 Scope dated July 22, 2005 for review of the SEPA cheGklist. Since the SEPA that they revised as of March 23, 2006 had no real changes from the original one that Kevin had reviewed, I didn't want to waste money to have him look over that revised version. So, if you would like, there is still some time left to review their latest revision (7/21/06). Thanks for asking about the UW Foray - since the collecting trip was so close this year (Blewett Pass Area), we had a record turnout and so collected a record number of plants. I collected some unusual alpine plants and saw some beautiful places where I would to return. I am settling in at Otak. The people here are genuinely nice and very helpful, and they are making our transition as smooth as possible. There are still some procedural bumps (I am still trying to learn the correct process for creating Scopes, etc.), but that will all be worked out soon. I hope that you are surviving the heat. Suzanne 425-739-7977 -----Original Message ----- From: Deb Barker[ma ilto: Deb. Barker@cityoffederalway.com] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 10:04 AM To: Suzanne Bagshaw Subject: Crestview II SEPA Hi Suzanne - Welcome back to a whole new world. This e-mail is an FYI to update you on my status of this project review. I am on schedule to issue an MDNS for Crestview II this Wednesday, July 26, 2006. The only condition is traffic mitigation $$, as wetland and stream buffer intrusions are to be dealt with in the Process IV hearing and associated staff report to the hearing examiner. Reviewing your SOW dated July 22, 2005, 1 do not see that there is funding for your review of the SEPA staff evaluation at this issuance stage. While this is not ideal, I don't think there is anything to add to the SEPA staff evaluation since the section on the wetland and stream buffer component is VERY BROAD in nature, providing a summary of the proposed intrusions and proposed mitigation. The report states that analysis of the intrusions and proposed mitigation will be completed in conjunction with ❑eb Barker - RE: Crestview it SEPA — _ — -� - - - _ Page 2 the Process IV review. On 7/21/06, at my request, the applicant submitted a revised SEPA checklist that is still inexpert and leaves a lot to be desired, but does eliminate illogical responses of "NA" and "None." I will forward you a copy this week. Please let me know if you have any questions about this. I hope that your trip was great with lots of plants identified. Regards Deb Barker Senior Planner, City of Federal Way PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-2642 deb.barker@cityoffederalway.com TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. 18 September 2006 Ms. Deb Barker Associate Planner City of Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South (PO Box 9718) Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT UDEPAPITI i-Nr SEP 2 1 2006 TAL-927 REFERENCE: Crestview II — Federal Way, WA SUBJECT: Addendum to Sensitive Areas Report and Mitigation Plan (05 May 2006) Dear Deb: We are writing this addendum to our most recent report for the Crestview II project in response to your concerns. We had not addressed impacts to the stream buffer specifically in our report. We had lumped all buffer impacts together since we believed at the time that the stream buffer would be completely enclosed in the wetland buffer. However, to expedite the approval process for this project, we are assuming that the buffer for that portion of the project in the north of the property (the point where the stream generally parallels the project boundary) is stream buffer. We are making this assumption for two reasons: 1) the stream buffer is measured off of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the stream, and 2) the stream tends to braid out near the north portion of the property. It is entirely likely that the OHWM is at or near the wetland buffer. The total buffer impact for the project is approximately 25,520 square feet. Assuming the portion of buffer impact that parallels the stream is stream buffer, the total stream buffer impact is approximately 12,921 square feet. The remaining approximately 12,599 square feet of impact is wetland buffer impact. The sources of these impacts area stated on Table 2 of the Sensitive Areas Report and Mitigation Plan (5 May 2006) and illustrated on Sheet W1.0, which is attached to the report. This action is permitted under City of Federal Way Critical Areas Code (§ 22-1312). This portion of the code provides three mechanisms by which an intrusion into stream buffer may occur: a. Essential public facilities, utilities and other public improvements, b. Minor improvements approved through Process III, or c. Other intrusions approved through Process IV. Resource '& Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creel: Road Northeast • Woodinville, 'vkashington 98077 • Bus: (425) 861-7550 1 Pas: (425) 861-7549 This project already must be approved through Process IV, therefore item "c" applies. The intrusion must meet six parameters: 1. It will not adversely affect water quality. The remaining stream buffer is already planned for improvement by enhancement planting with native trees and shrubs. Such plantings will help clean surface runoff water before entering the stream. Additionally, all stormwater runoff will be collected and treated on site using Best Applicable Technology. There will be no appreciable deterioration of water quality resulting from the stream buffer intrusion. 2. It will not adversely affect the existing quality of wildlife habitat within the stream or setback area. As stated above, the remaining stream buffer will be improved by planting native trees and shrubs. A goal of this planting is to increase species diversity and plant density while removing noxious weedy species. Increasing plant species diversity and plant density will create additional forage and habitat options for existing wildlife species on the property, possibly allowing new wildlife species to utilize the area. 3. It will not adversely affect drainage and stormwater retention capabilities. All stormwater on the development site will be detained and slowly released in a controlled manner. The capabilities of the stormwater retention system has been designed to meet or exceed City requirements. 4. It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards. The area of buffer intrusion is not on a steep slope or based on soils of high erosion dangers. Furthermore, the extensive enhancements planned for the remaining buffer will increase soil stability through aerial intercept of precipitation and binding of soil by root systems. 5. It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property, nor to the city as a whole, including the loss of significant open space. Buffer enhancement measures are designed to prevent occurrences that could have detrimental effects to other properties. Additionally, the amount of stream setback intrusion is a small fraction of the total area on site that is being set aside as open space. 6. It is necessary for the reasonable development of the property. The stream setback intrusion indicated is the absolute minimum that will still provide for the economic development of the property in accordance with all applicable zoning and development codes for the City of Federal Way. We trust that the information provided here is sufficient for your current needs. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call Jason Walker or me at (425) 861 — 7550. Sincerely, T LASAEA CONS NC. ti David R. Teesdale Wetland Ecologist Cc. Greg Mckenna, F&M Deb Barker - RE: Buffer condition and Talasaea - --- Page 1� From: "Suzanne Bagshaw" <suzanne.bagshaw@otak.com> To: "Deb Barker"<Deb. Barker@cityoffederalway.com > Date: 9/29/2006 4:13:16 PM Subject: RE: Buffer condition and Talasaea Hi Deb, I have been in meetings all day This is a great idea. I will request them to provide a description of the whole existing buffer in the function assessment section - to specify, the existing conditions of the buffer area that they will be impacting: everything outside of the buffer perimeter fence, as well as temporary and permanent impacts on the wetland side of the fence. I will also ask them to provide a description of the remaining reduced buffer that will not be impacted, with a particular emphasis on the locations where they intend to install the mitigation plants. I will require them to include language in both the written report and on the mitigation plan drawings that specifies that plants will preferentially be installed in locations either where they have removed invasives or where existing desirable vegetation is sparse. They will be directed to leave existing desirable native vegetation intact. I would appreciate any suggestions that you might have about how to best phrase those requests. Thanks, Suzanne -----Original Message ----- From: Deb Barker[mailto:Deb.Barker@cityoffederalway.com] Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 6:08 PM To: Suzanne Bagshaw Subject: Buffer condition and Talasaea Hi There - I just remembered that the reason I want a description of the existing buffer condition is because Talasaea provided that information on the previous (Res South) project. While that project involved wetland elimination and wetland mitigation, it also involved buffer enhancement separate from wetland mitigation. In their report, Talasaea provided a decent description of the condition of the wetland buffer. Since I'm using that earlier projects staff report to the hearing examiner as a starting point for Crestivew staff report, I was reminded of the data that Talasaea can (and has) provided. 'null said... 'Deb Technical Memorandum 10230 NE Points Drive Suite 400 Kirkland, WA 98033 Phone (425) 822-4446 Fax (425) 827-9577 To: Deb Barker, Senior Planner, City of Federal Way From: Suzanne Bagshaw, Wetland Biologist Copies: Date: October 4, 2006 Subject: Review of revised Crestview II Process 1V Application Project No.: 30879C L:\CSDC\DOCS\SAVE\27944418052.DOC Review of revised Crestview II Process IV Application 4 October 4, 2006 As requested by the City of Federal Way, I conducted a review of the revised Crestview II Sensitive Areas Report and Mitigation Plan, and other revised documents submitted as part of the Process IV Application. This review was conducted to check for compliance with previous review memoranda from Sheldon & Associates, Inc. I examined the following documents: • Sensitive Areas Report and Mitigation Plan, Crestview II Federal Way, Washington, by Talasaea Consultants, Inc., dated 5 May, 2006, including Sheets W 1.0, W2.0, W2.1 and W2.2 dated 25 May, 2005 revision date 5 May, 2006; • Cover letter from Jason Walker, ASLA, of Talasaea Consultants, Inc. to Greg McKenna of F&M Development, Subject: Crestview II Report, dated 5 May, 2006; • Cover letter from Brett Allen, Sound Engineering, Inc., to Deb Barker, City of Federal Way, RE: Crestview Phase II File #08-102530, dated July 13, 2006; • Cover letter from Ross Deckman, Ross Deckman & Associates, Inc., to Deb Barker, City of Federal Way, Project: Crestview II Apartments, Subject: Response to Review Comments dated June 23, 2006, dated July 19, 2006; • Preliminary Technical Information Report for Crestview Apartments Phase II Federal Way, Washington, by Brett M. Allen, P.E. of Sound Engineering, Inc., dated May 2005, revised March 2006, revised July 2006; • Sheets C1 and C2 of the Crestview Phase II Preliminary Utility Plan and Vault Cross Sections, by Sound Engineering, Inc., 4th Submittal dated July 13, 2006; • Crestview Phase II Landscape Plan Sheets L-1, L-2, and L-3, by Lynn William Horn, LSA, of Lynn William Horn & Associates, LLC, dated July 21, 2006; • Crestview Phase 11 Site Plan Sheets ALL, A1.2, A1.3, and A3.8 by Ross Deckman Architect; Ross Deckman & Associates, Inc., dated May 19, 2005, revision date July 12, 2006; • Crestview Phase II Site Plan Sheets A3.0 through A3.7 and A3.9, by Ross Deckman Architect; Ross Deckman & Associates, Inc., dated May 19, 2005, revision date March 29, 2006; • Revised Environmental Checklist by Greg McKenna of F&M Development dated July 21, 2006; • Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Apartment Complex, Crestview II, ES-0134, by Shannon Petrisor, Geologist and Raymond Coglas, PE, Earth Solutions NW, LLC, dated June 29, 2005; • Letter from Deb Barker, City of Federal Way, to Greg McKenna of F&M Development, regarding File #05-102530-00-UP; Additional Information Requested, Crestview II - UP3, dated April 24, 2006; • Memorandum from Sheldon & Associates, Inc. to Deb Barker, City of Federal Way, dated October 31, 2005, regarding Meeting for Crestview II on October 28, 2005; • Memorandum from Sheldon & Associates, Inc. to Deb Barker, City of Federal Way, dated August 19, 2005, regarding Review of Sensitive Areas Report and Enhancement Plan Proposed Buffer Averaging and Conceptual Mitigation Plan for Crestview II by Talasaea Consultants, Inc., dated 25 May 2005; • Memorandum from Sheldon & Associates, Inc. to Deb Barker, City of Federal Way, dated May 25, 2005, regarding Review of the Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan, Buffer Averaging and Enhancement, Crestview Phase II and Sheet W 1.0 by Talasaea Consultants, Inc., dated March 17, 2005; and • Federal Way City Code (FWCC). Introduction The applicant extensively revised the designs and layout for the Crestview Phase II project after previous reviews. The revised project significantly decreases the extent of buffer impacts. Despite improvements to Doc. I.D. 38407 Review of revised Crestview II Process IV Application October 4, 2006 the project, many of the issues from the Sheldon & Associates review dated August 19, 2005 have not been adequately addressed in the current revised mitigation plan documents. This memorandum is divided into four sections: 1.Required corrections and additions to the Sensitive Areas Report and Mitigation Plan; 2. Required corrections and additions to the Mitigation Plan Sheets; 3. Required corrections and additions to the Landscape Plan Sheets; and 4. Recommended Conditions for approval. Because the resubmitted documents have been extensively revised, the numbering system used in the two previous Sheldon & Associates reviews is no longer applicable, therefore the numbering system in this review is new. In the comments below, existing text in the reviewed documents is designated by italics, and required additions to the text are either designated by quotation marks or are underlined. Prior to approval by the City, the Final Mitigation Plan Sheet Set (currently Sheets W 1.0, W2.0, W2.1 and W2.2), shall be revised to contain all the plan specifications for the mitigation areas. That way the Final Mitigation Plan Sheet Set will be the single reference document when future questions arise. The Final Mitigation Plan Sheet Set shall include specifications for the pedestrian trail, the buffer perimeter fence, all habitat features, proposed plantings in the Native Growth Area located between the pedestrian trail and the buffer perimeter fence, and all proposed plantings in the buffer. The compilation of all these specifications on the Final Mitigation Plan Sheets will require inclusion of some specifications that are currently included in the Landscape Plan Sheet Set (Sheets L-1, L-2, and L-3). The Final Mitigation Plan Sheet Set shall also include performance standards, the monitoring plan, maintenance plan, contingency plan, etc. Summary • The Final Mitigation Plan Sheet Set (currently Sheets W1.0, W2.0, W2.1 and W2.2), prior to approval by the City, shall be revised to contain all the plan specifications for the mitigation areas. • Numerous corrections and additions to the Sensitive Areas Report and Mitigation Plan are required including corrections to the Process IV criteria for wetland and stream buffer modification. • Numerous corrections and additions to the Mitigation Plan Sheets are required including correcting the layout of the pedestrian trail and providing additional planting information. • A few corrections and additions to the Landscape Plan Sheets are required including the deletion of planting specifications for the Natural Growth Areas associated with the mitigation plan. • Section 4 includes the Recommended Conditions for approval. 1. Provide the following corrections and additions to the Sensitive Areas Report and Mitigation Plan: I .a. Section 4.2.1 Wetland A: La.1 Provide corrections: the report incorrectly states that Wetland A is located only near the southeast property corner of the Crestview Phase II project. Wetland A extends along the stream all the way to the northern property boundary. On Sheet W 1.0, the stippled section of Wetland A is the wetland section that contains the stream. 1.a.2 Provide corrections: the report does not include a buffer width for Wetland A. State that Category II Wetlands require a 100-foot buffer [FWCC 22-1357(b)(2)]. .b. Section 6.3 Buffer Modification Through Process IV: This section of the report addresses the five criteria required by FWCC 22-1359(f)(1-5) for Process IV Wetland Buffer Modification. The section does not address the six criteria required by Doc. I.D. 38407 Review of revised Crestview II Process IV Application October 4, 2006 FWCC 22-1312(c)(1-6) for Process IV Stream Buffer Modifications. Provide the following corrections and additions to this section: 1.b.1 Provide a detailed description of the existing wetland and stream buffer. Describe existing conditions of the sections of the buffer that will be permanently impacted (all areas of existing buffer located outside of the buffer perimeter fence, and the vicinity of the proposed dispersal trench). Also describe the existing conditions of the buffer that will be temporarily impacted by construction activities. Describe the conditions of remaining reduced buffer, with an emphasis on the locations where plants will be installed. Include provisions to preserve existing desirable native vegetation in the enhancement areas, and concentrate plantings in disturbed areas and where existing desirable native vegetation is sparse. 1.b.2 1) Proposed buffer modification will not adversely affect water quality: Provide a detailed Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to protect the wetland, stream, and their buffers during all construction and construction -related activities. Provide the final Technical Information Report for review. 1.b.3 2) Proposed buffer modification will not adversely affect the existing quality of the wetland's or buffer's habitat: Reduction of buffer width will have some unavoidable negative impacts on wildlife habitat. The section of the wetland and stream buffer where reduction is proposed is currently forested and provides good wildlife habitat. Even though enhancement is proposed for that area, it will be at least ten years before the proposed plantings are sufficiently mature to provide significant habitat improvements over existing conditions. In addition, construction of additional apartments adjacent to the proposed area of buffer width reduction will result in increased human intrusions into the reduced buffer. 1.bA 3) Proposed buffer modification will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities: Generally, we agree that the proposed buffer reduction will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities of the wetland. However, only a Preliminary Technical Information Report has been reviewed. Provide the final Technical Information Report for review. 1.b.5 4) Proposed buffer modification will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards: The dispersal trench is located within the area of proposed buffer reduction. It must be constructed and maintained correctly in order to function properly and avoid erosion damage to the modified wetland and stream buffer. Dispersal trench maintenance procedures and schedules are outlined in Appendix A, Section 7 of the King County Surface Water Design Manual, both the 1993 and 2005 versions. The project includes retaining walls to be constructed adjacent to the modified buffer. Outflow from retaining wall drains is another potential source of erosion in the modified buffer. Provide design details (including splash pads or other erosion -limiting devices) and locations for the retaining wall drains. Also provide design details and location for the secondary overflow structure of the stormwater vault. 1.b.6 5) Proposed buffer modification will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor to the city as a whole, including the loss of open space: Unless square footage is added to the buffer as a whole, the proposal will result in a net loss of open space. Buffer losses include the proposed buffer reduction adjacent to the project, and any buffer loss associated with the placement of the buffer perimeter fence Doc. I.D. 38407 Review of revised Crestview II Process IV Application October 4, 2006 adjacent to the southeast parking lot of Phase 1 (near the southwest corner of the wetland). Previous submittals showed square footage to be added to the existing 100-foot buffer at the southwest and southeast corners of Wetland A. Neither the mitigation report nor the current Sheets W1.0 and W2.0 specify any additions to the buffer. It is unclear whether the hatched areas shown on Sheet Al.1 are buffer additions. To maximize ecological functions, buffer additions should be made preferentially between the edge of the existing buffer and the pavement and structures of Crestview Phases 1 and 2. All additional square footage must be located on the wetland side of the buffer perimeter fence in order to count as buffer additions. Provide information and correct all appropriate plan sheets to show the specific locations and square footage of buffer additions. Lb.7 As required by previous memoranda, address the six criteria required by FWCC 22- 13 12(c)(1 -6) for approval of Stream Buffer Modification. Because the first five criteria for stream buffer modification are similar to those required for wetland buffer modification, those stream buffer criteria can be referenced and addressed in conjunction with the five criteria for wetland buffer modification. However, the last criterion for stream buffer modification (6) It is necessary for reasonable development of the subject property [FWCC 22-1312(c)(6)] must be addressed separately. Lb.8 The report incorrectly states: The majority of the indicated permanent buffer intrusion area is, in essence, an impact on paper to accommodate required open space. ...The majority of existing native vegetation will be retained in this recreation area... The permanent buffer intrusion area is indeed a permanent impact to the buffer - it is not merely a "paper impact". Sheet L-1 of the landscape plans shows that the majority of the proposed recreation areas (the majority of which are currently forested) will be cleared and planted with grass and ornamental shrubs. The recreation area east of Building J will have play equipment. Other existing buffer areas located immediately adjacent to the buildings will be planted with ornamental groundcover and shrubs. It is unclear how much of the recreation areas will be graded (grading plans were not provided for my review). The only exception to removal of native vegetation from the entire impacted buffer area is approximately 900 square feet of existing buffer in the recreation area located southeast of Building 3 (Crestview Phase I). Separation of the recreation areas proposed in the existing buffer from the remaining buffer by a permanent trail and fence, as well as the proposed plantings, potential grading, and the expected uses of those areas will indeed function as permanent impacts to that section of the existing buffer. Provide corrections so that the mitigation report and plan sheets are consistent with the landscape plans, and list the permanent impacts to the existing buffer by the recreation areas. I .c. Section 6.4 Buffer Impacts Synopsis: 1.c.1 Add the permanent impacts of the recreation areas located outside of (towards the buildings) of the buffer perimeter fence to the list of Actual buffer impacts. (page 10) and include a buffer impact description (see Lb.8 above) sub -section as the report does for the other five listed buffer impacts. 1.c.2 Section 6.4.2 discusses the pedestrian trail. The location and extent of the trail shown on Sheets W1.0 and W2.0 differs from that shown on Sheet L-1 of the landscape plan and Sheets Al.1 and A1.2 of the site plans. Provide corrections so that the location and extent Doc. I.D. 38407 Review of revised Crestview II Process IV Application October 4, 2006 of the trail is consistent on all plan sets. Provide corrections to Table 2 for the square footage of buffer impacts by the trail. 1.c.3 As required in previous memoranda, Section 6.4.5 calls for approximately 2,100 linear feet of split -rail fence to be constructed along the buffer perimeter. 2,100 linear feet appears to be a sufficient length to extend the buffer perimeter fence from the northern parcel boundary all the way to the southern boundary of the Crestview Phase II parcel (to the southern end of the parking lot adjacent to Building 8 of Crestview Phase I). Currently the fence is shown only along the "Buffer Enhancement Area" (Sheet W 1.0). The section of the fence not currently shown (the southern half of the fence) should be located along the existing 100 foot Wetland Buffer and outside of any buffer addition areas. Where slopes or paved surfaces comprise the buffer, the fence should be located either 10 feet east of pavement edges or along the top of the slope - whichever more accurately follows the buffer edge. Under no circumstances should the fence be located below the top of the slope. The location of the buffer perimeter fence is subject to approval by the City and the City's Wetland Biologist. Once approved, the entire buffer perimeter fence shall be shown on all site plans, landscape plans, Civil Plans, and Mitigation Plans (e.g. Sheets Al.1, A1.2, Cl, C2, L-1, W1.0, and W2.0). To minimize construction damage to the buffer, the buffer perimeter fence shall be constructed from the project side of the remaining buffer and additional buffer areas. 1.cA Section 6.4.6 is confusing. It appears to refer to the 5-foot wide band of modified buffer shown on Sheet A 1.2 that is located on the wetland side of the buffer perimeter fence. Since this area is located inside of the buffer perimeter fence (inside the remaining buffer) and it will be planted (according to Sheet W2.0), it does not count as a permanent buffer impact. Provide information and corrections. .d. Section 7.0 Buffer Enhancement and Restoration 1.d.1 Provide additions: Indicate that existing desirable native vegetation in the buffer will be preserved. Indicate that plantings will be located to avoid damage to existing desirable native vegetation. Indicate that plants will be preferentially installed in disturbed areas and where existing desirable native vegetation is sparse. Le. Section 7.1 Goals and Objectives 1.e.1 Section 7.1.1.2 Objective 1A: correct the Performance Standard for Objective lA to indicate that the monitoring period lasts for five years. Add the following Performance Standards for Objective IA: • "All installed plants shall be flagged or otherwise marked at or before installation so that they can be identified throughout the five year monitoring period." • "There shall be visual evidence that the installed trees and shrubs are vigorous (e.g. new growth and no visible signs of stress)." • "Establish a minimum of 6 installed shrub species and 4 installed tree species in the buffer enhancement area by Year 3 of the monitoring period. This same range of species diversity must be present at the end of Year 5. No single installed shrub species will constitute more than 30% aerial cover of the total aerial cover by installed shrubs in the buffer enhancement area by the end of Year 5." Doc. I.D. 38407 Review of revised Crestview II Process IV Application ` October 4, 2006 r 1.e.2 Section 7.1.1.3 Objective 1B: provide design specifications for the brush piles in the plan sheets; provide maintenance specifics for the swallow nesting boxes in the Maintenance Section; locate nesting boxes, downed logs, and brush piles in the as-builts. Le.3 Section 7.1.1.4 Objective 1C: correct Objective 1C to: "Remove and control non-native invasive plants to less than 15% cover throughout the entire buffer enhancement area as that area as designated on Sheet W 1.0." Substitute the following text for the Performance Standard for Objective 1C: After construction, non-native invasive plant species shall be controlled and removed throughout the entire buffer enhancement area to less than 15% aerial cover at least two times per year during the five year monitoring period. The non-native invasive species include (but are not limited to): Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius); Himalayan and evergreen blackberries (Rubus armeniacus and R. laciniatus); purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria); field morning glory (Convolvulus arvensis); giant morning glory or hedge bindweed (Calystegia sepium); Japanese knotweed including giant and hybrid knotweeds (Polygonum cuspidatum, P. sachalinense and Polygonum x bohemicum); English ivy (Hedera helix); Canada and bull thistles (Cirsium arvense and C. vulgare); and bittersweet nightshade (Solanum dulcamara). Add the following Performance Standard to Objective I Performance Standards: "Areas equal to or greater than 25 square feet where invasive plants are removed from the buffer enhancement area shall be replanted with appropriate native species at 3 feet on center for 1 gallon shrubs, and 8 feet OC for 2 gallon trees. These re -planted removal areas shall be monitored and maintained as part of the mitigation plan." LeA Section 7.1.2.1 Objective 2A: add the following text to Objective 2A: "Install a permanent fence along the entire perimeter of the modified buffer and buffer additions. The fence shall be located between the buffer and the thicket -forming vegetation installed adjacent to the wetland side of the pedestrian trail." Correct the Performance Standard to include maintenance of the fence. .f. Section 7.2 Functional Value Assessment of Existing and Predicted Conditions. The report uses the Semi -Quantitative Modified Reppart Method (SAM) to assess wetland and buffer functions. Although the methodology is adequate to assess wetland and buffer functions, in this case, some aspects of the methodology have been misapplied. Wetland and Buffer Function Semi -Quantitative Assessment Methodology (SAM) Final Working Draft User's Manual (Cooke Scientific Services, Inc., May 2000) specifies: "Unlike most functional assessments, this method is not intended to assign an absolute value to a function present in a wetland. It is also not meant to be used to assign an absolute "value" to an individual wetland for mitigation purposes." (page 2) and "The overall function scores are not meant to be summed for an overall total." (page 6). 1.f.1 Provide the following corrections to Table 3 and the explanatory text: the assignment of functional value categories to function point scores (e.g. very low up to very high) included in Table 3 are not provided in the SAM. Although these values are useful, they have been assigned by Talasaea, not by SAM, and must be so acknowledged. Lf.2 Delete the "Aggregate Score" column from Table 3. It is not appropriate as directed by the SAM user's manual. Doc. I.D. 38407 Review of revised Crestview II Process IV Application October 4, 2006 1.f.3 Correct discrepancies between existing and post -mitigation function assessment worksheets and the explanatory text for: flood/stormwater control; base flow/groundwater support; water quality improvement (in addition, correct both to slow flow through site); and correct Table 3 accordingly. Also correct existing cultural/socioeconomic function from 7/21 to 9/21 (some passive and active recreational opportunities (2); and privately owned, some public access (2) - residents currently use the buffer for recreation) and correct Table 3 accordingly. 1.£4 Provide corrections: explanatory text must state that the predicted functions of the modified buffer are based on predicted conditions some time in the future after the installed plants are established and have matured sufficiently to begin to function as a forested community. 1.£5 Provide corrections: the statement "Implementation of the proposed enhancement plan will result in an improvement in functioning of Wetland A" is not supported by the existing and post -mitigation functions assessments. As described in the SAM user's manual, SAM is not an appropriate methodology toassignabsolute values to a wetland for mitigation purposes. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the proposed mitigation may be able to offset potential negative impacts of the buffer width reduction and the increase in the number of adjacent residences associated with the project. .g. Section 9.1 Monitoring Reports: 1.g.1 Substitute the following text for Section 9.1: "Each monitoring report shall include: a) photo -documentation from all permanent photo -points; b) percent survival of installed plants; percent cover by installed species; and general health and vigor of installed plants; c) condition and wildlife use of installed nesting boxes, downed logs, and brush piles; d) percent aerial cover by invasive species in the entire enhanced buffer area as well as in the monitored plots; e) conditions of the pedestrian trail, the thicket -forming planting area between the trail and the buffer perimeter fence (Native Growth Area), the buffer perimeter fence, and informational signs; f) whether trash is present in the enhanced buffer area; g) general site conditions; h) an assessment of whether Performance Standards are being met; i) recommended maintenance activities to ensure that Performance Standards are met; and j) whether contingency measures are necessary. The first monitoring report shall constitute the As -Built Report. The As -Report will list quantities, species and sizes of plants installed in the mitigation areas. It will include a site map with the locations of. all installed plants in the enhanced buffer area; all permanent monitoring transects and plots; all permanent photopoints; all installed nesting boxes, downed logs, and brush piles; the buffer perimeter fence, informational signs, and the pedestrian trail; retaining walls and wall drains; and the dispersal trench. Monitoring will be completed after five years if the City of Federal Way agrees that all Performance Standards have been satisfied. If Performance Standards have not been satisfied, the City of Federal Way may require the undertaking of corrective measures and continuation of monitoring as part of the contingency plan." .h. Section 9.2 Methods for Monitoring the Performance Standards 1.h.1 Section 9.2.1 refers to Objective IA not Objective A - provide corrections. Provide information and corrections to the Methods section: there must be a sufficient number and length of permanent sampling transects to accurately sample approximately Doc. I.D. 38407 Review of revised Crestview H Process IV Application October 4, 2006 10% of the installed plants. The plants installed in the less densely planted areas (closer to the wetland edge) and along the enhanced stormwater channels at the south end of Wetland A must also be accurately represented by permanent monitoring plots. 11.2 Section 9.2.2 refers to Objective 1C not Objective B - provide corrections. Substitute the following text for the Methods section: "The species and percent cover of non-native invasive species shall be measured in the monitoring plots. These non-native invasive species include (but are not limited to): Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius); Himalayan and evergreen blackberries (Rubus armeniacus and R. laciniatus); purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria); field morning glory (Convolvulus arvensis); giant morning glory or hedge bindweed (Calystegia sepium); Japanese knotweed including giant and hybrid knotweeds (Polygonum cuspidatum, P. sachalinense and Polygonum x bohemicum); English ivy (Hedera helix); Canada and bull thistles (Cirsium arvense and C. vulgare); and bittersweet nightshade (Solanum dulcamara). In addition, percent cover and locations of non-native invasive species within the entire enhanced buffer area will be noted during monitoring events. Removal of non-native invasive species shall occur at least two times per year. More frequent control actions may be required to meet the Performance Standard of less than 15% cover by non-native invasive species throughout the entire buffer enhancement area. Removal shall occur by hand. Use a Weed WrenchTM (http://www.weedwrench.com/) to remove blackberry crowns and roots when the soil is moist. Removal areas greater than or equal to 25 square feet shall be replanted according to specifications in the mitigation plan." 1.h.3 Section 9.2.3 Wildlife refers to Objective 1B - provide corrections. 1.h.4 Section 9.2.4 Hydrology, Soils, Water Quality, and Site Stability: since the report does not include a Performance Standard for hydrology, soils, or water quality, monitoring of these elements is not required, although it is encouraged. 11.5 Provide a new section (or sections) to describe monitoring methods for the Performance Standards for Objectives 2A and 2B: trash and debris in the buffer; the pedestrian trail; the thicket -forming planting area between the trail and the buffer perimeter fence (Native Growth Area); the buffer perimeter fence; and the informational signs. U. Section 9.3 Photo Documentation 1.1.1 Substitute the following text for Section 9.3: "Establish a sufficient number of permanent photopoints during the first monitoring visit to provide accurate panoramic representations of: the entire buffer enhancement area (including the enhanced stormwater channels at the south end of Wetland A); the thicket -forming planting area between the pedestrian trail and the buffer perimeter fence; the buffer perimeter fence; and the informational signs. Show the locations of the permanent photopoints in the as -built map and subsequent monitoring report maps. Label monitoring photos with photopoint reference numbers and cardinal directions." .j. Section 10.0 Maintenance (M) and Contingency (C) 1 J.1 Provide corrections: Table 4, not Table 2, includes the maintenance review schedule. 1 J.2 Provide corrections: contingency actions shall not include re -grading in the buffer. Doc. I.D. 38407 Review of revised Crestview H Process IV Application October 4, 2006 a' 1 J.3 Add the following: "Contingency actions may include repair or redesign of the dispersal trench." 1+4 Correct the first bulleted paragraph to: "In the late fall or early spring after the first growing season, replace all dead installed plant material according to mitigation plan specifications. (M)" 1 J.5 Correct the bulleted paragraph that begins Water all plantings... to: "Water all plantings (including replacement plantings) at a rate of at least 1 inch per week during the dry season (approximately June through September) for at least first two years after installation. Under especially hot and dry conditions, the plantings may require more water. Irrigation shall continue until installed plants are established. Although this period is usually two years after installation, a longer period of irrigation may be required. Any replacement plants installed subsequent to the initial installation, or plants that are installed as the result of contingency actions, shall require irrigation until they become established. (C & M)" 1 J.6 Add the following text to the end of the bulleted paragraph that begins Replace dead plant with the same species... : ... subject to the approval of the wetland biologist "and the City of Federal Way. (C)" 1 J.7 Add the following text to the end of the bulleted paragraph that begins Re -plant area after reason for failure... : ... wildlife damage, etc.) "and appropriate corrective measures have been taken. (C & M)" 1 J.8 Correct the bulleted paragraph that begins Remove/control weedy or exotic ... to: "Remove/control non-native invasive species throughout the buffer enhancement area at least two times per year. More frequent control actions may be required to meet the Performance Standard of less than 15% cover by non-native invasive species. Remove invasive plants by hand or with hand tools. Use a Weed WrenchTM (http://www.weedwrench.com/) to remove blackberry crowns and roots when the soil is moist. Remove all cut non-native vegetation from the buffer and dispose of it properly offsite. The use of herbicide in buffer areas will be allowed only after other control measures have failed. Only Rodeo® (a glyphosate herbicide) or other herbicides that are approved for use in wetland and stream buffers shall be used. Herbicide shall not be sprayed in buffer areas. Wipe or paint approved herbicide on leaves or cut stems as appropriate - late summer is usually the most effective season for herbicide use. To control blackberries, in the late summer, cut re -sprouts to within 6" of the ground and immediately paint/wipe cut ends with Rodeo®. The non-native invasive species to be removed/controlled include (but are not limited to): Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius); Himalayan and evergreen blackberries (Rubus armeniacus and R. laciniatus); purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria); field morning glory (Convolvulus arvensis); giant morning glory or hedge bindweed (Calystegia sepium); Japanese knotweed including giant and hybrid knotweeds (Polygonum cuspidatum, P. sachalinense and Polygonum x bohemicum); English ivy (Hedera helix); Canada and bull thistles (Cirsium arvense and C. vulgare); and bittersweet nightshade (Solanum dulcamara)." 1 J.9 Add the following text as a separate bulleted paragraph: "Maintain mulch around installed plants to a minimum of 4inches deep for at least 3 years after installation. Mulch shall not touch stems or tree trunks. (M)" Doc. I.D. 38407 Review of revised Crestview II Process IV Application October 4, 2006 1+10 Delete the bulleted paragraph that begins Selectively prune woody plants... 1+11 Add the following bulleted paragraph: "In the enhanced buffer area, re -plant (according to mitigation plan specifications) all areas equal to or greater than 25 sq. ft where non- native invasive plants have been removed. Install 1 gallon shrubs at plants at 3 feet on center; and 2 gallon trees at 8 feet OC. Maintain and monitor these re -planted removal areas (M)." 1+12 Add the following bulleted paragraph: "According to mitigation plan specifications, repair, replant, and maintain all areas of the buffer damaged by construction -related activities and outflow from the dispersal trench, retaining wall drains, and the secondary overflow structure of the stormwater vault. Soil that has been compacted by heavy machinery will be de -compacted before planting. (C)" 1 J.13 Add the following bulleted paragraph: "As necessary, repair, replace, and maintain the buffer perimeter fence, pedestrian trail, and informational signs. (M)" 1 J.14 Add the following bulleted paragraph: "Repair and maintain the nesting boxes. (M)" 1 J.15 Add the following bulleted paragraph: "Maintain the dispersal trench according to the schedule and methods listed in are outlined in Appendix A, Section 7 of the King County Surface Water Design Manual, both the 1993 and 2005 versions (C & M)." Lk. Section 12.0 Summary 11.1 Provide corrections: the report incorrectly states that Wetland A is located only near the south end of the subject property. Wetland A extends along the stream all the way to the northern property boundary. On Sheet W 1.0, the stippled section of Wetland A is the wetland section that contains the stream. Include the statement that Category II Wetlands require a 100-foot buffer [FWCC 22-1357(b)(2)]. 11.2 Include the statement that Major Streams require a 100-foot buffer [FWCC 22- 1306(a)(1)]. 2. Provide the following corrections and additions to Wetland Mitigation Plan Sheets W 1.0, W2.0 and W2.1: Many of the following corrections and additions to the Mitigation Plan Sheets were listed in Section F of the August 19, 2005 Sheldon & Associates memorandum. 2.a. Provide the following corrections and additions to Sheet W 1.0: 2.a.1 Include the following Sections from the Mitigation Report in their entirety (revised per Section 1 of this memorandum) on the Mitigation Plan Sheets: 7.0 Buffer Enhancement and Restoration; 7.1 Goals and Objectives (which include the Performance Standards); 8.0 Construction Management; 8.1 Post -Construction Assessment; 9.0 Monitoring Program; 10.0 Maintenance (M) and Contingency (C); and 11.0 Performance and Maintenance Bond. Include extra Plan Sheets as necessary. 2.a.2 Show temporary buffer intrusions from construction of the retaining wall adjacent to the east end of the parking lot northeast of Building G. Calculate the square footage of the expected intrusions and include it in the Impacts table. 'Doc. I.D. 38407 Review of revised Crestview II Process IV Application October 4, 2006 2.a.3 The locations and square footages of passive recreation areas are different on Mitigation Plan Sheet W1.0 and Site Plan Sheet A1.2. Provide corrections so that there is accuracy and consistency in all Plan Sets. 2.a.4 The layout of the pedestrian trail on Mitigation Plan Sheets W 1.0 and W2.0 differs from the layout shown on Site Plan Sheets Al.1 and A1.2 and Landscape Plan Sheet L-1. Provide corrections so that there is accuracy and consistency in all Plan Sets. 2.a.5 Designate the locations and square footages to be added to the existing buffer so that there is no net loss of buffer square footage. 2.a.6 Extend the buffer perimeter fence from the northern parcel boundary all the way to the southern boundary of the Crestview Phase II parcel (to the southern end of the parking lot adjacent to Building 8 of Crestview Phase I). The section of the fence not currently shown (the southern half of the fence) should be located along the existing 100 foot Wetland Buffer and outside of any buffer addition areas. Where slopes or paved surfaces comprise the buffer, the fence should be located either 10 feet east of pavement edges or along the top of the slope - whichever more accurately follows the buffer edge. Under no circumstances should the fence be located below the top of the slope. The location of the buffer perimeter fence is subject to approval by the City and the City's Wetland Biologist. Once approved, the entire buffer perimeter fence shall be shown on all site plans, landscape plans, Civil Plans, and Mitigation Plans (e.g. Sheets A1.1, A1.2, C1, C2, L-1, W 1.0, and W2.0). 2.b. Provide the following corrections and additions to Sheet W2.0: 2.b.1 Designate a 3 foot wide "Native Growth Area" between the pedestrian trail and the outside of the buffer perimeter fence as show in Landscape Sheet L-1. This area will be densely planted with prickly native shrubs to discourage human intrusions into the buffer. 2.b.2 Provide corrections: turn off (or mask) the existing significant tree layer. Those symbols make it difficult to distinguish between existing and proposed trees. 2.b.3 Realign or redesign sections of the trail south of Building J to avoid cutting down the two 12 inch hemlock trees (significant trees FWCC 22-1). These two trees are within the existing 100 foot wetland buffer. 2.b.4 With the exception of areas where clumps (greater than or equal to 25 square feet) of non- native invasive plants are removed from the buffer, concentrate the plantings closer to the pedestrian trail - within approximately 25 feet of the outer buffer edge. Preserve existing desirable native vegetation and concentrate plantings in disturbed areas and where existing desirable native vegetation is sparse. This will make installation, watering, and weeding easier. Plants installed closer to the wetland edge in small, isolated, and scattered clusters (as shown in the diagram) will be difficult to locate, water, weed, maintain, and monitor. Install plants so that existing desirable native species are not damaged. Concentrate plantings in disturbed areas and where existing vegetation is sparse. Install plants densely (shrubs 3 feet on center, trees 8 feet OC) in buffer areas where clumps greater than or equal to 25 square feet of non-native invasive plants are removed. Provide corrections to the diagram and the plant schedule to avoid planting FAC-, FAC or wetter species in sunny upland locations. Doc. I.D. 38407 Review of revised Crestview II Process IV Application October 4, 2006 1 2.b.5 Correct General Note 1. to: ..and at the clearing limits "before implementation of the Mitigation Plan." 2.b.6 General Planting Installation Notes: • Delete notes 3 and 4. Only 1 and 2 gallon plants will be installed in the enhanced buffer area, as a result no trees shall be staked. • Delete note 6. No fertilizer shall be used in the buffer. • Add the following note: "All plants shall be installed in locations so that existing desirable native species plants are preserved and not damaged. Concentrate plantings in disturbed areas and where existing vegetation is sparse." • Add the following note: "All installed plants shall be marked or flagged prior to, or during installation for identification purposes to make monitoring and maintenance activated easier." • Add the following note: "Apply 6 inches of arborist mulch to the entire area of dense plantings, or to a minimum width of 36 inches around installed plants. Mulch shall not touch stems and trunks - pull mulch back 4 inches away from stems and trucks." • Add the following note: "Apply 6 inches of arborist mulch to all disturbed/exposed buffer areas. Do not seed with grass." 2.b.7 Plant Schedule • Provide corrections: install only 1 and 2 gallon plants. • Install shrubs at 3 to 5 feet on center; install trees at 8 to 10 feet OC. • Correct the plant schedule to provide sufficient quantities of plants to plant at the densities listed above for an area at least 25 feet wide along the entire length of the reduced buffer shown on Sheet W2.0. Include sufficient quantities to plant areas of known construction -related buffer impacts. Include sufficient quantities to plant around the proposed dispersal trench as shown on Sheet W2.0 • Include at least three additional species of upland shrubs. Suggested species include: thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus); ocean -spray (Holodiscus discolor); mock orange (Philadelphus lewisi); snowbrush (Ceanothus velutinus); and serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia). • Include at least two additional species of upland trees. Suggested species include: Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii); grand fir (Abies grandis); and Garry oak (Quercus garryana). • Provide corrections: although mountain ash (Sorbus sitchensis) is native to Washington State, it rarely occurs at lower elevations. Substitute a more appropriate species such as Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) or grand fir (Abies grandis). • Correct the plant schedule to avoid planting FAC-, FAC, or wetter species in sunny upland locations. • Delete the Buffer Seed Mix Section. Do not plant grass seeds in the buffer - instead apply 6 inches of arborist mulch to all disturbed/exposed buffer areas. 2.b.8 Plan Legend: provide information and suggested sources for downed logs and stumps. 2.c. Provide the following corrections and additions to Sheet W2.1: 2.c.1 Extend the buffer perimeter fence to the south property boundary as directed in Section 2.a.6 above. Doc. I.D. 38407 Review of revised Crestview II Process IV Application October 4, 2006 2.c.2 Provide corrections: turn off (or mask) the existing significant tree layer. Those symbols make it difficult to distinguish between existing and proposed trees. 2.c.3 Provide information and corrections: how will irrigation be provided to the proposed plantings associated with the stormwater channels at the southeast and southwest corners of Wetland A? Without irrigation for at least the first two dry seasons after installation, these proposed plantings will fail. If access or technical problems preclude irrigation of these areas, do not plant these areas, and delete their square footages from the buffer enhancement square footage. 2.c.4 Delete the coir log from the mitigation plan for the southeastern stormwater channel. As specified in previous memoranda, this proposed activity would constitute a wetland modification [FWCC 22-1358(d)]. Wetland modification must satisfy nine criteria, and requires approval through Process IV evaluation [FWCC 22-1358(d)(1-9)]. Because the proposed project does not include any direct impacts to the wetland, FWCC does not require wetland mitigation (FWCC 22-1358). The proposed coir log would more likely cause ecological damage than provide an ecological benefit. If it is placed across the steep - sided section of the channel, during storm events it will back water up the channel and cause undercutting of the banks. If the coir log is placed in the section where the banks flatten and the channel broadens, it will redirect water laterally from the channel out of the wetland into upland areas. 2.c.5 Delete Detail 4 Coir Log Detail. 2.c.6 Detail 2 Soft Surface Trail, Note 2: provide an alternate source for coarse wood mulch. 2.d. Provide the following corrections and additions to Sheet W2.2: in this section, current text is designated by italics, and additions are underlined. 2.d.1 Part 1 - Planting Specifications: • General Conditions Section: Correct the first sentence to: In the mitigation area, the contractor shall remove ...by manual means only prior to plant installation. Add the following sentence at the end of the paragraph: Existing desirable nativespecies shall be identified reserved and protected from damn a prior to removal of invasive species. • General Conditions Section: Add the following text to the end of the third paragraph: Plants installed in undisturbed areas shall be integrated with existing native vegetation, and planted in a random, naturalistic pattern as field identified by the roiect biologist. Plantin s shall be concentrated in disturbed areas and where exitin desirable native vegetation is s arse. • Contractor to Verify Plant Schedule with Plan Section: Provide corrections: Talasaea, not the contractor shall be re onsible to verify that the plant s ecies uantities and sixes shown on the plans are correctly listed in the plant schedule. In the event of a discrevana, the Diant species, quantities, and sizes listed in the plant schedule take precedence over those shown on the plans. • Locate/Stake/Verify Planting Areas Section, first paragraph, add the following text after the first sentence: Planting locations shall be specified so that existing desirable Doc. I.D. 38407 Review of revised Crestview II Process IV Application October 4, 2006 1 native vegetation is pLeserved and not damaged. Plantin s shall be concentrated in disturbed areas and where exiting desirable native vegetation is s arse. Approve Planting Locations and Spacing Section, first paragraph, add the following text after the second sentence: Plantings shall be located so that existing desirable native plants are preserved and not damajaed. Plantings shall be concentrated in disturbed areas and where exitinz desirable native vegetation is stiarse. Correct the last sentence to: Nevertheless, any variations ... approval by Talasaea Consultants and the Cily of Federal Way. 2.d.2 Part 2 - Plant Material Standards • Plant Materials Section, second paragraph, provide the following correction: Plant materials shall be locally grown (western WA, western OR, or western B. C.), Puget Sound genoloes of nativespecies, healthy, in vigorous growing condition, and be guaranteed true to size and species. Named cultivars of nativespecies are not acceptable. If replacement.... • Plant Materials Section, fourth paragraph, delete the second sentence (Balled and burlapped stock...). No B&B plants shall be installed in the mitigation areas. • Plant Materials Section, seventh paragraph, provide the following correction: Native plant cuttings shall be grown and collected in the Puget Sound re 'on. Cuttings shall be... • Plant Materials Section, delete the eighth and ninth paragraphs (Perennial emergent. and Rhizomes, tubers, corms,...). No emergents or rhizomes, etc. shall be installed in the mitigation areas. • Substitutions Section: first paragraph, provide the following correction: Substitutions of specified plant species, size or condition will be allowed only if prior written approval is obtained by Talasaea Consultants and the City of Federal Way prior to ordering material. • Substitutions Section: second paragraph, provide the following corrections: Bareroot stock of equal size to specified container delete reference to B&B deciduous plantings only with prior approval by Talasaea Consultants and the Ci of Federal Way. Evergreen plant material shall be container grown (delete reference to -B&B). • Verify Storage Site and Method Section, first paragraph, delete the third sentence (Balled and burlapped material...). No B&B plants shall be installed in the mitigation areas. 2.d.3 Part 3 - Plant Installation • Soil Preparation/Amendments Section, first paragraph: add the following sentence after the first sentence: The soil shall be decompacted in areas where heavy machinery has been used. Soil Preparation/Amendments Section, first paragraph: correct the second sentence to: A soil moisture retention agent (polymer) may be included ..... per the manufacturer's specification, but its inclusion is not required (see General... Doc. I.D. 38407 Review of revised Crestview II Process IV Application October 4, 2006 • Soil Preparation/Amendments Section, delete the second paragraph (In non -graded areas... topsoil specifications.) No topsoil amendments shall be made in the mitigation areas. Plants shall be installed into native soil. • Soil Preparation/Amendments Section, third paragraph, provide the following correction: delete "In enhanced existing forested areas only " Correct the first sentence to Contractor shall loosely tie a 6 inch piece of pink flagging to the top portion of all plants installed in the modified buffer to facilitate... • Soil Moisture Retention Agent Section, first paragraph, provide the following correction: Although not required, Soilmoist, or equivalent, may be added to.... • Delete the Fertilizer Section. No fertilizer shall be used for plantings in the mitigation areas. • Mulch Section, first paragraph: substitute the following text for the first sentence: Apply 6 inches of arborist mulch to the entire area of dense plantings, or to a minimum width of 36 inches around installed plants. Mulch should be pulled back UpLoximately 4 inches from stems - mulch shall not touch stems or trunks of installed plants - Delete • the Staking Section. No stakes shall be used for the 1-2 gallon container trees in the mitigation areas. 2.d.4 Part 4 - Irrigation, Fence and Sign Installation • Temporary Automatic Irrigation System Section, first paragraph: correct the first sentence to: Contractor shall provide... prior to installation of plantings in the mitigation areas. This project does not include any created wetland areas. • Reseed Disturbed Areas Section. Correct the Section title to: Mulch Disturbed Areas. Substitute the following text for the first paragraph: Contractor shall apply a minimum of 6 inches of mulch to all ex used soils in the mitigation area following plant installation. No grass or other seed mixtures shall be planted in the mitigation area. Restore Existing Natural or Landscaped Section. Correct the Section title to: Restage Construction -Related Damage to Buffer Areas. Substitute the following text for the first paragraph: All buffer areas not already specified in this mitigation plan. that are damaged during construction shall be restored replanted, monitored and maintained according to specifications provided in Sections XXXXX (insert references) of this mitigation plan. Install Open -Rail Fence and Signs Section, first paragraph, add the following sentence after the first sentence: In order to minimize impacts to the buffer, the fence shall be constructed from the project side and not from the wetland side of the fence line. Provide the following corrections to the second sentence: Talasaea Consultants and the City of Federal Wa shall approve fence location prior to construction. 2.d.5 Part 5 - Final Acceptance • Plant Warranty Section, second paragraph, provide the following correction: Any changes or modifications to this plan must receive prior approval from Talasaea Consultants and the City of Federal Way. Doc. I.D. 38407 Review of revised Crestview II Process IV Application October 4, 2006 2.d.6 Part 6 - One -Year Maintenance • Provide corrections so that this section specifies and agrees with all provisions in Section 10.0 Maintenance (M) and Contingency (C) of the Sensitive Areas Report and Mitigation Plan, including all corrections specified in this memorandum. • Maintenance Section, second paragraph, delete the instruction a) to tighten and repair tree stakes. Maintenance Section, third paragraph, correct the first sentence to: Contractor shall be responsible for watering ..... planting area upon completion of mitigation installation. Correct the second sentence to: Irrigation is required within the (delete wetland) mitigation area for at least... Add the following text after the second sentence: Irrigation shall continue until installed plants are established. Althou h this period is usually two ears after installation a longer period of irrigation ma be required. An replacement plants installed subse cent to the initial installation. or plants that are installed as the result ofcontingency actions shall re wire irrigation until they become established. A minimum of 1 inch of water per week shall be su lied during the season -(Mroximately June through September). Under eMecially hot and d conditions the mitigation planting areas may re uire additional water. • Maintenance Section, delete the fourth paragraph (Contractor shall remove tree stakes ... ) • Maintenance Section, fifth paragraph, provide the following correction: Contractor shall correct erosion and drainage problems as required, after consulting with the City of Federal Way. • Maintenance Section, sixth paragraph, provide the following correction to the first sentence: Contractor shall remove silt fencing upon receiving written permission to do so by Talasaea Consultants and the City of Federal Way_, usually... Correct the second sentence to: Restore the area with native tree and shrub plantings according to s ecifications provided in Sections 3XXXX (insert references) of this mitigation plan. • Maintenance Section, seventh paragraph provide the following correction: Contractor shall remove the tempo irrigation system only after installed pjants are established This period is usually two years after installation, but a longer irrigation tion period mU be required. An plants that are installed as re lacements subsequent to the initial installation or plants that are installed as the result ofcontingency actions shall require irrigation until they become established. 2.d.7 Part 7 - Place Habitat Features • Place Habitat Features Section: Provide design specifications for brush piles. Place Habitat Features Section, first paragraph, first sentence, provide the following corrections: Place habitat features (down logs and stumps) in the mitigation area rp for to plant installation. Add the following sentence after the first sentence: To minimize buffer im acts all heayy machinea used to place habitat features will remain outside of the buffer. • Clear and Grub Section, first paragraph, correct to last sentence to: The non-native invasive species to be removed/controlled include but are not limited to): Scotch Doc. I.D. 38407 Review of revised Crestview II Process IV Application October 4, 2006 broom C tisus sco Arius . Himalayan and ever een blackberries Rubus armeniacus and R. lacinlatus u le loosestrife L thrum salicaria • field morning to Corlvolvulus arvensisgiant morning to or hedge bindweed Cal ste is se ium Japanese knotweed including giant and hybrid knotweeds Pol onuin cus idalum P. sachalinense and Pol onum x bohernictun • English i Hedera helix • Canada and bull thistles Cirsium arvense and C. vul are -, and bittersweet nightshade Solan.um dulcamara). • Clear and Grub Section, correct the second paragraph to: With approval from the city of Federal W4L Talasaea •Consultants will designate any additional... 2.d.8 Detail 1 Cutting Planting Detail (Typ.) • Correct the upper left-hand direction to: Use a 36 inch steel bar or marlin... Insert spike to a minimum of half of the length of the cuttings: to 24 inches for 4 foot cuttings, and to 18 inches for 3 foot cuttin s. Insert cutting... • Correct the lower left-hand direction to: Insert cuttings manually into pilot hole to a depth of at least half of the length of the cuttings: to 24 inches for 4 foot cuttings, and to 18 inches for 3 foot cuttings. Leave a minimum of! 8 inches of cutting above ground surface... 2.d.9 Detail 2 Container Shrub Planting Detail (Typ.) • Correct the title to: Container Shrub and Tree Planting Detail (Typ.) • Correct mulch direction to: Apply 4-6 inches of mulch to the entire planting area. Pull mulch 4 inches gMmy from stems - mulch shall NOT touch plant stems or trunks. Provide corrections to the top two right-hand directions: containerized plants shall be installed according to directions from Sound Native Plants website: http://www.soundnativeplants.com/PDF/Planting`/`20diagram.PDF; http://www.soundnativeplants.com/PDF/Plantingtips.pdf, and the brochure produced by WSU Cooperative Extension: Plant it Right http://cru.cahe.wsu.edu/CEPublications/miscO337/miscO337.pdf specifically: • The planting hole should be no deeper than the rootball, and the bottom of the rootball should rest on undisturbed soil. The planting hole should a minimum of 3-4 times the width of the rootball. • Spread the roots and straighten circling roots as possible. • The top of the rootball should be at, or approximately''/2 inch above, the soil surface. • Backfill the hole with native soil - do not use amended or imported topsoil. 2.d.10 Detail 3 Bare -root Planting Detail (Typ.) • Correct mulch direction to: Apply 4-6 inches of mulch to the entire Rlanting area. Pull mulch 4 inches away from stems - mulch shall NOT touch Want stems or trunks. Provide corrections to the top two right-hand directions: containerized plants shall be installed according to directions from Sound Native Plants website: http://www.soundnativeplants.com/PDF/Planting`/`20dlagram.PDF; http://www.soundnativeplants.com/]PDF/plantingtips.pdf, Doc. I.D. 38407 Review of revised Crestview II Process IV Application October 4, 2006 and the brochure produced by WSU Cooperative Extension: Plant it Right http: //cru. cahe.wsu. edu/CEPublic ations/mi scO3 3 7/mi scO3 3 7.pdf specifically: • The planting hole should be no deeper than the rootball, and the bottom of the rootball should rest on undisturbed soil. The planting hole should a minimum of 3-4 times the width of the rootball. • Spread the roots and straighten circling roots as possible. • The top of the rootball should be at, or approximately'/2 inch above, the soil surface. • Backfill the hole with native soil - do not use amended or imported topsoil. 2.d.11 Delete Detail 4 B&B Tree Planting Details (Typ.). B&B trees shall not be installed in the mitigation area. 2.e. Provide the following additions to the Mitigation Plan Sheet Set 2.e.1 Provide construction sequencing information. The clearing limits shall be flagged and the silt fence installed before any grading activities on site. 2.e.2 Provide design details of retaining walls adjacent to the buffer (at the east end of the north parking lot and along Building G) including the retaining wall for the trail at the east end of the north parking lot (e.g. Sheet C1). Provide details about locations and designs for retaining wall drains. The design of the retaining wall drains must protect the modified buffer from erosion. Show all retaining walls on site plans, landscaping plans and mitigation plans (e.g. Sheets Al. 1, A1.2, L-1, W1.0, and W2.0). 2.e.3 As required by the Mitigation Plan, in order to discourage intrusions into the modified buffer, designate a Native Growth Area to be installed between the outside of the buffer perimeter fence and the pedestrian trail. This 3 foot wide area is shown on Landscape Plan Sheet L-1. Provide a "Native Growth Area" Typical Planting Scheme to illustrate the 3- foot wide planting strip. Plant a dense line of predominately prickly and thicket forming native shrubs adjacent to the split -rail buffer perimeter fence. Suggested species include tall Oregon grape (Mahonia aquifolia), Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana), and bald -hip rose (Rosa gymnocarpa). Include other sun and drought tolerant native shrub species such as: snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), ocean -spray (Holodiscus discolor), Pacific wax myrtle (Myrica californica), red -flowering currant (Ribes sanguineum), serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia), thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus), snowbrush (Ceanothus velutinus), and mock orange (Philadelphus lewisii). Plant 1 gallon shrubs 3 feet on center in a line along the spilt -rail fence. Plant 1 gallon woody native groundcover species [e.g. kinnikinnick (Arctostaphylos uva-usi)] between the pedestrian trail and the dense line of shrubs. Plant the woody ground cover plants either at 18-inches on center (square grid spacing) or at 24 inches on center with triangular spacing. Do not plant trees in the 3-foot wide planting strip since they will require pruning to keep the trail clear. Provide sufficient irrigation during the dry months for at least the first two growing seasons after planting, or until the plants become established. 2.e.4 Provide a Typical Planting Scheme for disturbed/cleared areas to be planted within the modified buffer. This planting detail will be used to plant construction -related and other impacts to the buffer that are not included in the mitigation planting plan. This planting Doc. I.D. 38407 Review of revised Crestview II Process IV Application October 4, 2006 detail will also be used to plant cleared areas greater than or equal to 25 square feet that are created where blackberries and other invasive species are removed from the buffer. Space shrubs 3 feet on center, and trees at 8 feet on center. 3. Provide the following corrections and additions to Landscape Plans Sheets L-1 and L-2: 3.a. Provide the following corrections to Sheet L-1: 3.a.1 Realign or redesign sections of the trail south of Building J to avoid cutting down the two 12 inch hemlock trees (significant trees FWCC 22-1). These two trees are within the existing 100 foot wetland buffer. 3.a.2 Provide corrections so that there is accuracy and consistency of the layout of the pedestrian trail in all Plan Sets. The layout of the pedestrian trail shown on Site Plan Sheets Al. 1 and A1.2 and Landscape Plan Sheet L-1 differs from the layout shown on Mitigation Plan Sheets W 1.0 and W2.0. 3.a.3 Correct landscape plantings in the area shown as Vault Access Lid on Sheets C1 and C2. 3.b. Provide the following additions and corrections to Sheet L-2: 3.b.1 Delete the "Native Growth Area" Typical Planting Scheme. Specifications for all plantings installed as part of the mitigation plan shall be included in the mitigation plan sheets. These plantings include disturbed areas inside the buffer (i.e. on the wetland side of the split -rail buffer perimeter fence) and the 3 foot wide densely planted strip between the pedestrian trail and the buffer perimeter fence. 3.b.2 Provide the following corrections to the Landscape Construction Notes and Planting Details: • The planting hole should be no deeper than the rootball, and the bottom of the rootball should rest on undisturbed soil. The planting hole should a minimum of 3-4 times the width of the rootball. • The top of the rootball should be at, or approximately'/2 inch above, the soil surface. • Apply 4-6 inches of mulch to the entire planting area. • Pull mulch 4 inches away from stems - mulch shall NOT touch plant stems or trunks. • Remove ALL burlap from B&B plants before installation. 4. Recommended Conditions 4.a. Address all issues and provide corrections and additions listed in this memorandum. 4.b. Submit a revised mitigation plan and mitigation plan sheet set for approval and conditioning by the City of Federal Way. 4.c. In order to comply with FWCC 22-1359(f)(5) Process IV Criterion 5 (Proposed buffer modification will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor to the city as a whole, including the loss of open space), square footage must be added to the existing buffer equal to the amount of the square footage lost to buffer modification. Permanent buffer losses include the proposed buffer reduction adjacent to the Crestview Phase 2 project, and any buffer loss associated with the placement of the buffer perimeter fence adjacent to the southeast parking lot of Phase 1 (near the southwest corner of the wetland). Buffer Doc. I.D. 38407 Review of revised Crestview II Process IV Application October 4, 2006 additions should be made preferentially between the outer edge of the existing buffer and existing and proposed pavement and structures of Crestview Phases 1 and 2. All additional square footage must be located on the wetland side of the buffer perimeter fence in order to count as buffer additions. Show the specific locations and square footage of buffer additions on all appropriate plan sheets. 4.d. Provide provisions for perpetual maintenance and repair of the dispersal trench by the owner or other appropriate entity. Dispersal trench maintenance procedures and schedules are outlined in Appendix A, Section 7 of the King County Surface Water Design Manual, both the 1993 and 2005 versions. In addition, provide provisions so that all negative impacts to the buffer resulting from outflow from the dispersal trench, retaining wall drains, and the secondary overflow structure from the stormwater vault shall be restored, replanted, maintained, and monitored by the property owner or other appropriate entity as directed by the City and their biologist. 4.e. Realign or redesign sections of the pedestrian trail south of Building J to avoid cutting down the two 12 inch hemlock trees (significant trees FWCC 22-1). These two trees are within the existing 100 foot wetland buffer. 41. The permanent split -rail buffer perimeter fence shall extend from the northern boundary all the way to the southern boundary of the Crestview Phase II parcel (to the southern end of the parking lot adjacent to Building 8 of Crestview Phase I). All additional buffer areas (to compensate for project -related buffer losses) shall be located on the wetland side of the fence. The location of the fence is subject to approval by the City and the City's Wetland Biologist. Once approved, the entire buffer perimeter fence shall be shown on all appropriate Site Plans, Landscape Plans, Civil Plans, and Mitigation Plans (e.g. Sheets Al.1, A1.2, Cl, C2, L-1, W1.0, W2.0, and W2.1). To minimize construction damage to the buffer, the buffer perimeter fence shall be constructed from the project side of the remaining buffer and additional buffer areas. 4.g. In order to comply with Core Requirement 1 of Section 2.0 Conditions and Requirements Summary of the Preliminary Technical Information Report (page 8), if they are graded, the recreation areas and landscaped areas behind buildings adjacent to the wetland buffer shall be graded to direct sheet flow into the buffer to help support wetland/wetland buffer vegetation. 4.h. Submit a revised landscape plan for approval and conditioning by the City of Federal Way. 4J. The City's wetland biologist shall review the Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Plans. 4 J. The City's wetland biologist shall review the final Technical Information Report (TIR). If you have any questions regarding this memorandum, please contact Suzanne Bagshaw at 425-739-7977 or at suzanne.bagshaw@otak.com Doc. I.D. 38407 .9 H . TA LASA EA CONSULTANTS, INC. 10 October 2006 Ms. Deb Barker Associate Planner City of Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South (PO Box 9718) Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 RECEIVED 8Y' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPAt7MEt-IT TAL-927 REFERENCE: Crestview II — Federal Way, WA SUBJECT: Addendum to Sensitive Areas Report and Mitigation Plan (05 May 2006) Dear Deb: Per your request, we are writing this addendum to our most recent report for the Crestview II project to address the types and amounts of stream setback intrusions that will occur under the current site development proposal. For the purposes of this addendum, we are assuming that the 100-foot wetland setback for the northern portion of the (where the stream generally parallels the project boundary) is also the 100-foot major stream setback. We are making this assumption for two reasons: 1) the stream setback is measured off of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the stream, and 2) the stream tends to braid out near the north portion of the property. It is entirely likely that the OHWM is at or near the extent of the surveyed wetland setback. The total wetland and stream setback intrusion for the project is approximately 25,520 square feet. Assuming the portion of setback impact that parallels the stream is stream setback, the total stream setback intrusion is approximately 11,376 square feet. The remaining approximately 14,144 square feet of intrusion is wetland setback. The sources of these intrusions are illustrated on Sheet W1.0, which is attached to the report. The stream setback intrusion is broken out by the source of each intrusion, such as recreation area, paved parking area, recreational trail, and buildings. The stormwater discharge intrusion is further broken out by dispersal trench and remainder stormwater setback intrusions (construction -related). These intrusions are contained on Table 1 below. Resource `& Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creel: Road Northeast • Woodinville, Washington 98077 • Bus: (425) 861-7550 • Fax: (425) 861- 7 549 Ms. Deb Barker 10/9/2006 Page 2 Table 1- Stream Setback Intrusions by Source Source of Setback Intrusion Building intrusion Driveway intrusion Recreational area intrusion Total Stormwater discharge intrusion (total) Area of Intrusion 2,266 square feet 2,821 square feet 3,337 square feet 2,952 square feet Intrusion due to drain field 1, 019 square feet Storm water discharge intrusions 1, 933 square feet (construction -related) Total stream setback intrusion 11,376 square feet This action is permitted under City of Federal Way Critical Areas Code (§ 22-1312). This portion of the code provides three mechanisms by which an intrusion into stream setback may occur: a. Essential public facilities, utilities and other public improvements, b. Minor improvements approved through Process III, or c. Other intrusions approved through Process IV. The pedestrian trail is considered a minor improvement under the city of Federal Way critical areas code §22-1312. Minor improvements may be located within the setback if approved Process III, Based on the following criteria: 1. It will not adversely affect water quality; The proposed pedestrian path will be paved with a porous material, such as wood chips. All incidental stormwater intercepted by the trail will be infiltrated through the trail's paving material. There will be no adverse effects to water quality. 2. It will not adversely affect the existing quality of wildlife habitat within the stream or setback the area; The proposed pedestrian path will be bordered with a variety of native trees and shrubs. Increasing the variety plant species within the setback will improve quality of wildlife habitat within the remaining setback area. 3. It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities; The proposed pedestrian path will be paved with a porous material. This material will not adversely affect stormwater retention capabilities drainage. All stormwater intercepted by the trail will be infiltrated through the trail. 4. It will not to lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards; Ms. Deb Barker 10/9/2006 Page 3 The setback area on either side of the pedestrian path will be planted native trees and shrubs. These plantings will help stabilize the soil and prevent erosion or unstable earth conditions. The trail will not be constructed through areas of existing steep slopes or unstable earth conditions. 5. It will not be materially detrimental to any other property nor to the city has a whole; The proposed pedestrian path will not be materially detrimental to any other property nor to the city as a whole. The trail construction is wholly on the subject property and any impacts from the construction will be limited to the subject property. This pedestrian path is required as an amenity by the City of Federal Way. and 6. It is necessary to correct any one of the adverse conditions specified in subsections (b)(1) through (b) (5) of this subsection. The existing quality of the wildlife habitat within the stream setback area is currently poor due to non-native weedy species such as Himalayan blackberry. Removal of noxious weedy species, as well as trash, debris, and limiting human access into the setback area, coupled with revegetation by desirable native trees and shrubs, will help improve the quality of the wildlife habitat within the stream setback area. Approximately 2,952 square feet of impact (pedestrian trail) to the stream setback qualify under §22-1312. The remainder of the stream setback intrusions for this project (approximately 8,424 square feet) must be approved through Process IV under §22-1313. The intrusions must meet six parameters: 1. It will not adversely affect water quality. The remaining stream buffer is already planned for improvement by enhancement planting with native trees and shrubs. Such plantings will help clean surface runoff water before entering the stream. Additionally, all stormwater runoff will be collected and treated on site using Best Management Practices. There will be no appreciable deterioration of water quality resulting from the stream buffer intrusion. 2. It will not adversely affect the existing quality of wildlife habitat within the stream or setback area. As stated above, the remaining stream buffer will be improved by planting native trees and shrubs. A goal of this planting is to increase species diversity and plant density while removing noxious weedy species. Increasing plant species diversity and plant density will create additional forage and habitat options for existing wildlife species on the property, possibly allowing new wildlife species to Ms. Deb Barker 10/9/2006 Page 4 _ utilize the area. 3. It will not adversely affect drainage and stormwater retention capabilities. All stormwater on the development site will be detained and slowly released in a controlled manner. The capabilities of the stormwater retention system have been designed to meet or exceed City requirements. 4. It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards. The area of buffer intrusion is not on a steep slope or based on soils of high erosion dangers. Furthermore, the extensive enhancements planned for the remaining buffer will increase soil stability through aerial intercept of precipitation and binding of soil by root systems. 5. It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property, nor to the city as a whole, including the loss of significant open space. Buffer enhancement measures are designed to prevent occurrences that could have detrimental effects to other properties. Additionally, the amount of stream setback intrusion is a small fraction of the total area on site that is being set aside as open space. 6. It is necessary for the reasonable development of the property. The stream setback intrusion indicated is the absolute minimum that will still provide for the economic development of the property in accordance with all applicable zoning and development codes for the City of Federal Way. We trust that the information provided here is sufficient for your current needs. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call Jason Walker or me at (425) 861 — 7550. Sincerely, TA SAEA CO S S, INC. David R. Teesdale Wetland Ecologist Cc. Greg Mckenna, F&M FILE CITY OF L Federal Way October 12, 2006 Greg McKenna F & M Development 17786 Des Moines Memorial Drive Burien, WA 98148 CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www. cityoffederalway. com RE: File #05-102533-00-UP; FORWARD TECHNICAL COMMENTS/SET MEETING, CRESTVIEW II Dear Mr. McKenna: The City has received technical comments from the City's wetland consultant for the above -referenced application. These comments were requested in order to prepare the staff report to the Hearing Examiner for proposed wetland buffer and stream buffer intrusions associated with development of the apartment complex. A copy of the October 4, 2006, memorandum from OTAK' is enclosed. As you can see, the comments are extensive and detailed. The City is interested in proceeding to the public hearing for the proposed intrusions, and would like to meet with you to go over the memorandum. The City would establish the timeline for the public hearing following the meeting. Both wetland consultants should attend the meeting as well as any other technical team members. The City's wetland consultant would provide clarification and answer questions about the technical memorandum. In order for the City's wetland consultant to attend the meeting, a $500 payment must be submitted.2 Please let me know as soon as possible if you are interested in meeting, and those dates that you and your team would be available. I can be reached at 253-835-2642 if you have any questions about this letter. Sincerely, gj�-&414� Deb Barker Senior Planner enc: OTAK comments dated October 4, 2006 c: Suzanne Bagshaw, OTAK Kevin Peterson, Public Works Engineer 1 Formerly Sheldon and Associates. 2 The $500 would pay for a two hour meeting, two hours of travel, and overhead. 05-102533 Doc, I.D. 38367 CITY OF L Federal Way October 17, 2006 Mr. Greg McKenna F & M Development 17786 Des Moines Memorial Drive Burien, WA 98148 CITY HALLFILE 33325 8th Avenue South Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com RE: File #05-102533-00-UP; CRESTVIEW II HEARING - OUTSTANDING WETLAND REPORT ITEMS Dear Mr. McKenna: On October 12, 2006, the City forwarded to your attention October 4, 2006 comments, prepared by OTAK, the City's wetland consultant, regarding the Crestview II wetland report. Both you and your wetland consultant verbally affirmed that the wetland plans can be modified to address the OTAK comments. Based on your response to the OTAK comments, and in the interest of time, outstanding items from the OTAK memo that must be addressed before the City will set the hearing date are identified as follows: 1) Provide written confirmation that prior to issuance of any construction permits for the multi- family housing project, all applicable plans and documents will be revised to address all items resulting from the October 4, 2006 OTAK memorandum. 2) Revise wetland plan sheets W1.0, W2.0, and W2.1 prepared by Talasaea Inc. to demonstrate that there is no net loss of wetland buffer, including revised impact and mitigation area (summarized under item 4C, page 24 of the OTAK memo). Buffer additions should be located between the outer edge of the existing wetland buffer and the proposed (and existing) Crestview development pavement and structures. All additional square footage must be located on the wetland side of the buffer fence to count as buffer addition. 3) Revise wetland plan sheets W1.0 and W2.0 to relocate the trail adjacent to building J to avoid cutting down two 12-inch hemlock trees (summarized under item 4e, page 24 of the OTAK memo). 4) Revise wetland plan sheets W1.0, W2.0, and W2.1 to show the wetland buffer fence extending to the southern edge of the property per item 2.a.6 page 13 of the memo (summarized under item 4F, page 24 of the OTAK memo). 5) Provide a written addendum to identify existing conditions of the wetland buffer and the stream buffer areas proposed for intrusions (identified in item Lb.1, page 3 of the OTAK memo). Following receipt and staff review of the above -referenced items, the City will notify you of the Process IV hearing date.'Please note that notice of the public hearing is sent to property owners within 300 feet of Mr. McKenna October 17, 2006 Page 2 the subject site, to parties of record, and to the Federal Way Mirror, serving as the City's official newspaper, a minimum of two weeks before the hearing date.' Therefore, in order to proceed, please submit four (4) copies of the revised plan pages and requested cot7espondence along with the enclosed resubuillial form. I can be reached at 253-835-2642 if you have any questions about this letter. Sincerely, aw4-- Deb Barker Senior Planner enc: Resubmittal form c: Suzanne Bagshaw, OTAK Kevin Peterson, Public Works Engineer 1 The Federal Way Mirror is published on Wednesdays and Saturdays; publication deadlines are up to three days before the publication date. 05-102533 Doc LD 38439 CITY OF Federal Way DATE: October 16, 2006 TO: File FROM: Deb Barker SUBJECT: CRESTVIEW II - UP4 - (05-102533-00-UP) *NO SITE ADDRESS* MEMORANDUM Community Development Services Department Prior to establishing hearing date, the following must be received: 1) Provide a written confirmation that the applicant will address all items within the October 3, 2006 Otak memorandum. 2) Revise the plan to show that there is no net loss of wetland buffer. To this end, active recreation activities must be removed from the wetland buffer, although the trail can remain. 3) Revise the plan to show the trail relocated to stay outside of the wetland buffer to the extent possible. This means that 4) Revise the plan to show the fence extending to the southern edge of the property 5) Provide an addendum to address the existing condition of the wetland and stream buffer proposed for intrusions. Deb Barker,- RE: Crestview - 5 points - — -- Page 1 From: "Suzanne Bagshaw" <suzanne.bagshaw@otak.com> To: "Deb Barker"<Deb.Barker@cityoffederalway.com> Date: 10/16/2006 6:11:32 PM Subject: RE: Crestview - 5 points Deb, It must be Murphy's law, just as I was about to reply, my computer shut down for updates and then I had problems restarting it. I just have a couple of suggestions to flesh out the points: 2) Revise the wetland plan to show that there is no net loss of wetland buffer. (Item 4C from page 24 of your memo). Buffer additions should be made preferentially between the outer edge of the existing buffer and existing and proposed pavement and structures of Crestview Phases 1 and 2. All additional square footage must be located on the wetland side of the buffer perimeter fence in order to count as buffer additions. 4) Revise the wetland plan to show the fence extending to the southern edge of the property (Item 4F page 24 of your memo). The buffer perimeter fence must be located according to item 2.a.6 page 13 in the memo. Suzanne -----Original Message ----- From: Deb Barker[ma ilto: Deb. Barker@cityoffederalway.com] Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 4:53 PM To: Suzanne Bagshaw Subject: Crestview - 5 points Suzanne - Please confirm that these are the items that require revision before the Crestview hearing date is set. 1) Provide a written confirmation that the applicant will address all items from the October 4, 2006 Otak memorandum before construction permits are issued. 2) Revise the wetland plan to show that there is no net loss of wetland buffer. (Item 4C from page 24 of your memo). 3) Revise the wetland plan to relocate the trail adjacent to building J to avoid cutting down two 12-inch hemlock trees (Item 4e page 24 of your memo). 4) Revise the wetland plan to show the fence extending to the southern edge of the property (Item 4F page 24 of your memo). 5) Provide a written addendum to address the existing conditions of those wetland and stream buffers proposed for intrusion (item 1.b.1 page 3 of your memo). Regards Deb Barker Senior Planner, City of Federal Way PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-2642 copr TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC 27 October 2006 Ms. Deb Barker, Senior Planner City of Federal Way PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 RESUBMITTED O C T 2 7 2006 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY BUILDING DEPT. TAL-927 REFERENCE: Crestview II Development Proposal, File #05-102533-00-UP SUBJECT: Responses to 17 October 2006 letter, Crestview II Hearing — Outstanding Wetland Report Items. Dear Deb: Thank you for the abbreviated review comments (Items 1-5) provided in your 17 October 2006 letter. We appreciate this approach to allow a Process IV hearing to be scheduled in advance of addressing all items in the 4 October 2006 OTAK memo. A response to Item 1 of yourl7 October 2006 letter will be provided by Mr. McKenna directly. Items 2-4 of your letter are addressed in the enclosed revised plan set. Item 5 is addressed in this letter, in which we provide more detailed information relating to the exiting conditions of the proposed buffer impact areas and buffer addition areas. Items 2-4: 2) Revise wetland plan sheets W1.0, W2.0, and W2.1 prepared by Talasaea Inc. to demonstrate that there is no net loss of wetland buffer, including revised impact and mitigation area (summarized under item 4C, page 24 of the OTAK memo). Buffer additions should be located between the outer edge of the existing wetland buffer and the proposed (and existing) Crestview development pavement and structures. All additional square footage must be located on the wetland side of the buffer fence to count as buffer addition. Buffer addition areas are indicated on the enclosed plan set. 3) Revise wetland plan sheets W1.0 and W2.0 to relocate the trail adjacent to building J to avoid cutting down two 12-inch hemlock trees (summarized under item 4e, page 24 of the OTAK memo). The trail has been re -aligned to not conflict with the two 12-inch hemlock trees in question. 4) Revise wetland plan sheets W1.0, W2.0, and W2.1 to show the wetland buffer fence extending to the southern edge of the property per item 2.a.6 page 13 of the memo (summarized under item 4F, page 24 of the OTAK memo). Talasaea Consultants, Inc. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast 0 Woodinville, Washington 98077 ■ Bus: (425)861-7550 Fax: (425)861-7549 Ms. Deb Barker 26 October 2006 Page 2 of 4 The wetland buffer fence is indicated on the requested plan sheets to extend to the south property line. Item 5: 5) Provide a written addendum to identify existing conditions of the wetland buffer and the stream buffer areas proposed for intrusions (identified in item 1.b.1, page 3 of the OTAK memo). To respond to Item 5 we located eight sample points on the Crestview II site using GPS to describe the existing conditions of the wetland and stream buffer areas that will be impacted by the site development plan. By using GPS, it is relatively easy to relocate the photopoints in the field for verification purposes, if necessary. The general location of these points are shown on Sheet W1.0. Panorama photographs of each point are contained on Figures 1 through 9, and are attached to this letter herein. Five points are located in the areas of proposed buffer impact. These points are labeled PAN1 through PANS. PAN1 is located in the general vicinity of the storm water dispersal trench. PAN2 through PAN 5 are located at regular intervals through the remaining buffer area. Three points are located in areas proposed as buffer addition. These points are labeled BFADD1 through BFADD3. BUFFER REDUCTION/IMPACT AREA PAN1 The PAN1 photopoint (Figures 1 and 2) is located in the general vicinity of the stream buffer intrusion by the proposed storm water dispersal trench. Trees in the vicinity of PAN1 are dominated by big -leaf maple and red alder. Shrubs include red elderberry, salmonberry, trailing blackberry, and Himalayan blackberry. Herbs were not represented at this point. Trees were generally widely spaced with a large gap between the tree canopy and shrub canopy. Shrubs are generally dominated by Himalayan blackberry with trailing blackberry intertwining. There is some salmonberry interspersed with the blackberry. PAN2 The PAN2 photopoint (Figure 3) is located approximately 110 feet south of PAN1. This corresponds roughly with the area of stream buffer intrusion by the trail and parking lot. Trees in the vicinity of PAN2 include big -leaf maple, western hemlock, and red alder. Shrubs include vine maple, Indian plum, trailing blackberry, and salmonberry. Herbs include sword fern and lady fern. As with PAN1, trees are fairly widely spaced with a large gap between the tree canopy and shrub canopy. Unlike PAN1, Himalayan blackberry is sparsely present. Shrub density and coverage generally increases towards the east and is diminished to the west. Talasaea Consultants, Inc. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast ■ Woodinville, Washington 98077 • Bus: (425)861-7550 Fax: (425)861-7549 Ms. Deb Barker 26 October 2006 Page 3 of 4 PAN3 The PAN3 photopoint (Figure 4) is approximately 120 feet south of PAN2. Trees in the vicinity of PAN3 include red alder and western hemlock. Red alder is the dominant tree species. Shrubs include vine maple, salal, western crabapple, Indian plum, salmonberry, trailing blackberry, and mountain ash. Herbs are represented by a small number of sword fern. Trees and shrubs in the vicinity of PAN3 are comparatively more dense with a good gradation between shrubs, sub -canopy, and tree canopy. Dense aerial coverage by trees and shrubs is likely preventing the establishment of persistent herbaceous vegetation. Our site visit was conducted earlier this week, in the fall, which will not indicate the possible existence of early blooming herbs (those that take advantage of spring sunlight before trees and shrubs leaf out). PAN4 The PAN4 photopoint (Figure 5) is located approximately 110 feet southwest of PAN3. Trees in the vicinity of PAN4 include western hemlock, red alder, and a small number of sapling big -leaf maples. Shrubs included red elderberry, salmonberry, trailing blackberry, Indian plum, red huckleberry, and salal. Herbs include wall lettuce, sword fern, and creeping buttercup. The vegetation in the area to the north and west of this point is generally open. Trees in this area are widely spaced and existing shrubs are very low growing. Shrubs to the north and west consist mainly of trailing blackberry. There are very few herbs growing to the north and west. Shrub and herb density generally increases to the south and east, but is still quite openly spaced in comparison to the buffers at PAN3. This are showed signs of human intrusion and use during site visits in 2005. PAN5 The PAN5 photopoint (Figure 6) is located approximately 115 feet west southwest of PAN4. Trees in this area include western hemlock, Douglas fir, red alder, with big -leaf maple making up a very minor component. Shrubs include salal, trailing blackberry, mountain ash, beaked hazelnut, Douglas spiraea, Indian plum, English ivy, and English holly. Herbs are not represented at this photopoint. Trees and shrubs were sparse and open from east to west when facing north. The condition is similar to that of PAN4. English ivy and holly are apparent to the northwest. The ivy has begun to climb trees, but accounts for a small proportion of the total area. One holly shrub exists at this area. Signs of human disturbance is more evident at this point. BUFFER ADDITION AREAS BFADD1 The BFADD1 photopoint (Figure 7) is located near the southwest property corner in an area of steep slopes. This area drops off sharply approximately 30 feet from the Crestview I parking lot. Trees include big -leaf maple and red alder with adolescent -aged alder being the dominant tree. Shrubs include bitter cherry, Himalayan blackberry, Indian plum, trailing blackberry, and black hawthorn. Herbs are not represented at this photopoint. Himalayan blackberry is Talasaea Consultants, Inc. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast • Woodinville, Washington 98077 ■ Bus: (425)861-7550 Fax: (425)861-7549 Ms. Deb Barker 26 October 2006 Page 4 of 4 the dominant shrub up to the steep slope. Downslope, Himalayan blackberry is less pronounced and other shrub species filled in (Indian plum, etc). The hawthorn and cherry are found near the vegetation margin next to the Crestview I parking lot. BFADD2 The BFADD2 photopoint (Figure 8) is located in a triangular area defined by the southwest property boundary, approximately 120 feet south of BFADD1. Trees include big -leaf maple, weeping willow, red alder, and black cottonwood. Shrubs are dominated by Himalayan blackberry with some scattered Indian plum. Herbs are represented by one Watson's willowherb. Trees are widely spaced in the vicinity of this photopoint. Almost the entire area is colonized by Himalayan blackberry. The dominant tree species is red alder. BFADD3 The BFADD3 photopoint (Figure 9) is located near the southeast property corner, approximately 220 feet east of BFADD2. Trees in the vicinity of this point included big -leaf maple, red alder, Douglas fir, and western hemlock. Shrubs include salal, mountain ash, Himalayan blackberry, laurel cherry, and trailing blackberry. Herbs include sword fern stinging nettle, and Watson's willowherb. Trees are widely spaced throughout the vicinity, with the conifer species being prominent to the north near the wetland area. Alder is dominant to the south. Himalayan blackberry is also persistent throughout the area, but fairly low - growing and not extensively spaced. Sala/ is the dominant shrub species. Herbs are mostly dominated in wide patches by stinging nettle. Patches of Watson's willowherb also exist in the vicinity of the photopoint. We trust that the information presented herein is sufficient for your current needs to allow the scheduling of a Process IV hearing date. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact David Teesdale, Wetland Ecologist, or me at (425) 861-7550 Sincerely, TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. JL�Lserh Walker, ASLA Senior Project Manager Attachments cc. Greg McKenna Talasaea Consultants, Inc. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Beat Creek Road Northeast • Woodinville, Washington 98077 • Bus: (425)861-7550 Fax: (425)861-7549 Deb Barker -RE: Crestview II (TAL-927) , ^ Page 1 From: "Jason Walker" <jwalker@talasaea.com> To: "Deb Barker" <Deb.Barker@cityoffederalway.com> Date: 11 /1 /2006 12:09:39 PM Subject: RE: Crestview II (TAL-927) Hi Deb, The area of temporary buffer intrusion to be restored due to impacts caused as a result of construction the stormwater vault is 1,511 square feet. The remainder of the temporary intrusion (1,886 square feet) is located at the stormwater dispersal area for construction access. Jason Walker, RLA, ASLA Senior Project Manager TALASAEA CONSULTANTS. INC 15020 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, WA 98077 Office: (425) 861-7550 Fax: (425) 861-7549 jwalker@talasaea.com -----Original Message ----- From: Jason Walker Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 2:13 PM To: 'Deb Barker' Subject: RE: Crestview II (TAL-927) Hi Deb, Attached is a PDF if the revised overview with the corrected buffer instruction area, also indicating that buffer replacement would occur at a slightly greater than 1:1 ratio. Sorry for not seeing that this hatch was off on the last set; I also updated the numbers on this plan. Let me know if this is adequate to get our hearing scheduled, and if I can provide you with any further info. Should I have Greg also drop off 4 sets of the W 1.0 sheet to replace the ones in your submittal sets? Thanks again, Jason Walker, RLA, ASLA Senior Project Manager TALASAEA CONSULTANTS. INC 15020 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, WA 98077 Office: (425) 861-7550 Fax: (425) 861-7549 jwalker@talasaea.com -----Original Message ----- From: Deb Barker[mailto: Deb. Barker@cityoffedera lway.com] Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 12:28 PM To: Greg McKenna; Jason Walker Subject: RE: Crestview II (TAL-927) Thanks for the e-mail Jason. I'll review the hard copies if not late today then Monday. Deb Barker - RE: Crestview 11 (TAL-927.} r 4 Page j Regards - Deb Barker Senior Planner; City of Federal Way PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-971.8 (253) 835-2642 deb.barker@cityoffederalway.com >>> "Jason Walker" <jwalker@talasaea.com> 10/27/2006 11:56 AM >>> Our response letter and attachments are included herein in electronic form. Paper copies are in route for submittal this afternoon with the proper resubmittal form and transmittal from Mr. McKenna. Jason Walker, RLA, ASLA Senior Project Manager TALASAEA CONSULTANTS. INC 15020 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, WA 98077 Office: (425) 861-7550 Fax: (425) 861-7549 jwalker@talasaea.com Deb Barker - RE: Crestview II (TAL-927) 1 Page From: "Jason Walker" <jwalker@talasaea.com> To: "Deb Barker"<Deb.Barker@cityoffederalway.com> Date: 11 /1 /2006 12:13:45 PM Subject: RE: Crestview II (TAL-927) Following are the Goals and Objectives as shown on Sheet W1.0 Jason Walker, RLA, ASLA Senior Project Manager TALASAEA CONSULTANTS. INC 15020 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, WA 98077 Office: (425) 861-7550 Fax: (425) 861-7549 jwalker@talasaea.com The following goal, objectives, and performance standards will be evaluated to ensure success of the mitigation project. Goal 1: To mitigate for 17,560 square feet of permanent wetland and stream buffer intrusion, the proposed project will enhance a minimum of 64,454 square feet of buffer (including 3,397 square feet of buffer restoration) and add 19,062 square feet of additional buffer to provide no net loss of buffer area. The proposed mitigation measures will be evaluated through the following objectives and performance standards. Objective 1A: Increase the diversity of woody vegetation species in the wetland and stream buffer areas where intrusions and modification are proposed in order to increase the value of the natural biological support function. Performance Standard: In the wetland and stream buffer areas where planting enhancements are proposed, percent survival of planted woody species must be at least 100% at the end of Year 1, and at least 85% at the end of the monitoring period. Objective 1 B: Incorporate habitat features (i.e., bird nest boxes, down logs and brush piles) into the enhanced buffer areas to improve stormwater energy dissipation, wildlife habitat and increase the value of the natural biological support function. Performance Standard: In the wetland and stream buffer enhancement areas where planting enhancements are proposed, there will be at least 5 swallow nesting boxes installed on existing large trees. Boxes shall be provided where feasible, and without damaging existing vegetation. Down logs and stumps will be placed in the outer edges of the modified buffers. These habitat features will only be placed where large equipment is able to access without causing significant disturbance to the buffers. Objective 1 C: Remove and control invasive plants to less than 10% cover in the Deb Barker - RE: Crestview 11 (TAL-927) enhanced or restored buffer areas. Performance Standard: After construction and following every monitoring event, exotic and invasive plant species will be maintained at levels below the percentage of total cover in the mitigation areas. These species include Scot's broom, Himalayan and evergreen blackberry, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, hedge bindweed, Japanese knotweed, English ivy, Canada thistle, and creeping nightshade. Goal 2: Discourage inappropriate pedestrian use of sensitive areas and remove existing debris within the on -site wetland, stream and buffer by providing maintenance and appropriate pedestrian amenities and experiences relating to sensitive areas. Objective 2A: Provide a pedestrian pathway at the outer edge of the buffer with and plant the outer edge of the buffer with thicket -forming vegetation to discourage pedestrian access into the sensitive areas. Performance Standard: Maintain the pathway and remove debris within the sensitive areas throughout the maintenance period. Objective 213: Provide informational signage at approximately 100-foot intervals along the outer edge of the buffer. Performance Standard: Maintain the signage throughout the maintenance period- Deb Barker - Crestview, Functions and Valves (TAL-927) From: "Jason Walker" <jwalker@talasaea.com> To: "Deb Barker"<Deb.Barker@cityoffederalway.com> Date: 11 /6/2006 12:24:19 PM Subject: Crestview, Functions and Values (TAL-927) Hi Deb, We have conducted some review regarding your comment relating to our functions and values analysis. Our report is very brief on the topic because the changes or improvements are not drastic and basically show that, at the level of resolution that the SAM method is capable of, we are not destroying the available habitat with the net result of the project. Our study will need some clean-up before it goes back for final review. A summary of our Functions and Values Assessment on the existing and predicted buffer conditions is contained on Table 3, not Table 1, in our most recent report. A previous submittal of our report contained only one table, which included a summary of existing and predicted functions and values. We modified our most recent report to reflect the level of information required in accordance with comments and suggestions by Susan Bagshaw (formerly of Sheldon and Associates, now with OTAK). We added two additional tables before the functions and values table; but did not modify all references to that table in the rest of the report. We also noted some discrepancies in Table 3 during our review of the latest report in response to your questions and the recent OTAK memo. The original Functions and Values table included scores based on a previous mitigation scheme that included improvements within the onsite stream and wetland. These improvements were removed for our most recent submittal (focusing now on buffer restoration and enhancement at the areas of impact) and the predicted functions and values on Table 3 were modified accordingly. Unfortunately, we did not modify the associated Functional Value Categories (e.g. Low, Low - Moderate, etc.). These have been corrected and will be part of our next submittal. Due to the limitations within the scoring of the quantitative method that focus on wetland functions (and not buffers) our mitigation plan does not address factors likely to show quantifiable improvements to Flood/Stormwater Control, Baseflow/Groundwater Support, Erosion/Shoreline Protection, or Water Quality Improvements. These functions would be affected more if significant mitigation were proposed within the wetland and stream, but are not part of the current mitigation plan. However, removal of noxious weedy species and planting a variety of native trees and shrubs under the current mitigation plan will qualitatively improve the biological habitat and the ability to support a variety of different types of wildlife. These changes are indicated by the incremental improvements in Natural Biological Support and Overall Habitat Functions. Specific habitat functions do not show an increase because certain categories of specific habitat identified by Deb Barker - Crestview, Functions and Values (TAL-927) Page 2 SAM, namely invertebrates and fish, were not components of the buffer mitigation plan and the remaining areas are already showing higher levels of functioning (birds and mammals). The SAM method is not sensitive enough to show incremental increases in functioning of habitat characteristics at the area of improvement that is being proposed. The failure of SAM to indicate improvement does not in any way suggest that there is will be no net improvement to the natural system. Removal of noxious weedy species and replacement by a variety of native shrubs and trees will undoubtedly provide more habitat potential for birds and mammals that is currently available onsite, mitigating for proposed disturbances, and will restore the areas of pre-existing disturbance. Please let me know if this answers your question. Jason Walker, RLA, ASLA Senior Project Manager TALASAEA CONSULTANTS. INC 15020 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, WA 98077 Office: (425) 861-7550 Fax: (425) 861-7549 jwalker@talasaea.com <mailto:jwalker@talasaea.com> CITY OF Federal IN OPMv OPAi'''` Page - 1 20p6 December 15, 2006 Jason Walker 15020 Bear Creak Road NE Woodinville, WA 98077 CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South • PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com RE: CRESTVIEW II WETLAND AND STREAM BUFFER INTRUSIONS Dear Applicant: Enclosed please find the Report and Decision of the City of Federal Way Hearing Examiner relating to the above -entitled case. Very truly yours, MARK E. HURDELBRINK DEPUTY HEARING EXAMINER MEH/dd cc: All parties of record City of Federal Way Page - 2 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER IN THE MATTER OF FWHE# CRESTVIEW II WETLAND AND STREAM ) FW# 05-102533-00-UP BUFFER INTRUSIONS ) Related File # Process IV ] I. SUMMARY OF APPLICATION The applicant is requesting to intrude the 100-foot wetland buffer associated with both the Category II wetland and the major stream for development of a new apartment complex and associated site improvements. II. PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Hearing Date: November 21, 2006 Decision Date: December 14, 2006 At the hearing the following presented testimony and evidence: 1. Deb Parker, City of Federal Way, Associate Planner 2. Jason Walker, Talasaea Consultants, Inc., 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast, Woodinville, WA 98077 3. Greg McKenna, F & M Development, PO Box 66826, Seattle, WA 98166 At the hearing the following exhibits were admitted as part of the official record of these proceedings: 1. Staff Report with all attachments 2. Power Point presentation III. FINDINGS 1. The Hearing Examiner has heard testimony, admitted documentary evidence into the record, viewed the site and taken this matter under advisement. Page - 3 2. The Community Development Staff Report sets forth general findings, applicable policies and provisions in this matter and is hereby marked as Exhibit "1" with attachments and hereby incorporated in its entirety by this reference. 3. All appropriate notices were delivered in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Way City Code (FWCC). 4. The applicant is proposing to develop an 11.6-acre site into 112 apartment units. Improvements include a total of thirteen buildings for the apartment units, a recreational building, swimming pool and play area, 197 parking stalls and site improvements including an underground stormwater detention vault, pedestrian trail, recreational open space, and landscaping. The site is located on the east side of Pacific Highway South, just south of South 279th Street. The applicant is proposing to intrude into the 100-foot buffer associated with both a Category II wetland and a major stream that buffers both of those. 5. Both temporary and permanent impacts will occur to the wetland buffer and stream setback buffer. The total square footage of permanent impact will be 17,560 square feet, and the total square footage of temporary intrusion will equal 3,397 square feet. The intrusions are necessary to construct some of the improvements. The proposal is to enhance 64,454 square feet of buffer areas not affected by the development activity. The applicant also proposes to enhance 7,641 square feet of the buffer with a passive recreation area, along with creating 19,062 square feet of wetland buffer that will replace the area permanently impacted. Both the applicant and the City's wetland consultant have identified the required Mitigation Measures. 6. The stream and wetland buffer intrusions are subject to different criteria which must be analyzed separately. The proposal is also subject to Process IV review, in addition to the intrusion criteria. 7. This proposal is adjacent to a stream designated as a major stream by the Federal Way City Code. The areas adjacent to the stream consist of native evergreen and deciduous trees combined with low native shrub canopies. Development will permanently and temporarily affect said areas as follows: Parking area: A 40-foot long section of the parking lot extends into the stream setback. The area of intrusion is estimated at 2,821 square feet. Recreational open space: Approximately one-half (1/2) of an 80-foot wide section Page - 4 located on the east is designated as Building E. This building will intrude into the stream buffer, and the area used for informal recreational activities. The total estimated intrusion will be 3,337 square feet. Stormwater vault: The applicant is proposing to construct an underground stormwater vault. Portions of the vault within the setback will include the vault access, manholes, retaining wall, and the dispersal infiltration tank. Pedestrian path: A trail system proposed within the setback area of the stream and wetland will impact about 2,952 square feet of stream setback area. Temporary intrusion into the stream setback area is necessary to construct the detention vault and connecting storm lines. 8. The decisional criteria for stream setbacks is set forth in Federal Way City Code Section (FWCC) 22-1312(F). Findings on each of these criteria are hereby made as follows: A. The project will not adversely affect water quality. All stormwater runoff will be collected into a detention vault for treatment and controlled discharge. The pedestrian path will consist of material that will filter stormwater runoff. A temporary erosion control plan is required prior to the trail construction to ensure there are no problems with runoff. The applicant will improve the buffer in other areas by planting, which will further improve water quality. B. The project will not adversely affect the existing quality of wildlife habitat within the stream or setback area. The applicant will enhance the current buffer area which will improve the wildlife habitat. The intrusion into the stream buffer will be minimal. Overall, the wildlife habitat will have improved areas, and fauna will flourish more as a result of this proposal. C. The intrusion will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities. The stormwater facility meets the criteria of the King County Surface Water Design Manual. There is no indication that there will be any problems with construction pursuant to the regulations. Page - 5 D. The intrusion will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards. No slide areas or extreme topographical issues occur within the site. The Temporary Erosion Control Plan (TESC) will ensure that during construction erosion will not occur. 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. The project will have an overall positive effect on the area as the stream buffers will be enhanced. There will be fairly minimal intrusion into the buffers, and the trail will enhance this area. F. It is necessary for reasonable development of the subject property. The applicant proposes a multi -family housing development. Certainly the applicant could downsize the property, but the property must be economically viable. The density is not maximized, and the proposal is a reasonable development given the zoning and the site constraints. 9. FWCC Section 22-1359 specifies certain criteria that must be satisfied prior to intrusions into wetland buffers. Findings on each criteria are hereby made as follows: A. It will not adversely affect water quality. All stormwater runoff will be collected into a detention vault for treatment and controlled discharge. The pedestrian path is made of material that will filter runoff. A temporary erosion control plan is required prior to the trail construction to ensure there are no problems with runoff. The applicant will improve the buffer in other areas by planting, and such will further the water quality rather than hurt. B. It will not adversely affect the existing quality of the wetland's or buffer's habitat. The current wetland buffer does not provide good quality habitat. Proposed Page - 6 enhancements will help the overall buffer and the habitat within the buffer. Fencing placed along the trail will help in deterring individuals from intruding into the wetland buffer which will further help habitat in the area. C. It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities. As noted above, the stormwater facility is subject to the King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). Improving and enhancing the buffer will help in the overall drainage in this area. D. It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards. As noted above, this area is topographically relatively flat and does not have steep slopes or hillsides. The TESC plan will ensure that there are no erosion problems. 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. There will be no detriment to any other property in the area or to the City as a whole. The area will be improved as a result of this proposal. Enhancement of the existing buffers and replacement of buffers that will be intruded upon will have a positive effect. The trail will also allow for individuals to enjoy this area. 10. Prior to obtaining approval to intrude into wetland and stream setbacks, the applicant must show that the project satisfies the criteria set forth in Section 22- 445(c) FWCC. Findings on each criteria are hereby made as follows: A. The proposal complies with the FWCC which designates the parcel for multi- family use. Assuming compliance with conditions of approval, encroachments into environmentally sensitive areas will allow development of the site consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in a manner which will improve the overall buffers and habitat. Compliance with conditions will also insure that the project meets Comprehensive Plan policies which encourage the preservation of the City's natural systems, the restoration of ecological functions, the preservation, protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat, and site planning that compliments natural land forms. Page - 7 B. The project is consistent with applicable provisions of Chapter 22 FWCC (Zoning) and the Process IV request satisfies all criteria set forth in FWCC Sections 22-1312 and 22-1359. C. The project is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare as with the creation of 19,062 square feet of new wetland buffer, the project will result in no net loss of buffer and the wetland enhancement and trails will provide opportunities to improve the public health. D. City streets and utilities in the area of the subject property are adequate to serve the anticipated demand. E. The City has assured that access to the subject property is at the optimal location and configuration. IV. CONCLUSIONS From the foregoing findings the Hearing Examiner makes the following conclusions: 1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to consider and decide the issues presented by this request. 2. The applicant has established that the request for both permanent and temporary intrusions into a wetland and major stream buffer satisfy all criteria set forth in Section 22-1312, 22-1359, and 22-445 FWCC and therefore should be approved subject to the following condition: 1. Prior to issuance of construction permits related to any work associated with the Crestview II development application, the applicant shall incorporate all recommendations from the October 4, 2006 OTAK Technical Memorandum, into applicable construction related documents for review and approval by City staff, and including verification/peer review funded by the applicant. DECISION: The request to permanently and temporarily intrude into 100 foot wide buffers associated with both a Category II wetland and major stream to allow development of a new multi -family complex at a site located on the east side of Pacific Highway South, south of 272"d Street within the City of Federal Way is hereby granted Page - 8 subject to the condition contained in the conclusions above. DATED this day of December, 2006. MARK E. HURDELBRINK Deputy Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED this __ day of December, 2006, to the following: APPLICANT: Jason Walker 15020 Bear CreekRoad NE Woodinville, WA 98077 Greg McKenna PO Box 66826 Seattle, WA 98166 FILE_ CITY OF Federal Way Crestview II Wetland and Stream Buffer Intrusions Analysis Required by FWCC Section 22-1312 and FWCC Section 22-1359 Federal Way File #05-102533-00-UP (Process IV Application) I. BACKGROUND The applicant proposes to develop the' 11.6-acre site with 112 apartment units in thirteen buildings, with recreation building, swimming pool and play area, 197 parking stalls, and site improvements including an underground stormwater detention vault, pedestrian trail, recreation open space and landscaping (Exhibit A). Critical areas include a regulated Category H wetland wrapping- the east and south portions of the site; a major stream on the east side of the site, and slopes m excess of 40 percent on the south side of the site. The applicant proposes intrusions into the 100-foot buffer associated with both the Category II wetland and the major stream with development of the new apartment complex. The following information was submitted by the applicant in response to critical areas code requirements: • "Sensitive Areas Report and Mitigation Plan" prepared by Talasaea Consultants, Inc. dated May25, 2005, revised date March 29, 2006, and revised May 5, 2006' for the subject site (Exhibit A-1);' • Addendum to Sensitive Areas Report and Mitigation Plan prepared by Talasaea dated October 10, 2006 (ExhibitA-2); • Addendum: `Responses to 17 October 2006 letter, outstanding wetland report items' prepared by Talasaea, dated October 27, 2006 (ExhibitA-3); • `Temporary Buffer Intrusion' e-mail prepared by Jason Walker, Talasaea dated November 1, 2006 (ExhibitA-4); • `Goals and Objectives' e-mail prepared by Jason Walker', Talasaea dated November 1, 2006 (Exhibit A-S); • `Functions and values' e-mail from Jason Walker, Talasaea dated November '6, 2006 (Exhibit A-6); • Wetland Mitigation plans prepared by Talasaea Consultants; Inc. titled "Detailed Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan" .dated May 25, 2005, and revised November 2� 2005, March 29, May 5, 2006, and November 7, 2006 including Cover sheet and Overview plan, Planting Plan, Plant Schedule, Planting Plan and Site Details, and Planting Specifications and Details (Exhibits. B-1 to B- 4); ■ Preliminary Technical. Information Report (TIR) dated May 2005, revised date March 2006 prepared by Sound Engineering, Inc. (SEI) (Exhibit (7); • Preliminary Utility Plan prepared by SEI dated July 13, 2006 (Exhibit D-1); • Preliminary Vault Cross_ Sections prepared by SEI dated July 13, 2006 (Exhibit D-2); • Landscape plan prepared by Lynn William Horn & Associates, LLC dated May 19, 2005, revised February 22, and May 4, 2006 (Exhibit E), and • Overall and Enlarged Site Plan prepared by Ross Deckman Architects, dated May 19, 2005, revised July 12, 2006 (Exhibit F1-F2). 1 One full size set of plans is provided to the Hearing Examiner, all others are reduced scale 1 Ix17 The applicant has proposed to intrude into the wetland and stream buffers associated with site development as follows: A) Request to permanently intrude into the 100400t setback from a major stream with portions of a parking lot, recreational open space, storm drainage system, and pedestrian trail; and to temporarily intrude into the 100. foot setback of the major stream during construction of the storm drainage system. Permanent intrusions range from twenty to fifty.feet into the stream buffer. B) Request to permanently intrude into the 100-foot setback from a Category H wetland with portions of a parking lot, recreational and passive open space areas, storm drainage systems, wetland buffer enhancement, and pedestrian trail; and to temporarily intrude into the 100-foot setback of the Category 11 wetland during construction of the storm drainage system. Permanent intrusions range from ten to thirty-five feet into the wetland buffer. Overall, the Crestview II apartment complex proposal encompasses approximately 17,560 square feet of permanent impacts to wetland and stream setback areas associated with the proposal; 3,397 square feet of temporary buffer intrusions; 64,454 square feet of buffer enhancement within areas not affected by development activity; 7,641 square feet of buffer enhancement area within a passive recreation area, and 19,062 square feet of wetland buffer replacement area created. A discussion of each request follows. Submitted reports and exhibits were forwarded to the City's wetland consultant Otak for technical review and analysis. They concluded their review in a technical memorandum dated October 4, 2006 (Exhibit G - OTAK Technical Memorandum), which has been reviewed and accepted by the applicant (Exhibit H - Letter from Greg McKenna dated October 27, 2006). II. THE REQUESTS Pursuant to the FW.CC, the following requests require Hearing Examiner review and approval under the provisions of Process IV. A. STREAM SETBACK INTRUSIONS Request to permanently intrude into the 100-foot setback from a major stream with portions of a parking lot, recreational open space, storm drainage system, and pedestrian trail; and to temporarily intrude into the 100-foot setback of the .major stream during construction of the storm drainage system. The stream located along the northeastern portion of the site has been identified as a major stream consistent with Federal Way City Code (FWCC) major stream definition. Major streams are regulated with 100-foot setback from the ordinary high water mark. The stream channel emerges from the central portion of the wetland and flows north. According to the Talasaea report, the ordinary high water mark of the stream is co -terminus with and within the delineated wetland edge. These features are located in the northeastern portion of the subject site. The stream flows off -site to the northeast, into piped systems that connect to public storm drainage systems in Star Lake Road and South 272"d Street. The stream flows into Mc$orley Creek, located north of South 272"d Street, ultimately discharging into Puget Sound. Hearing Examiner Staff Evaluation File #05-102533-UP/nog. m 37710 Crestview 11 Process IV Page 2 A Talasaea letter dated October 27, 2006 (Exhibit A-3), reports that existing conditions within the stream setback area include a combination of native evergreen and deciduous trees combined with low native shrub canopies. Generally, there are gaps between the tree and shrub canopy. Buffer disturbances are minimal as the stream corridor is more than 400 feet from the existing multi -family residential development to the west. According to the Talasaea report and addendums to the report, the setback of the major stream will be permanently disturbed with portions of the drive aisle and parking stalls; portions of a stormwater drainage system including connections to an underground vault, retaining wall and dispersal trench; a recreation open space area; and pedestrian pathway as well as associated clearing and grading. Temporary intrusions into the stream setback, and mitigated by site restoration, are proposed during construction of the storm drainage system, as follows: 1) Permanent Intrusions into the Stream Setback: Permanent intrusions into the 100-foot setback area'of the major stream have been identified as the following, and are generally discussed in the October 10, 2006, addendum to the Wetland Report prepared by Talasaea. Parking area: A forty -foot -long section of the easternmost parking lot extends into the stream setback, consisting of a twenty-five foot wide section of drive aisle, eight parking stalls, interior parking lot landscaping, and pedestrian corridors on both sides of the drive aisle. The permanent intrusion is estimated at 2,821 square feet within the stream setback area. Recreational open mac An eighty -foot -wide section east of Building E extending approximately forty feet into the stream buffer is proposed as a recreation open space that is usable for informal recreation activities. It is proposed to consist of lawn and non-native vegetation, and will be separated from the stream buffer by a fence lined with native vegetation. No play equipment will be installed in this open space. The permanent intrusion is estimated at 3,337 square feet within the stream setback area. Storrawater vault: The applicant has proposed to construct an underground stormwater vault at the southeast portion of the developed property, located fully under building G and the southerly recreation area. The vault system is adjacent to and partially within the stream setback area. Resulting permanent intrusions are as follows: Vault Access: A stormwater vault access pad extends approximately five feet into the stream buffer, and permanently impacts approximately 253 square feet of setback area. Access Manholes: Two 6-foot diameter flow control manholes are proposed intruding between 10 and 50 feet into the setback area of the stream. Retaining wall: A 130-foot-long retaining wall approximately 4.5 feet tall is proposed at the eastern end of the parking lot and the northern portion of the vault. The walls intrude into the stream setback area up to 40 feet. According to Table 2 of the Talasaea report,, the wall represents 435 square feet of permanent intrusion into the stream setback area. Hearing Examiner Staff Evaluation File #05-102533-UP/no-. I.D. 37710 Crestview 11 Process IV Page 3 Dispersal infiltration trench: Stormwater will sheetflow into the stream setback area from an 80-foot-long dispersal/infiltration trench proposed at the northern end of the setback area. The trench extends up to eighty feet into the setback area, and is approximately forty feet from the stream centerline. Approximately 1,000'square feet of setback area will be impacted during installation of the trench. Pedestrian Path: A pedestrian trail system is incorporated into the development proposal. A five -foot -wide wood chip trail is proposed to meander within the setback area of stream and associated Wetland A as depicted on plans dated November 7, 2006. The addendum to the report dated October 10, 2006, notes that the trail impacts 2,952 square feet of the stream setback area. Signage is proposed along the trail and a rail fence is proposed to separate the trail edge from the stream setback area. 2) Temporary Intrusions into the Stream Setback Area: Temporary intrusions into the stream setback area, including construction disturbances which will be mitigated in order to achieve no net loss of setback area, have been identified as the following: Detention vault: During installation of the detention vault, 1,511 square -foot portion of stream setback area will be disturbed with clearing and grading activities. The disturbed area will be restored with native vegetation. Connecting storm lines: During installation of stormwater dispersal area, 1,868 square feet of the stream setback area is proposed to be disturbed with clearing and grading activities. The disturbed area will be restored with native vegetation. Temporary and permanent intrusions into the stream setback area are reviewed under the provisions ofFWCC Section 22-1312(c) "Intrusion into Setbacks - Other Intrusions," and are subject to six decisional criteria. Refer to Section III below for a discussion of the criteria. B. WETLAND SETBACK INTRUSIONS Request to permanently intrude into the 100-foot buffer from Wetland A with portions of a parking lot, recreational and passive open space areas, storm drainage systems, wetland buffer enhancement, and pedestrian trail; and to temporarily intrude into the 100-foot buffer of Wetland A during construction of the storm drainage system. Wetland A has been identified as a Category II wetland, occupying the full eastern portion of the 11.6-acre site; extending from the north property line, co -terminus with the stream corridor, and filling the southern portion of the site. The wetland is 2.58 acres in size, and as a Category II wetland, is regulated under the FWCC with a 100-foot buffer. The proposed residential development and associated wetland buffer intrusions are primarily located in the western portion of the wetland buffer, with limited work proposed within the southern wetland buffer. According to the Talasaea report, Wetland A satisfies the criteria for characterization as a Cowardin Palustrine Forested wetland that is seasonally flooded (PFOJ). The reports notes that wetland vegetation includes red alder, black cottonwood, red osier dogwood, western crabapple; and slough sedge. Soils are characterized as fine sandy silt or muck. Hearing Examiner Staff Evaluation File 405-102533-UP/Doe. I.D.37710 Crestview 11 Process IV Page 4 Wetland A receives hydrologic support from two point -discharge areas located in the southeast and southwest portions of the site. An incised channel with eroded and undercut banks exists at the southeast discharge, while a culvert extends from the southwest discharge area: Drainage enters the wetland, flows north and eventually flows off site via the stream corridor that runs co -terminus with the northern portion of the wetland. Thewestern buffer of Wetland A was surveyed by Talasaea, Inc., and they report in the October 27, 2006 addendum (Exhibit A-3), that the buffer includes red alder, wetland hemlock, vine maple, salal, Indian Plum, elderberry, salmonberry, trailing blackberry mountain ash, and sword fern. Coverage ranges from comparatively dense with good gradation between shrubs and trees to sparse when adjacent to human disturbances. Buffer degradation is the result of non-native invasive species, loss of vegetative cover from shrubs and trees, human modification of the buffer with existing trails, trash and debris. The Talasaea report quantifies functions and values for Wetland A using the Semi -Quantitative - Modified Report Method (SAM). Section 7.2.1 reveals that Wetland A scored in the low to moderate range for assessed functions with flood/stormwater control; base flow/ground water support and water quality improvement function rated low because the riverine type of wetland does not store significant amounts of water. Erosion/shoreline protection function rated moderate; natural biological support and habitat function low to moderate; and cultural/socioeconomic values rated low. Ratings are listed in table 3 of the report and a clarification to the SAM provided in a November 6, 2006 e-mail (Exhibit A-6). According to the wetland report, the buffer of Wetland A will be permanently disturbed with portions of a drive aisle and parking stalls; installation of stormwater drainage systems; retaining walls; pedestrian path; and recreation open space, -and associated clearing and grading as follows: 1. Permanent Intrusions into the Wetland Buffer: Parking area: A 40-foot-long section of the parking lot extends into the wetland buffer, consisting of a 25-foot-wide section of drive aisle, eight parking stalls, interior parking lot landscaping and pedestrian corridors on both sides of the drive aisle, and permanently impacts approximately 2,744 square feet of the wetland buffer. Section 6.4.1 of the wetland report discusses the proposed intrusion. Passive and Active Open Space: Two recreational open space areas for active open space and one area of passive open space are proposed to intrude into the wetland buffer. Active recreation will be available within the northerly recreation area east of building E and the southerly recreation area south and east of building G. Both of the areas will consist of lawn and non-native vegetation, and will be separated from the wetland buffer by the five- foot pedestrian trail and fence. The Talasaea report states that 6,275 square feet of the wetland buffer will be impacted by the active recreation open spaces. A 7,641 square -foot portion of wetland buffer south of buildings H and J will be established as a passive recreation area. This area runs perpendicular to and south of the pedestrian trail, is no more than fifteen foot deep, and will consist of enhanced wetland buffer vegetation. The passive nature of the open space experience will be the visual observation into and through the wetland buffer; no development activity will occur. Hearing Examiner Staff Evaluation File #05-102533-UP/o«. 1.D.37710 Crestview 11 Process 1V Page 5 Stormwater vault: The underground stormwater vault at the southeast portion is adjacent to and partially within the buffer of Wetland A. Resulting permanent intrusions are proposed as follows: • Vault Entry: Stormwater vault access pad extends approximately five feet into the Wetland A buffer, and the area of impact is 253 square feet. + Access Manholes: Two 6-foot diameter flow control manholes are proposed along the storm drainage system, intruding between 10 and 50 feet into the buffer of Wetland A. • Retaining wall: A 130-foot-long retaining wall approximately 4.5 feet tall is proposed at the eastern end of the parking lot and the northern portion of the vault, and will intrude into the wetland buffer up to forty feet., The wall represents 435 square feet of permanent intrusion into the wetland buffer. • Dispersal trench: An eighty -foot -long dispersal/infiltration trench is proposed to intrude up to eighty feet into the northern end of the buffer. Approximately 1,000 square feet of buffer will be impacted during installation of the trench, and the resulting permanent intrusion will be approximately 1,000 square feet. Pedestrian Path: A pedestrian trail system is incorporated into the proposal. A five-foot- wide wood chip trail is proposed to meander within the buffer area of Wetland A as depicted on plans dated November 7, 2006. The approximate 600400t-long pedestrian trail is proposed to meander through the buffer and intrude up to 50 feet into the wetland buffer. Section 6.4.2 of the report notes that the trail impacts 3,281 square feet of the buffer. Signage is proposed along the trail and a rail fence is proposed to separate the trail edge from the wetland buffer to minimize potential or inadvertent intrusion by human activity. The fencing and signage would be installed at the time the pedestrian trail is installed. Buffer Enhancement: The applicant proposed to enhance approximately 64,454 square feet of Wetland A buffer through removal of invasive plant species such as Ivy, and the planting of native trees and shrubs with the outermost portion of the wetland buffer. This area will not be affected by development activity, and will not impact existing significant trees located within the buffer. 2. Temporary Intrusions into the Wetland Buffer The following temporary intrusions into the Wetland. A buffer, and mitigated by site restoration, are proposed during construction for the storm drainage system. Detention vault: During installation of the detention vault, a 1,511 square -foot portion of the wetland buffer will be disturbed with clearing and grading activities. The disturbed area will be restored with native vegetation. Connecting storm lines: During installation of stormwater dispersal area, 1,868 square feet of the Wetland A buffer is proposed to be disturbed. with clearing and grading activities. The disturbed area will be restored -with native vegetation. Temporary and permanent intrusions into the Wetland A setback area are reviewed under the provisions of FWCC Section 22-1359(f), "Structures, Improvements and Land Surface Hearing Examiner Staff Evaluation File #05-102533-UP/v«.I.D.37710 Crestview II Process IV Page 6 Modification within Regulated Wetland Buffer - Modification, " and are subject to five decisional criteria. III. DECISIONAL CRITERIA Under FWCC, separate decisional criteria are required to consider intrusions of regulated stream setback area and wetland buffer. Intrusions to setback areas from stream are considered under FWCC Section 22-1312, and intrusions to regulated wetland buffers are considered under FWCC Section 22-1359. The Process IV Hearing Examiner decisional criteria are found in FWCC Section 22-445. Each of the required decisional criteria is evaluated below. A) STREAM SETBACK - ANALYSIS OF DECISIONAL CRITERIA FOR FWCC SECTION 22-1312(C), "OTHER INTRUSIONS WITHIN REGULATED STREAM SETBACKS" The following is an analysis of required decisional criteria outlined in FWCC Section 22- 1312(c). This criterion applies to the portions of the project that propose to displace 'or intrude into the stream setback areas as discussed above, including discussion of the pedestriantrail. The request to locate an improvement or engage in a land surface modification in a stream setback can only be approved if the following criteria are met. The six criteria to be met in order to allow the intrusion into the stream setback are listed below, with each criterion being followed by staff discussion as to how the criterion has been or will be met. The City's wetland consultant, OTAK, has reviewed the Talasaea wetland report and plans prepared prior to October 4, 2006. Their technical comments are identified in a Technical Memorandum dated October 4, 2006 (Exhibit G), and serves as the basis for recommendations to the Hearing Examiner. Criterion No. 1-- It will not adversely affect water quality. Staff Response: Stormwater from the developed site will be collected into a detention vault for treatment and controlled discharge. Stormwater will sheet flow from a dispersal trench over the buffer to the stream corridor. The TIR (Exhibit C) states that the dispersal trench will distribute current sheet flow from the project site into the northern stream reach, while existing residential development adjacent to the wetland will maintain wetland hydrology. The applicant states that enhanced plantings in the stream buffer will help clean surface water runoff before it enters the stream. In addition, the material used for the trail will filter runoff, providing additional water quality functions to the area. Prior to issuance of any construction permits, a Temporary Erosion Control plan (TESC) for trail construction will be required, and TESC will be required to be in place at the project until the project is completed. No impacts to water quality are anticipated. Criterion No. 2 -- It will not adversely affect the existing quality of wildlife habitat within the stream or setback area. Staff Response: The proposed project will augment the habitat capacity of the stream reach through the addition of native vegetation and habitat features such as stumps and downed logs, in conjunction with the removal of non-native and invasive plant species. Enhancement to larger wetland buffer habitat provided by creation of new wetland buffer areas_ and through the re - Hearing Examiner Staff Evaluation File #05-102533-UP/Do,. J.D. 37710 Crestview 11 Process 1V Page 7 vegetation of disturbed areas will significantly improve the overall ecological and habitat quality of the site, including that of the stream. Use of a fence and thorny vegetation adjacent to the trail will discourage human intrusions in the wildlife habitat. Criterion No. 3 -- It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities. Staff Response: Storm drainage facilities associated with the new multi -family development will be designed in accordance with the King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) and City amendments to the manual. No impacts to drainage or stormwater retention capabilities are anticipated. Criterion No. 4 -- It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards. Staff Response: According to the Sensitive Areas Report and Mitigation Plan (Exhibit A), the stream area is relatively flat, with extreme topographic changes occurring in the southwest portion of the subject site. No unstable earth conditions are anticipated with the proposed work within the stream buffer. The potential for erosion hazard will be mitigated by the implementation of a Temporary Erosion Control Plan (TESC), which will be submitted and reviewed by the City in conjunction with engineering approval prior to the start of any clearing or grading of the site. The report notes that the stream does not have year-round water. Direct discharge to the northern portion of the stream will be controlled to avoid erosion. Criterion No. 5 -- It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor to the City as a whole, including the loss of significant open space. Staff Response: No property other than that which is owned by the applicant is proposed to be modified by the proposal. Upgrades to:disturbed areas of stream buffer will benefit the subject property and the City as well by improving the habiiat-quality of the stream corridor. Scenic views from the trail located within the stream buffer will increase recreational and educational opportunities for residents. Criterion No. 6 -- It is necessary for reasonable development of the subject property. Staff Response: The applicant states that the intrusion into the stream buffer for the referenced improvements are necessary to maintain hydrology into the natural corridor, while the rest of the buffer intrusions will be mitigated with planting. The proposed development has been designed to work with .the constrained site; and does not achieve .full density permitted under the multi -family zoning. While some intrusion into the stream setback has been identified as necessary for reasonable use of the property, the project has been designed so that there is no net loss of buffer. B) WETLAND SETBACKS - ANALYSIS OF DECISIONAL CRITERIA FOR FWCC SECTION 22-1359, "STRUCTURES, IMPROVEMENTS AND LAND SURFACE MODIFICATIONS WITHIN REGULATED WETLAND BUFFERS - MODIFICATION." The following is an analysis of required decisional criteria outlined in FWCC Section 22-1359 (fl (Modification), and includes intrusion into the wetland buffer from a pedestrian trail as discussed above. The Hearing Examiner can only approve a request to locate an improvement or engage in a land surface modification in the regulated wetland buffer if the following criteria are met. Hearing Examiner Staff Evaluation File #05-102533-UP/nog. 1.a 37710 Crestview 11 Process IV Page 8 The six criteria to be met in order to allow structures, improvements, and land surface modifications within the regulated wetland buffer are listed_below, with each criterion being followed by staff discussion as to how the criterion has been or will be met. The City's wetland consultant, OTAK, has reviewed the Talasaea wetland report and amendments prepared prior to October 4; 2006. OTAK's technical comments are identified in a Technical Memorandum dated October 4, 2006 (Exhibit G), and which serves as. the basis for recommendations to the Hearing Examiner. Criterion No. 1-- It will not adversely affect water quality. Staff Response: Storm drainage collected from the developed site and routed to an underground vault for treatment will -directly discharge into the northernmost portion of the wetland and sheet flow to the stream corridor. During construction, compliance with a City -approved TESC Plan will adequately address any temporary erosion impacts. Initial clearing for the construction access into the buffer of Wetland A and the pedestrian trail will avoid significant trees wherever possible. After construction, any disturbed areas will be re -vegetated and/or mitigated in compliance with the recommendations in' the Talasaea plan (Exhibit A-2). In addition, enhancements to disturbed wetland buffers at the southern end of the site, in addition to wetland buffer creation outside of the existing wetland buffer, will improve overall water quality for the wetland system. Criterion No. 2 -- It will not adversely affect the existing quality of the wetland's or buffer's habitat. - , . Staff Response: According to the Talasaea report (Exhibit A-1) and the Functions and Values E- mail dated November 6, 2006 (Exhibit A-6), functions and values for the existing wetland buffer are low to moderate. The outer buffer edges suffer from human disturbances as well as invasive plant species. The proposed project will augment the habitat capacity of the wetland buffer through the addition .of native vegetation and habitat features such as stumps and downed logs, in conjunction with the removal of non=native and invasive plant species. In addition, the creation of 19,062 square feet of wetland buffer area at the western edge of the wetland will ensure that there is no net loss of wetland buffer. Enhancement to -habitat provided by creation of new wetland buffer areas and through the re -vegetation of approximately 3,397 square feet of disturbed areas will significantly improve the overall ecological and habitat quality of the site. Open rail fencing backed by thicket -like vegetation, and educational signage that will be installed between the pedestrian trail and the wetland buffer, will minimize potential or inadvertent wetland buffer intrusions by human activity. The fencing will also be installed adjacent to the wetland buffer creation area, on the western portion of the subject site. Criterion No. 3 -- It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities. Staff Response: The applicant proposed to improve the quality of stormwater that drains to the wetland, with correction of.an incised channel, removal of invasive plant species, restoration of disturbed wetland buffer areas, and creation of new and enhanced wetland buffer areas. These modifications will facilitate retention of stormwater and will have an important biological benefit for the wetland. Pedestrian trail created with a pervious wood chip material and located in the outer edge of the wetland setback areas will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities. Hearing Examiner Staff Evaluation Crestview 11 Process IV File #05-102533-UP/nm I.D. 37710 Page 9 Wetland Plan sheet W2.1 (Exhibit B-3) depicts a coir log within the southeast portion of Wetland A. Inclusion of this feature may adversely impact drainage or stormwater retention capabilities, and is not supported by City staff. Proposed intrusion into a regulated wetland requires separate review and analysis under FWCC Section 22-1358. The Talasaea Report did not present any technical analysis of the wetland intrusion, nor identify required wetland compensatory mitigation. Previous correspondence by the City's wetland consultant called for the coir log to be eliminated from project plans as the required analysis and mitigation has not been .provided. The coir log is not supported by the City. As .noted in section 2.c.4 of the Otak memorandum (Exhibit G), the coir log is to be deleted from the project mitigation plans, thus there will be no impacts to drainage or stormwater retention capabilities. The applicant has accepted the Otak memorandum in an October 27, 2006 letter (Exhibit H). Criterion No. 4 -- It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards. Staff Response: Proposed encroachment into the wetland setback areas will not create unstable earth conditions or erosion hazards. The buffer creation and enhancement areas will be at the top of steep slopes that are currently degraded with invasive species and unofficial paths. Trails will be soft material, and bordered by native vegetation. As part of engineering approval, a TESC Plan will be submitted and approved by the City prior to the start of any clearing or grading of the site. Furthermore, any disturbed area will be re -vegetated in conformance with the recommendations. Criterion No. S -- 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. Staff Response: The proposed intrusions into the wetland setback areas will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property, nor to the City as a whole. No scenic areas are visible into Wetland A setback area due to the dense vegetation, and much of the wetland setback area is unsuitable for open space opportunities because of adjacent topographic constraints. With the buffer creation, there will be no net loss of wetland buffer. Disturbed areas of wetland buffer will be protected from continued disturbance by fencing and thicket -like vegetation. The pedestrian trails in and adjacent to wetland setback areas provide usable open space for the multi -family development as required under the FWCC. The trail also provides educational and scenic opportunities for residents. C) HEARING EXAMINER - ANALYSIS OF DECISIONAL CRITERIA FOR FWCC SECTION 22-445, HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION Pursuant to FWCC Section 22-445, the Hearing Examiner may; after considering all of the information and comments submitted on the matter, issue a written decision with or without conditions. The Hearing Examiner may approve the application only if it meets the following five criteria found in FWCC Section 22-445(c). The criteria and staff response to each follows. Criterion No. 1- It is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Staff Response: The comprehensive plan is used, among other documents, as a basis for implementing regulations such as zoning and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The larger proposal, of which these modification requests are a component, has undergone SEPA review and land use approval. The 11.6-acre subject site is designated Multi family under the Hearing Examiner Staff Evaluation File #05-102533-UP/ooc. I.D. 37710 Crestview 11 Process IV Page 10 Federal Way Comprehensive Plan. This designation is intended to provide areas to be used for residential uses and other compatible uses. Federal Way's Comprehensive Plan Policies adopted by Federal Way, and contained within the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP), serve as a basis for the exercise of substantive authority to approve, condition, or deny proposed actions applicable to potential adverse impacts resulting from this project: As conditioned, the requested encroachments into environmentally sensitive areas enable development of the subject site consistent with the comprehensive plan policies, and the following components of the FWCP support the recommended conditions for the development. 1VEG1: To preserve the City's natural systems in order to protect public health, safety and welfare, and to maintain the integrity of the natural environment. NEP2:. Preserve and restore ecological functions, and enhance natural beauty, by encouraging community development patterns and site planning that maintains and complements natural land forms. NEG10: Preserve, protect, and enhance fish and wildlife habitat. NEP65: The City should encourage residents and businesses to use native plants in residential and commercial landscaping. NEP68: The City should encourage informational and educational programs and activities dealing with the protection of wildlife. An example of such a program is the Backyard Wildlife Sanctuary program established by the State's Department of Fish and Wildlife. Criterion No. 2 - It is consistent with the applicable provisions of this chapter and all other applicable laws. Staff Response: The development of the Crestview H apartments will be consistent with applicable provisions of FWCC Chapter 22, "Zoning," once SEPA and Process HI conditions of approval are met, and if the Process IV request for encroachments into environmentally sensitive areas are conditionally approved by the Federal Way Hearing Examiner. The Process IV request meets all decisional criteria of FWCC Sections 22-1312 and 22-1359. Criterion No. 3 - It is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare. Staff Response: The encroachments into the wetland and stream buffer areas, consisting of portions of a parking lot and driveway, storm drainage systems and access, retaining walls, active and passive recreation areas, and pedestrian trails backed by open rail fencing, are in the best interest of the public health, safety, and welfare. With the creation of 19,062 square feet of new wetland buffer, there is no net loss of wetland buffer associated with project development. Wetland enhancement increases the value of functions performed by wetlands, including water quality and retention while pedestrian trails provide opportunities for public health. All applicable City, state, and local public health and safety regulations will be met with the proposed improvements. Criterion No. 4 - The streets and utilities in the area of the subject property are adequate to serve the anticipated demand from the proposal. Staff Response: With the proposed development activity, the streets in' the area of the subject property will be adequate to serve the anticipated demand from the Crestview H Apartments Hearing Examiner Staff Evaluation File #05-102533-UP/D... i D. 37710 Crestview I1 Process IV Page 11 proposal. Utilities in the area of the subject property are adequate to serve the anticipated demand from the proposal. Criterion No. S — The proposed access to the subject property is at the optimal location and configuration. Staff Response: With the proposed actions, the access to the subject property is maintained at the optimal location and configuration. Primary access into the project off of Pacific Highway South is at the optimal location and configuration for safety. IV. FINDINGS OF FACT Based on an analysis of the proposed actions, the environmental record, and related decisional criteria, the Department of Community Development Services finds the following. 1. Development of the internal roadway improvements, installation of open space, development of storm drainage facility, and installation of pedestrian. trails as proposed would result in temporary and permanent intrusions into stream and wetland setback areas. In accordance with code requirements, a "Sensitive Areas Report and Mitigation Plan" dated May 25, 2005, revised date March 29, May 5, 2006, and November 7, 2006; project addendums dated October 10, 2006, October 27, 2006; and a -mails dated November 1 and November 6, 2006; plans titled Detailed Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan, revised date November 7, 2006, were prepared by Talasaea Consultants, LLC for the proposed development. 2. Permanent intrusions into the stream buffer include storm drainage system, parking lot, and open space. Permanent intrusions into the wetland buffer include storm drainage system, parking lot; active and passive open space areas, and wetland buffer restoration. A total of 17,506 square feet of buffer will be impacted: A five-foot=wide pedestrian trail lined by rail fence backed with thicket vegetation and featuring education signage is proposed to intrude into the outer edge of the 100-foot setback areas of Wetland A and the stream buffer at the east and south portions of the development. Fencing between the trail and the wetland buffer will discourage human intrusion into the wetland buffer. Further, fencing and thicket vegetation installed along the edge of the new wetland buffer areas will serve to eliminate human intrusions into these areas. A total of 3,397 square feet of buffer will be temporarily impacted during construction of storm drainage systems. These areas will be restored with native vegetation. 4. Approximately 19,062 square feet of new wetland buffer will be established along the western and southern end of the project area. This replacement exceeds the amount of impacted wetland buffer and replaces with no net loss of buffer. A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDSN) was issued on July 26, 2006. There were no comments or appeals received on;the City's determination, and the Final Staff Evaluation for. Environmental Checklist, Federal Way Application No. 05-102531-00-SE, is hereby incorporated. by reference as though set forth in full (Exhibit I). 6. Improvements proposed to intrude into regulated stream buffer require Process IV approval pursuant to under FWCC Section 22-1312, and require review in a public hearing conducted by the Federal Way Hearing Examiner. As required by the FWCC, a Process IV wetland and Hearing Examiner Staff Evaluation File #05-102533-UP/Doc I.D. 37710 Crestview II Process IV Page 12 stream buffer intrusion analysis prepared by City staff incorporates analysis of decisional criteria and mitigation proposed in the Wetland Delineation and Study Report and Detailed Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan dated May 2006 prepared by Talasaea Consultants, LLC, and associated amendments, letters and e-mails. 7. The OTAK'OctoberA, 2006 technical memorandum (Exhibit F), provides the basis for recommended conditions of approval for stream buffer intrusions associated with the Process IV request. The proposal meets the decisional criteria of FWCC Section 22-1312 for structures, improvements, and land surface modifications within regulated stream setbacks if recommended conditions identified in the October 4, 2006, OTAK memo are met. Improvements proposed to intrude into the 100-foot buffer of regulated wetlands require Process IV approval pursuant to under FWCC Section 22-1359, and also require review in a. public hearing conducted by the Federal Way Hearing Examiner. As required by the FWCC, a Process IV wetland and stream buffer intrusion analysis prepared by City staff incorporates extensive discussion and analysis of decisional criteria and mitigation proposed in the Wetland Delineation and Study Report and Detailed Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan. dated May 2006 prepared by Talasaea Consultants, LLC, and associated amendments, letters and e-mails. 9. The OTAK October 4, 2006 technical memorandum, provides the basis for recommended conditions of approval for wetland buffer intrusions associated with the Process IV request. The proposal meets the five decisional criteria of FWCC Section 22-1359(d) for modifications within wetland buffers if recommended conditions identified in the October 4, 2006, OTAK memo are met. 10. The proposal is found to meet the Process IV decisional criteria of the FWCC Section 22- 445(c). V. RECOMME'NDATION Based on the above analysis, the Department of Community Development Services recommends approval of the requested work subject to the condition listed below: 1. Prior to issuance of construction permits related to any•work associated with the Crestview II development application, the applicant shall incorporate all recommendations from the October 4, 2006 OTAK Technical Memorandum, into applicable construction related documents for _ review and approval by City staff, and including verification/peer review funded by the applicant. Hearing Examiner Staff Evaluation Crestview 11 Process IV File #05-102533-UP/oo. i.n. 37710 Page 13 VI. EXHIBITS A-1 Sensitive Areas Report and Mitigation Plan, Crestview II prepared by Talasaea Consultants, Inc. revised date May 5, 2006 A-2 . Addendum to Sensitive Areas Report and Mitigation Plan, Crestview 11 prepared by Talasaea Consultants, dated October 10, 2006 A-3 - Responses to 17 October 2006 letter titled Outstanding Wetland Report Items, prepared by Talasaea Consultants, dated October 27, 2006 A-4 Temporary Buffer Intrusion e-mail from Jason Walker, Talasaea dated November l; 2006 A-5 Goals and Objectives e-mail from Jason Walker, Talasaea, dated November 1, 2006 A-6 Functions and Values e-mail from Jason Walker, Talasaea, dated November 6, 2006 B-1 Sheet W 1.0: Detailed Conceptual Wetlands Mitigation Plan, Cover Sheet and Overview Plan, Crestview Phase II, prepared by Talasaea Consultants, Inc., dated May 25, 2005, revised March 29; May 5, October 26 and November 7, 2006 B-2 Sheet W2.0: Detailed Conceptual Wetlands Mitigation Plan, Planting Plan, Plant Schedule and Notes, Crestview Phase H, prepared by Talasaea Consultants, Inc., dated May 25, 2005, revised March 29, May 5, October 26 and November 7, 2006 B-3 Sheet W2.1: Detailed Conceptual Wetlands Mitigation Plan, Planting Plan, Plant Plan and Site Details, Crestview Phase II, prepared by Talasaea Consultants, Inc., dated May 25, 2005., revised March 29, May 5, October 26 and November 7, 2006 B-4 Sheet W2.2: Detailed Conceptual Wetlands Mitigation Plan, Planting Specifications and Details, Crestview Phase If, prepared by Talasaea Consultants, Inc., dated May 25, 2005, revised March 29, May 5, October 26 and November 7; 2006 - C. Technical Information Report (TIR) prepared by Sound Engineering Inc.. dated March 2006 D-1 Preliminary.Utility Plan prepared by SEI dated July 13, 2006 D-2 Preliminary Vault -Cross Sections prepared by SEI dated July 13, .2006 E. Landscape plan prepared by Lynn William Horn & Associates, LLC dated May 4, 2006 F-l' Overall Site Plan prepared by Ross Deckman Architects, dated July 12, 2006 F-2 Enlarged Site plan prepared by Ross Deckman Architects, dated July 12, 2006 G. Technical Memorandum prepared by OTAK, Inc. dated October 4, 2006 H. Letter from Greg McKenna dated October 27, 2006 I. Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) dated July 27, 2006 Hearing Examiner Staff Evaluation File #05-102533-UP/noe. J.D. 37710 Crestview 11 Process IV Page 14 FILE 4k CITY OF 40'::tSP Federal Way NOTICE OF PUBLIC LAND USE HEARING Crestview II Apartment Complex — Wetland and Stream Buffer Intrusions Notice is hereby given that the City of Federal Way Land Use Hearing Examiner will hold a public hearing at 2:00 p.m. on November 21, 2006, in the Federal Way City Council Chambers, 33325 81h Avenue South, in Federal Way, WA. File Number: 05-102533-00-UP Topic: Request to intrude into regulated wetland and stream buffers associated with development of a new multi -family complex, pursuant to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Section 22- 1312(c) and FWCC Section 22-1359(f), requiring Process IV Hearing Examiner's Decision. Project Location: 27822 Pacific Highway South, east of existing Crestview West Apartments, Federal Way, WA; Parcel #720480-0200 Applicant: Greg McKenna, F&M Development, 17786 Des Moines Memorial Dr., Burien, WA 98148 City Contact: Deb Barker, Senior Planner, 253-835-2642 Application Received: May 31, 2005 Application Determined Complete: June 16, 2005 Notice of Application Issued: July 6, 2005 Process IV Hearing Date: November 21, 2006 Any person may participate in the public hearing by submitting written comments to the Hearing Examiner, either by delivering these comments to the Department of Community Development Services prior to the hearing, giving them directly to the Hearing Examiner at the hearing, or by appearing in person, or through a representative, at the hearing and presenting public testimony. Any person may request a copy of the decision once made. Written comments should be addressed to: Department of Community Development Services, 33325 8th Avenue South, PO Box 9718, Federal Way, WA 98063-9718. The Hearing Examiner will issue a decision on the application within 10 working days after the close of the hearing. Only persons who submit written or oral comments to the Hearing Examiner may appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision. The application for the proposal is to be reviewed under applicable codes, regulations, and policies of the City of Federal Way. The official file is available for review during working hours (Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) in the Department of Community Development Services. Staff reports will be available for review one week before the hearing. Published in the Federal Way Mirror on November 4, 2006. 05-102533 Doc. LD. 37711 BILE ciry of CITY HALL FederalWay 33325 8th Avenue South Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com Greg McKenna November 2, 2006 F & M Development 17786 Des Moines Memorial Drive Burien, WA 98148 RE: File #05-102533-00-UP; NOTICE OF SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING Crestview II — Process IV Review of Wetland and Stream Buffer Intrusions Dear Mr. McKenna: The purpose of this letter is to advise you of the various timelines associated with the above -referenced request to intrude into regulated streani and wetland buffers. 1. A public hearinf? conducted by the Federal Way Hearing Examiner has been scheduled as follows: November 21, 2006 — 2:00 PM Council Chambers Federal Way City Hall, Second Floor 33325 81h Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 2. The public will be notified of this public hearing through mailed notices, and on- and off -site notice boards. You have installed the large on -site notice board. The City will post the notice of hearing on this board. 3. The staff report for this public hearing will be available for distribution on November 14, 2006. I will send you a copy of the report at the above addresses. 4. Pursuant to FWCC Section 22-443(b), the Hearing Examiner must issue a decision on the variance request within 10 working days after the close of the public hearing. I would anticipate his decision approximately December 4, 2006; allowing time for the Thanksgiving holidays. FWCC Section 22-447 contains timelines for appeals of the Hearing Examiner's decision. An appeal must be submitted within 14 calendar days of the issuance of the examiner's decision. 6. If there are no appeals filed, the examiner's decision will become final following the third working day after the time to appeal has expired per FWCC Section 22-446. I've enclosed a copy of the Process IV section of the City's land use code and a guide to public hearings. Please call me at 253-835-2642 if you have any questions. I look forward to moving ahead on the project. Sincerely, k."- &i4-p-L, Deb Barker Senior Planner enc: FWCC Article VIII, "Process IV Review" Guide to Public Hearings c: Kevin Peterson, Engineering Plans Reviewer Greg Fewins, Deputy Director of CDS 05-102533 Doc L D. 38635 ° TAL,ASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. 15 July 2005 Ms. Deb Barker Associate Planner City of Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South (PO Box 9718) Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 REFERENCE: Crestview II — Federal Way, WA SUBJECT: Response to 25 April 2005 and 28 June 2005 letters Dear Deb: TAL-927 Thank you for your consideration in facilitating comments from Sheldon and Associates regarding our 16 March 2005 letter report, and your 28 2005 June letter to Mr. Greg McKenna regarding our 25 May 2005 report submitted for Process IV review. Below we have summarized response items to both of these inquiries. Many of the clarification items requested by Sheldon and Associates from our preliminary study were addressed in our subsequent 25 May 2005 report. However, we are providing additional clarification below to attend to the questions of Dr. Suzanne Bagshaw to respectfully address her concerns and comments. Additionally, we are providing you with responses to Questions 3,4, and 5 of your 28 June letter that apply to critical areas and the involvement of our efforts and the peer review of Sheldon and Associates. Following are response items we have prepared to your 25 April 2005 letter, referencing a 20 April 2005 memo from Sheldon and Associates: A. REQUEST TO CHANGE STREAM RATING AND BUFFER WIDTH Question: A.1.1 Provide more information regarding natural permanent blockages downstream and flow rates of the on -site stream. Response: According to the Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist: SEP99-0004 (99-100610) in Document LUTC 9-22-2001 (City of Federal Way website), both the City of Federal Way and the City of Kent list the headwaters of McSorley Creek as the wetland area on the north side of South 272"d Street. This corresponds with a large 6-foot diameter pipe that daylights on the north side of the street. This pipe receives stormwater discharge from South 272" d Street, South Star Lake Road, and the surrounding apartment complexes. The northern boundary of the City of Federal Way is along the south side of South 272" d Street. Also, recent conversations with Jeff Wolf of the City of Federal Way indicated that McSorley Creek is not listed on the Federal Way Stream Inventory. J U L 2 7 2005 Resource `cQ Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creels Road Northeast • Woodinville, Washington 98077 • Bus: (425) 861-75a0 • Fax: (425) 861-7549 Ms Deb Barker 15 July 2005 Page 2 The stream on the subject property flows off -site to the northeast towards a large catch basin guarded by a trash rack. Two other pipes discharge stormwater into this catch basin, one from the southeast and one from the southwest. Conversations with a local homeowner confirmed that the stream on the subject property flows to the catch basin. At no point, from this catch basin to the outflow of the pipe at South 272"d Street, is there evidence of an open stream channel. The straight-line distance from the catch basin to the pipe outlet is approximately 1,100 feet. All of this distance is currently under an apartment complex with extensive paved areas and few open spaces. We observed no evidence of stormwater detention or treatment facilities on the apartment property. It is likely that stormwater is directly conveyed to the pipe that also contains the stream in question, which is then released into McSorley Creek. Upgradient and south of the subject property are additional areas of high -density development, where the stream flows through approximately 1, 500 linear feet of pipes and culverts. Developments in the proximity of the stream have no indications of stormwater detention or treatment facilities. It is likely that stormwater is discharged into the stream at multiple points. There was no flow in the stream on the subject property down to the catch basin at the time of our most recent site visit (6 July 2005). According to the climate data for Sea-Tac Airport, precipitation for the previous month was 1.58 inches above normal with a majority of the heavy precipitation falling during the middle of the month. We infer from these data that the stream is flashy with minimal baseflow contribution by groundwater, receiving its water primarily from storm events and retaining very little of it over the long term. We conclude that this stream is currently being treated more as a stormwater conveyance through current land use practices. The 1,100 foot long pipe and associated structures represent a fish passage barrier that, while not natural, is fundamentally permanent. If fish were able to migrate up the pipe, there would be no way for them to exit the catch basin to the open stream channel. In addition, low baseflow conditions in the remaining stream channel provide a natural barrier to fish access and unsuitable fish habitat. Stream velocity during storm events would also prevent fish passage during storm events; however, if salmonids could enter the system during storm events, stranding and `lakes" would likely occur with the existing conditions. There are no extant pools in the stream channel above the catch basin and therefore no possibility of appropriate habitat for migratory or resident populations of fish. The point was made that the stream may provide important nutrient input, which would help support fish populations in McSorley Creek. We noticed during our recent site visit that the water in the creek at South 272"d Street was extremely turbid. We must conclude, given the nature of development in the general basin and the routing of stormwater to the headwaters area, any nutrient input benefits of the extant open channel is likely to be minimal and exceeded by the detrimental inputs of metals, oils, pollutants, and sediment from stormwater runoff in the basin. We believe, given the information above, that categorizing the stream channel on the subject property as a City of Federal Way Minor stream is justified. Ms Deb Barker 15 July 2005 Page 3 B. WETLAND A Question: B.1 The sensitive areas letter and mitigation plan use wetland and stream boundaries determined by a previous wetland delineation report. That original wetland delineation report was not included in the submittal package. Response: The subsequently submitted study report contains a wetland delineation section. Please refer to the revised Sensitive Areas Report and Enhancement Plan, dated May 25, 2005. C. ACTIVITIES WITHIN WETLAND AND STREAM BUFFERS PER FWCC Statement: C.1 Summarizing, buffer averaging is not allowed under the Peer Review Consultant's interpretation of FWCC. Response: We respect the decision of the City to not allow buffer averaging for the Crestview 11 project under Process 111 and have subsequently prepared a proposal to meet the criteria for buffer modification under a Process IV evaluation. However, in addition to degraded conditions mentioned in our 16 March 2005 letter, we believe that development in the vicinity of the on -site wetland has permanently impacted both the wetland and buffers on -site. Previous development adjacent to the subject property did not provide the setbacks and protections required at the present time. These developments collect, convey, and point -discharge stormwater to the wetland and stream, which historically would have discharged into the wetland over broad vegetated areas and by groundwater interflow. These point sources do not provide the same hydrologic regime and attenuated baseflow as an undeveloped system (with groundwater slope discharge). The wetland is now mostly maintained by incidental recharge during rain events when stormwater is directed into the stream channel and wetland buffer via conveyance structures. This water enters and leaves the system quickly with significantly reduced residency time. Since the stream is significantly supported by stormwater discharge, we must question the quality of the water and the potential for viable amphibian habitat. Amphibians have been shown to be sensitive to degradation of aquatic habitats with irregularly fluctuating water levels. We also believe that the proposed buffer modification would serve to provide adequate and enhanced protection to the natural systems. The area of buffer proposed to remain, located adjacent to reduced buffer areas, is generally vegetated with an increased structural and species diversity than most of the remaining buffer in the western area of the wetland and stream system. The remaining buffer area, adjacent to the reduced buffer areas, would provide the best possible buffer function at the minimum width allowed by the FWCC. Comparatively, buffers on the west side of the site, adjacent to buffer replacement areas which are proposed to be increased in width and enhanced to provide buffer replacement, are generally of lesser vegetative quality and offer diminished function. The buffer areas on the west side of the property are currently vegetated by a relatively small number of trees, fewer shrub and herb species, and no understory. The buffer along the southwest property boundary has been heavily impacted by human use. This is troubling since this area is steeply sloped (30 0 to 35 ° Ms Deb Barker 15 July 2005 Page 4 or approximately 60-percent) and has been denuded of all shrubs and herbs. Other areas along this slope have been used for dumping of landscape waste. This has smothered much of the woody and herbaceous vegetation. The buffer area along the south property boundary is almost monotypic stinging nettle (Urtica dioica) with some non-native grasses. This area also has relatively no understory or tree component. It is for these reasons that we believe the wetland and stream system would benefit from enhancement of the disturbed buffer areas. Additionally, all remaining buffer areas would be enhanced with conifer plantings and barrier vegetation along the pedestrian path. Using the Washington State Wetland Rating System and extrapolating for the pre - development condition, this wetland would have rated a Category 11 designation. Under current conditions, it scored at the low end of Category Ill. We believe that reducing the buffer will not degrade the wetland area through: 1. Detrimental affects to water quality, 2. Detrimental affects to wildlife habitat, 3. Unstable slopes or soils, and, 4. Causing damage to other properties, public or private. We also believe that the enhancement of the remaining buffer will: 1. Help improve water quality by interception and filtration of precipitation, 2. Provide expanded opportunities for wildlife habitat, and, 3. Stabilize existing impacted slopes and soils. C.2 Stream Buffer Reduction Question: C.2.1 FWCC will not allow stream buffer reduction for this project. Response: No stream buffer modification would occur if the 50-foot Minor Stream buffer were determined to be appropriate through the information we have provided. Please also see response to C.1 above. C.3 Buffer Modifications Question: C.3.1 Wetland buffer modification must satisfy five criteria and requires approval through Process IV evaluation. Response: Please see our 25 May 2005 report, which addresses Process IV criteria and evaluation. Question: C.3.2 Stream buffer modification must satisfy six criteria and requires approval through Process IV evaluation. Response: See response to C.2 above. A 50-foot Minor Stream buffer (if accepted) would occur outside of the wetland buffer reduction area. Ms Deb Barker 15 July 2005 Page 5 Question: C.3.3 Buffer modification requires approval of a buffer enhancement plan as part of the Process IV evaluation. Response: Understood. Question: C.3.4 FWCC 22-1359(g) requires revegetation of wetland buffers. Response: Understood. Please see most recent report, which addresses this issue. Provisions are specified for substantial revegetation of the buffers. Question: C.3.5 All FWCC Surface and Stormwater Management regulations apply to any activity in wetland and stream buffers, and best management practices must be employed. Response: Please see most recent report for additional information on management of surface and stormwater. Provisions are proposed (and will be further refined) to protect sensitive areas through best management practices. CA Foot Trail Questions: C.4.1 A foot trail located anywhere other than around the perimeter of the buffer will fragment the buffer and, thus, will negatively affect the existing quality of the habitat. C.4.2 Minor improvements in wetland and stream buffers require approval through Process III evaluation, but the proposed foot trail will require approval through Process IV evaluation. C.4.3 Sections of the foot trail proposed immediately adjacent to slopes greater than 40% must comply with FWCC development standards for geologically hazardous areas. Response: Please see most recent report for information concerning the foot trail. Currently, public usage of the buffer area is causing significant damage to the buffer and to the steep slope area. By providing a foot trail, public usage is concentrated to the trail and will allow protection of the remaining buffer and help prevent destabilization of the steep slope areas. D MITIGATION PLAN Question: D.1.1 Provide corrections to calculations of stream and buffer impact areas. Response: Please see our 25 May 2005 report and plans that quantify the buffer impacts. Ms Deb Barker 15 July 2005 Page 6 D.2 Final Mitigation Plan Question: D.2.1 Final mitigation plan should be consistent with FWCC 22-1359(f). Response: Please see most recent report for the detailed mitigation plan. D.3 Wetland Enhancement Question: D.3.1 Unless wetland rehabilitation or wetland modifications are proposed, the reference to wetland enhancement should be deleted from the mitigation plan. Response: Please see most recent report for discussion of wetland enhancement. Current hydrologic inputs to the wetland come from pipe sources. These sources are currently causing erosion within the buffer at the point source outflows. The wetland and buffer enhancement is proposed to rectify this situation by providing soil stabilization and diffusion of flow velocities. These measures will help prevent further degradation of the wetland by improving the buffer. DA Restoration and Enhancement of the Stormwater Channel at the Southeast Corner of Wetland A. Statement: D.4.1 Provide detailed engineering drawings and construction specifications for the proposed enhancements to the stormwater channel. Response: Our 25 May 2005 report includes detailed conceptual mitigation plans that show the specific improvements proposed to the existing stream and stormwater conveyances. Sound Engineering has reviewed our mitigation plans. D.5 Conditions of Additional Buffer Areas. Statement: D.5.1 Conditions of Give Areas near the southwest corner of the parcel near off - site parking lot. Response: See most recent report for details concerning restoration and enhancement of buffer areas. Statement: D.5.2 The second give area is located opposite the western bulge of the wetland and extend all the way to the pavement. It is currently used as a play area for resident children. The area should be enhanced, maintained, and monitored as part of the mitigation plan. Response: See most recent report for details concerning buffer enhancement and monitoring. Statement: D.5.3 The third give area has been cleared of blackberries and appears to be recovering slowly, but is currently being used as a play area by resident children. Ms Deb Barker 15 July 2005 Page 7 This area should be enhanced, maintained, and monitored as part of the mitigation plan. Response: See most recent report for details concerning buffer enhancement and monitoring. D.6 Conditions Off -site to the South. Statement: D.6.1 Provide a vegetation management plan to deal with the constant source of Himalayan blackberries located off -site to the south. Response: See most recent report for details concerning maintenance and monitoring of buffer enhancement areas. E. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED E.1 The treatment and discharge of stormwater. Statement: E.1.1 Provide information describing and locating all stormwater dispersal structures. Response: See most recent report for information regarding proposed and existing stormwater structures in regards to critical areas. Statement: E.1.2 Placement of any stormwater structures within a buffer qualifies as buffer modification and requires approval by Process IV evaluation. Response: Understood. Placement of the stormwater dispersal area within the buffer is described in our 25 May 2005 report, and is requested to be reviewed under Process IV evaluation. Statement: E.1.3 Compliance with Federal Way stormwater regulations requires that developed peak flows be detained to provide outflows that do not exceed pre - developed peak flows. Response: Understood. Statement: E.1.4 Applicant must demonstrate that the functions of the wetland, stream, and associated buffers will not be adversely affected by stormwater discharge, any post -development changes in water quality or quantity, or by dewatering. Response: Understood. Water quality and stormwater management is addressed in the documents provided by Sound Engineering. Our 25 May 2005 report also describes enhancement measures to increase soil stability and to further improve water quality. Ms Deb Barker 15 July 2005 Page 8 Statement: E.2 Is stormwater entering the wetland from the stormwater structure at the southeast corner of Wetland A treated? Response: To the best of our knowledge, we do not believe any treatment or detention is being provided for the existing stormwater entering this system. We base this assumption on the age of the surrounding peripheral developments and from the lack of any stormwater detention/treatment facilities visible on aerial photos and from reconnaissance of the site vicinity. Statement: E.3 Provide information about the ditch and broken storm pipe along the south boundary of the parcel. Response: Please see our 25 May 2005 report that characterizes this feature to the best of our knowledge. Statement: EA Provide information about the outflow of the stormwater culvert located immediately off -site to the south of the southwest corner of the parcel. Response: Please see our 25 May 2005 report that characterizes this feature to the best of our knowledge. Following are response items we have prepared to your 28 June letter: Statement: 3. Please be aware that the City will evaluate environmental impacts and consider SEPA procedural options ranging from the issuance of a determination of nonsignificance to a determination of significance, in which case a scoped environmental impact statement (EIS) would be required. In the event the City determines that the proposal warrants an EIS, we will discuss procedural options with you at that date. At the time of preapplication conference, the applicant proposed reduction of a portion of a 100-foot wetland buffer to 50-feet using the FWCC buffer reduction process. Staff indicated that the FWCC wetland buffer reduction process is inappropriate for the proposal due to the condition of the existing buffer. Although City staff have not completed a review of the current proposal, I do want to advise you that the extent and significance of the overall proposed wetland buffer displacement may make it difficult to satisfy the decisional criteria of FWCC Section 22-1359(f). If the required decisional criteria cannot be met, City staff cannot recommend approval of the proposed buffer intrusion and resulting reduction to the Hearing Examiner. Response: Understood. We respectfully disagree but acknowledge the City does not view the existing degraded conditions of the buffer as meeting the criteria for buffer averaging under Process 111 by the requirements of the FWCC. We hope to effectively demonstrate to the City and other agencies, under Process IV and SEPA review, that the proposed project will include substantial Ms Deb Barker 15 July 2005 Page 9 protection and enhancement to the natural systems and resources potentially affected by the development, and will provide a net functional gain with mitigation for allowable buffer modifications. The wetland buffer is proposed to be modified under the allowable criteria in the FWCC, and would occur on a no -net -loss of area basis, meaning that the buffer size after modification will be equal or greater to the area of the standard buffer. It is our intent to effectively demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City and other agencies, the necessary purpose this project will provide (i.e., affordable housing) and the extent at which critical areas protection and mitigation will be addressed as an integral component of the project proposal. Statement: 4. The wetland report prepared by Talasaea has been forwarded to Sheldon & Associates for a cost estimate for review services. I anticipate a response from them by the end of the month. Response: Understood. Statement: 5. Planning staff has preliminary comments on the wetland report. These comments are in addition to comments to be provided by Sheldon and Associates. a. The wetland report does not disclose the true extent of the proposed intrusions into the 100-foot wetland and stream buffer. The report must disclose the number of mult-sotry residential buildings, parking stalls, drive aisles, residential landscaping, storm drainage vault, vent and discharge piping, active recreation areas, pedestrian trails and other utilities, such as water and sewer that are proposed to intrude into the wetland and stream buffers. The actual amount of each intrusion must be disclosed. The report must address the larger extent of the impacts of each individual intrusion into the wetland and/or stream buffer. For instance, the 78,000 cubic foot storm drainage vault is proposed to be located below a three-story building adjacent to the wetland and stream buffer. How will this affect wetland and stream hydrology? Are the soils adequate to support this system underground? Response: The report will be revised, along with other accompanying architectural, civil and geotechnical information, to address the requested clarifications of uses and activities proposed within the areas of modified buffer. We will address each item in terms of potential affects to the resources at risk. b. Provide a discussion of the storm discharge into the wetland buffer and stream. A detention/outfall is proposed to extend into the 100-foot wetland and stream buffer by approximately 75 feet. Response: We are working with the Sound Engineering to refine the reception area and method where treated and detained stormwater is proposed for release within an enhanced area of the buffer. c. Proposed landscaping in wetland setback areas from the Process III application and on plan Sheet W1.0 are in conflict. Areas proposed for buffer restoration in the wetland plan are proposed as active recreation areas in the Process III application. Please address. Ms Deb Barker 15 July 2005 Page 10 Response: The design team is currently considering options for recreational areas (to meet the recreational open space requirements) that could occur within the modified areas of the buffer or within other areas of the site, outside of critical areas. We will be addressing options for recreational open space in future communications with the City. d. Fencing at the wetland buffer edge is proposed on the wetland plan but is not identified in the wetland report. This discrepancy must be addressed. Response: The report will be modified to include a description of the proposed fencing. We hope this information answers the initial questions and concerns of Sheldon and Associates and the City. If you have any additional comments or require supplementary information at this time, please call me at (425) 861-7550. Sincerely, TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Jas er, RLA, ASL - Senior Project Manager, Environmental Planner cc: Greg Mckenna, F&M Sheldon & Associates, Inc. 5031 University Way NE #204 ■ Seattle, WA 98105-4341 Ph 206-522-1214 • Fax 206-522-3507 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 25, 2005 TO: Deb Barker, Associate Planner, City of Federal Way FROM: Suzanne Bagshaw, Wetland Ecologist RE: Review of Proposed Buffer Averaging and Conceptual Mitigation Plan for Crestview II by Talasaea Consultants, Inc. As requested by the City of Federal Way, on May 6, 2005 Kevin O'Brien (Wildlife Biologist) and I conducted a field visit to the proposed site for the Crestview II project. The purpose of the site visit was to evaluate the existing conditions of the wetland and stream buffers onsite. We paid particular attention to the existing habitat in areas where buffer reductions and buffer compensation are proposed. Because the submittal package did not include the original wetland delineation report, we did not verify the wetland or stream delineations onsite. We reviewed the following documents: • Letter to Greg McKenna of F&M Development from Jason Walker, RLA, ASLA, of Talasea Consultants, Inc., dated 16 March, 2005; re: Crestview II Federal Way, WA; Summary of Sensitive Areas and Proposed Project Impacts and Mitigation (referred to as the sensitive areas letter in this memo); • Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan, Buffer Averaging and Enhancement, Crestview Phase II, Sheet W1.0; by Talasea Consultants, Inc.; dated 17 March, 2005 (referred to as the mitigation plan in this memo); and • Federal Way City Code (FWCC). SUMMARY This review memorandum is divided into five sections (A through E). Summarized requirements of those sections appear below: A. Request to Change Stream Rating and Buffer Width: Provide more information regarding natural permanent blockages downstream and flow rates of the onsite stream. B. Wetland A: Provide a complete wetland and stream delineation report for approval by the City. C. Activities within Wetland and Stream Buffers per FWCC: Neither buffer averaging nor buffer reduction will be allowed for this project under FWCC. Providing that the proposal satisfies specific criteria, buffer modification may be allowed. Buffer modification (including construction of the proposed foot -trail) requires approval through Process IV evaluation. D. Mitigation Plan: Square footage of buffer impacts/reduction must be corrected. The mitigation plan must address several issues and comply with FWCC. Wetland & Stream Analysis Permitting Restoration Design Environmental Education Sheldon & Associates, Inc. Page 2 of 8 Memo to Deb Barker on Buffer Averaging and Conceptual Mitigation Plan for Crestview II May 25, 2005 E. Additional Information Re uired: More information is required for approval, especially information regarding the potential impacts of stormwater on the Wetland and Stream. A. REQUEST TO CHANGE STREAM RATING AND BUFFER WIDTH: Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Section 22-1 defines two categories of streams: major and minor. Major streams are defined as: "Major stream means any stream, and the tributaries to any stream, which contains or supports, or under normal circumstances contains or supports, resident or migratory fish. If there exists a natural permanent blockage on the stream course which precludes the upstream movement of anadromous salmonid fish, then that portion of the stream which is downstream of the natural permanent blockage shall be regulated as a major stream." Minor streams are defined as: `Minor stream means any stream that does not meet the definition of `major stream.' " FWCC Section 22-1306 (a) (1 and 2) requires a 100-foot setback for major streams and a 50-foot setback for minor streams. A.I. The onsite stream is listed in the Federal Way Stream Inventory as Major. The sensitive areas letter requests changing that rating to Minor. The letter states that expected and observed flow in the onsite stream is insufficient to contain a resident fish population. While the stream may indeed have low flow, flow rates are seasonally variable. Furthermore, the flow estimates which were made during a single site visit this past, droughty February provide insufficient information for that characterization. Because it is likely that the stream is hydrologically connected to McSorley Creek, which is listed as salmon -bearing, information is needed as to whether there are any natural permanent blockages downstream to prevent upstream salmonid movement. If the onsite stream is a tributary to McSorley Creek without any natural permanent blockages, the stream may still provide support for downstream fish in terms of nutrient inputs, habitat for invertebrates, and hydrology - even with low flow. If that is the case, retaining the Major rating for the onsite stream would be warranted. _ A.1.1 Provide more information regarding natural permanent blockages downstream and flow rates of the onsite stream. B. WETLAND A Wetland A is listed in the Federal Way Wetland Inventory as #33-22-4-95, and it is rated as Category II [FWCC 22-1357(a)(2)]. Category II Wetlands require a 100-foot buffer [FWCC 22- 1357(b)(2)]. Based on the need to protect environmentally sensitive area functions, the director may increase required buffer widths when steep slopes are adjacent to the wetland buffer [FWCC 22-1359(h)(2)]. B.1. The sensitive areas letter and mitigation plan use wetland and stream boundaries determined by a previous wetland delineation report. That original wetland delineation report was not included in the submittal package. Although the wetland flags that we saw during our site visit appeared to be located appropriately, our observations do not constitute either a wetland delineation review or approval from the City. Page Sheldon & Associates, Inc. Pa g Memo to Deb Barker on Buffer Averaging and Conceptual Mitigation Plan for Crestview II May 25, 2005 B.1.1 Approval of a mitigation plan requires approval by the City of either the original wetland and stream delineation report, or of a new wetland delineation report which satisfies criteria listed in FWCC 22-1356(b)(1 through 7), including data sheets and functions assessment. C. ACTIVITIES WITHIN WETLAND AND STREAM BUFFERS PER FWCC C.1. BUFFER AVERAGING: The applicant proposes to average the wetland and stream buffers. FWCC does not have specific provisions to average stream buffers [FWCC 22- 1312(c)]. For wetland buffer averaging, FWCC 22-1359(b) requires: "(b) Buffer averaging. Buffers may be averaged only when the wetland or buffer which is proposed to be reduced contains habitat types which have been so permanently impacted that reduced buffers do not pose a detriment to the existing or expected habitat functions." The section of wetland and stream buffer where reduction is proposed is located along the north and northwest edges of the wetland (west edge of the stream). The sensitive areas letter has characterized that area as permanently impacted due to human intrusions and the presence of social trails, trash, and non-native invasive species. We disagree with that assessment. For the most part, human intrusions, trash, English ivy (Hedera helix) and Himalayan blackberries (Rubus armeniacus) are limited to the western edge of the forest cover, which is located well.outside of the majority of the existing 100-foot wetland and stream buffer. Moreover, trash, social trails, and cover by invasives do not constitute permanent impacts to habitat — all of those problems can be rectified or restored. The section of buffer that is proposed to be reduced has a park -like appearance, and is more accurately characterized in the following photo. %.{'-- -� e �'ti��-ray"', r •• .'�•: r;_.� Himalayan blackberries have been removed from this area. The overstory of big -leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), red alder (Alnus rubra), and scattered Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesh) provides shade for volunteering and recovering sword fern (Polystichum munitum), bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), salal (Gaultheria shallon), red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), trailing blackberry (Rubus ursinus), Siberian miner's lettuce (Claytonia sibirica), and other desirable native species. This section of the wetland and stream buffer currently provides habitat for numerous bird species that make use of mixed overstory and shrub habitat. Spotted towhees, American goldfinch, Oregon junco, white -crowned sparrow, and downy woodpeckers were all observed during the site visit. Furthermore, the numerous downed woody debris and spatial complexity of the habitat is likely to provide habitat to numerous small Sheldon & Associates, Inc. Page 4 of 8 Memo to Deb Barker on BufferAveraging and Conceptual Mitigation Plan for Crestview II May 25, 2005 mammalian species. This section of wetland and stream buffer also represents potential habitat for several amphibian species (e.g. plethodontid and long -toed salamanders, Pacific chorus frogs, etc.), particularly given the proximity to the onsite stream and wetland. Far from being permanently impacted, the majority of the 100-foot wide buffer where reduction is proposed represents a portion of an island of useful wildlife habitat in an urban setting, and has excellent potential for enhancement. C.1.1 Because habitat in the section of wetland buffer where reduction is proposed is not permanently impacted, FWCC will not allow wetland buffer averaging. FWCC does not specifically allow stream buffer averaging. C.2. BUFFER REDUCTION: FWCC does not have specific provisions to reduce stream buffers [FWCC 22-1312(c)]. FWCC 22-1359(e) does allow wetland buffer reduction providing that certain existing conditions can be demonstrated, including at least one of the following: "(1) Existing conditions are such that the required standard buffer exists in a permanently altered state (e.g. roadways, paved parking lots, permanent structures, etc.) which does not provide any buffer function, then the buffer can be reduced for that portion where the intrusions are existing. (2) Except for Category I wetlands, existing conditions are such that the wetland has been permanently impacted by adjacent development activities, as evidenced by such things as persistent human alterations or the dominance of non-native invasive species." C.2.1 FWCC will not allow wetland buffer reduction for this project. There are no permanent alterations in the section of wetland buffer where reduction is proposed, and the wetland itself is not permanently impacted. FWCC does not specifically allow stream buffer reduction. C.3. BUFFER MODIFICATION: The proposed impacts to the wetland and stream buffers qualify as buffer modification [FWCC 22-1359(f) and FWCC 22-1312(c)]. C.3.1 Wetland buffer modification must satisfy five criteria, and requires approval through Process IV evaluation [FWCC 22-1359(f)]. C.3.2 Stream buffer modification must satisfy six criteria, and requires approval through Process IV evaluation [FWCC 22-1312(c)]. C.3.3 Buffer modification requires approval of a buffer enhancement plan as part of the Process IV evaluation [FWCC 22-1359(f)] (see section D.2 below). C.3.4 FWCC 22-1359(g) requires revegetation of wetland buffers: "The applicant shall stabilize all areas left exposed after the land surface modification with native vegetation normally associated with the buffer." C.3.5 All FWCC Surface and Stormwater Management regulations apply to any activity in wetland and stream buffers (FWCC Chapter 21) (see Section E below), and standard best management practices must be employed. C.4. FOOT -TRAIL: The applicant is proposing to construct a foot -trail through the wetland and stream buffers. A foot -trail -qualifies as a minor improvement [FWCC 22-1359(d)]. Minor improvements in wetland buffers must satisfy five criteria [FWCC 22-1359(d)], and minor improvements in stream setbacks must satisfy six criteria [FWCC 22-1312(b)]. Page Sheldon & Associates, Inc. Pa 9 Memo to Deb Barker on Buffer Averaging and Conceptual Mitigation Plan for Crestview II May 25, 2005 These criteria include: "(2) It will not adversely affect the existing quality of the wetland's or buffer's habitat". C.4.1 A foot -trail located anywhere other than around the perimeter of the buffer will fragment the buffer, and thus will negatively affect the existing quality of the habitat. Locating the trail within the proposed buffer "give" areas (as depicted in the mitigation plan) would decrease the benefits of additional buffer to the habitat. Foot -trails must be located outside of the proposed fence along the wetland/stream buffer perimeter. Picnic tables (as suggested in the sensitive areas letter) will not be allowed within the buffers. C.4.2 Minor improvements in wetland and stream buffers require approval through Process III evaluation. However, since the proposed foot -trail is part of a proposal which requires approval through Process IV, then the entire proposal will be decided using Process IV evaluation (FWCC 22-388). C.4.3 Sections of the foot -trail proposed immediately adjacent to slopes greater than 40% must comply with FWCC development standards for geologically hazardous areas (FWCC 22-1286). D. MITIGATION PLAN D.1. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF WETLAND AND STREAM BUFFER IMPACTS: The mitigation plan appears to under -represent the square footage of buffer impacts and proposed buffer reductions. The shaded areas in the existing buffer, listed in the legend as "buffer reduction", include only the parking lots, building footprints, and a 15-foot perimeter around the structures. The buffer impact/reduction area actually includes all existing buffer area located outside (buildingward) of the proposed buffer perimeter fence. The sensitive areas letter points out several times that the wetland and stream buffers are prone to human intrusions due to the proximity of dwellings and lack of fences, and that those intrusions have a negative impact on habitat and buffer functions. D.1.1 All existing buffer area located outside (buildingward) of the proposed buffer perimeter fence will count as buffer impact/reduction. Provide corrections. D.2. FINAL MITIGATION PLAN: The current mitigation plan is conceptual. The final mitigation plan must comply with FWCC 22-1359(f). The mitigation plan must include (but is not limited to): mitigation sequencing information; goals and objectives; measurable/quantifiable performance standards; engineered site plans; planting plan; plant schedule; installation and construction specifications; maintenance plan; five-year monitoring plan; as -built report and annual monitoring reports; financial guarantees; and contingency plans. The mitigation plan should generally be consistent with Washington Department of Ecology Guidance on Wetland Mitigation in Washington State. Part 2: Guidelines for Developing Wetland Mitigation Plans and Proposals, April 2004, Ecology Publication 04-06-013b, and King County Critical Areas Mitigation Guidelines (http://www.metrokc.gov/ddes/forms/Is-not-samit.pdf) [FWCC 22-1243 and 22.-1270]. D.2.1 The issue of buffer mitigation should be fully addressed in the Process IV submittal. Provide a final mitigation plan consistent with FWCC 22-1359(f) as specified above in section D.2. r� Sheldon & Associates, Inc. Page 6 of S Memo to Deb Barker on BufferAveraging and Conceptual Mitigation Plan for Crestview II May 25, 2005 D.3. WETLAND ENHANCEMENT: The mitigation plan mentions enhancement plantings in the wetland. Although wetland enhancement would have a positive effect on habitat, wetland enhancement is not required because no direct impacts to the wetland are proposed, and the existing wetland is in fairly good condition. D.3.1 Unless wetland rehabilitation or wetland modifications are proposed [FWCC 22- 1358(c) or (d)], the reference to wetland enhancement should be deleted from the mitigation plan. D.4. RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT OF THE STORMWATER CHANNEL AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WETLAND A: The sensitive areas letter accurately describes the stormwater outfall channel located at the southeast corner of Wetland A as eroded and incised. The channel segment with the highest degree of erosion is adjacent to the existing stormwater discharge structure, which is located offsite. The slope is fairly steep near the discharge structure, but it levels out onsite. As the slope flattens out, the stormwater channel becomes less incised. The channel loses definition before it enters Wetland A, and sand and gravel are deposited outside of the main body of Wetland A. The sensitive areas letter proposes to stabilize the stormwater channel "...with large woody debris, geotextiles and native plant species with soil binding properties". Because the existing stormwater discharge structure is located offsite, the applicant will not be able to restore the section of the channel where erosion is most apparent. Most of the transport load is currently deposited outside of the main body of Wetland A, so it is not clear whether the benefits of having large woody debris in the stormwater channel would outweigh the negative impacts of driving heavy machinery across the buffer and the construction impacts necessary to install LWD. Planting native shrub species that can tolerate seasonal runoff is recommended. D.4.1 Provide detailed engineered drawings and construction specifications for proposed enhancements to the stormwater channel located at the southeast corner of Wetland A. D.S. CONDITIONS OF ADDITIONAL BUFFER AREAS: The mitigation plan shows three areas of "give" buffer. Addition of these areas to the buffer may be required under Process IV evaluation, so that the project does not result in a net loss of open space [FWCC 22-1359(f)(5)]. "(5) It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor to the city as a whole, including the loss of open space." Two of the proposed "give" areas are located adjacent to the existing parking lot on the west side of the parcel. Both of these areas are degraded. The third give area is located at the SE corner of the parcel. D.5.1 The give area adjacent to the parking lot at the SW corner of the parcel has open forest cover (alder and big leaf maple), but the understory is almost exclusively Himalayan blackberry. This area is currently being used as a brush dump for remodeling/construction activities. It includes an west -to -east draining ditch which ends at a broken section of stormpipe. This stormpipe appears to continue north to outlet at the southwest corner of Wetland A. There is solid blackberry cover offsite to the south. The give area wraps around the parking lot to the north, where Himalayan blackberries are very dense along the western edge of the forested slope. This portion of the give area will provide additional protection for �1 Sheldon & Associates, Inc. Page 7 of 8 Memo to Deb Barker on Buffer Averaging and Conceptual Mitigation Plan for Crestview II May 25, 2005 the steep slope adjacent to Wetland A. It appears that the 10-foot wide grass strip adjacent to the parking lot is not included 'in the give area. D.5.1.1 Brush piles must be cleared out of the give area, Himalayan blackberries controlled, and the area should be replanted, maintained, and monitored as part of the mitigation plan. D.5.2 The second give area is located opposite the western bulge of the wetland, and it extends all the way to the pavement. This area is forested, with widely scattered shrubs and sword ferns in the understory. Based on the large number of abandoned toys, this area is used as a play area by the resident children. D.5.2.1 The area should be enhanced, maintained, and monitored as part of the mitigation plan. D.5.3 The third give area is located at the SE corner of the parcel. During our site visit, it was unclear where the existing buffer ended and the proposed give area began, but at least some of the give area has been cleared of Himalayan blackberries. Desirable native species such as red elderberry, salmonberry, red huckleberry (Vaccinium parvifolium) and bracken fern are recovering or volunteering under a cover of widely scattered alders and big leaf maples. The eastern part of the give area is forested. However, many Himalayan blackberries are resprouting in the give area and existing buffer, and there is solid blackberry cover offsite to the south. As the sensitive areas letter points out, this give area and the adjacent buffer is used by the resident children to build tree houses, and residents have discarded some trash in this area. D.5.3.1. The area should be enhanced, maintained and monitored as part of the mitigation plan. D.6. CONDITIONS OFFSITE TO THE SOUTH: As mentioned above, there is almost solid cover by Himalayan blackberries offsite to the south. These blackberry thickets will serve as a continuing source for blackberry colonization of all of the onsite restoration and enhancement areas along the south boundary. D.6.1 Provide a vegetation management plan to deal with the constant source of Himalayan blackberries located offsite to the south. E. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED E.1. The sensitive areas letter states that stormwater will be treated and detained and then "...released through a series of dispersal trenches located in the enhanced buffer of Wetland A." E.1.1 Provide information describing and locating all stormwater dispersal structures. E.1.2 Placement of any stormwater structures within a buffer qualifies as buffer modification and requires approval by Process IV evaluation [FWCC 22-1359(f)]. Placement of any stormwater structures within reduced sections of the buffer will not be allowed unless approved by the Hearing Examiner. Sheldon & Associates, Inc. Page 8 of 8 Memo to Deb Barker on Buffer Averaging and Conceptual Mitigation Plan for Crestview II May 25, 2005 E.1.3 Compliance with Federal Way stormwater regulations requires that developed peak flows be detained to provide outflows that do not exceed pre -developed peak flows (FWCC Chapter 21). Provide information. E.1.4 The applicant must demonstrate that the functions of the wetland, stream and their associated buffers will not be adversely affected by: stormwater discharge; any post -development changes in water quality or water quantities; or by de - watering. E.2. Is stormwater that currently enters the wetland from the stormwater structure at the SE corner of Wetland A treated? E.3. Provide information about the ditch and broken stormpipe along the south boundary of the parcel (see D.5.1). EA Provide information about outflow from the stormwater culvert located immediately offsite to the south of the SW corner of the parcel. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this memorandum. I can be reached at 206-522-1214 extension 15, or at suzanne@bogstomper_com. Suzanne Bagshaw, Ph.D. Wetland Ecologist WEST SOUTH UE9 TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Rosom+ca & EmimmmanwI Planning 15020 Bw Qwk R W NardwA Woo&-ffiq Wmbiagtoa 98077 Bas (42061-7550 - Fat (42*861-7549 FIGURE #1 PHOTO -POINT PANI HEST GRESTVIEW PHASE II FEDERAL WAY, WA514I146TON RESUBMITTED OCT 2 7 2006 C1Tg��DINGEDRAL EF' WAY DESIGN I DRAWN I PROJECT SCALE NT5 DATE 10-25-06 REVISED Cagyright - Tdasam C 0AsWtmt8, INC. ' �, __ � � - `.: 15 i �. • .LY \ • i 1 � ,� • . � Jry ' - � y.rl_v�� ��p .� �;. N kV,s-,' j j Y'e • v`: is- i.1aL IT —tom �'+�• �� � - - ,,•." ..ti,. ems•. viz _ �•: ,�. <<��4 -"•. _.^ •- ,y �I- -± r.4F i .sed1 _ ram. •. l3^- •,i'.z'•. „ • . �,�, + ' - •� � 111 ir�M1 7�' �s ,'��• 71 -� t L, '� 1 1� �, i� - -- a s 'r�4' � � _ y. �.+• y,'w � - `;� ,1 • �„ F�',1' � . fir: µr _ + - � . �-� ,. � _s at NNW •� j di 'F 1 337"""•. .r '.+e� .:`� ��i� 1 j . .. .L: - ?� C. 1 !1' � }• '`";' h", • !k - _ �� ` ' ,• +�•m'�,"mac..'. •• r "�`"• .' �_ - �-1� ^��i� !e� M1 � '� - .. r ' - .rr ^Y, .. �..: 9 •'+r "J•'�%�'- Yid'" _ •T• •-iir li r - !i l�Viol � �3. ',�,•tey r, ' '. , r `ram . r.•;=;.,:. yIFA" ,- r OR _fir•.-3i'.. * '��.�`. - :. - - V !T, h•. ? .• �: . �'11_� L✓ • x!{ '. 7 r• • r' Y �i; 4� !f!..' -1K -- _ - - - -'' J Cs• " - .... Yam; - . '� ^_ � f r�•�`�� .� �a �7i� � � .�- •Yk:• yam.. � _ . - - . _-- - r.�r - --_- - SW4NNW ' ~w r��:•� ... 1a s .- '�`.��r� _. �� � _'! ..gip .• �. - Y -..K. _"�" .I `tix. •W_. s 1� �_° -ice:"-,.^ • �- - - - _ r Y _ . - t • ,r• -� "WWI' r3 •''� • ti' . S . jI'• _ _ _ Um cam... :�•` `_' � %',ti ,-�, • oo kt r ,s i.'1 •, 4 ����j F' .." _� 1 ' �, ti . J �' �_•,, }'.� •. Liu -,, e` (Y; _i . •.7 .I`., !r '{y1`• ;i i!! R •-f p; 77 . �.�__ .:T.• -' K5 � .. _ � 'fit _ � .-�-''�'�-��'_.� �_ FF ti. Ii -h.1 ^-t - .r.:- •`.if�'� � "'. i � f r • _ . � ` it = � �: :-07 • ,� �� - '-"fie • �• 6 ' - _ .�- •�� - - At —7wf- &1�1 - � S� j �� , .q$[• _ -Y � fJ �--y.v -�}- •± .� ��-� Y ^ Y� _' •Si �!. � Shy �R l �� •i4i i `'x;;y „�r-• •_ - r rt _- - - ~-,y:--.�• gip', '�,' � �_. ' .. _ � � ■ r -:��� yy +fir 's.�{ k � _ .�}` .-- � � IS-• .K� '.�, � .•Y• t, �: � ��� ,^; �• -r-. r= �;�'•�'.::,�y I' .-Y-��+;i=-+.�'.1 � !` � L Yf tF� ' I` �� r� - f •�:�. _ Tr+7 .y • ,:� i '• :T-':. •��'� Cy 1 \'•.•. I'tl,�. �~ _ � •'x•� . • .. �f ._'f�� - .' 4 - r s f �. �:, •y a.( ,�;�. i S � 't s'-,'�.. �^L.ifiir 'r • �,. '":K'• ii r - ,°�,,�,� ..� .�_ k ••.t tiN 1 }13 mot, .� .•♦�., /�jai l ,V; : - + s�af'-} '4i'Y � if '. r • C = 'E..C� �T�.�i�i ,ZC - �flr `J �^- 1 .y.f _ -, _ *� •� -�1t i°. "[•y `t,. _ _! _ C{_ � ��'�] �;, t.• .Jiir �r yAf,KJ •1._� .. 1� � = 1.- '.. �.'• �` rJy'y... .. .�^-. r• 7 - , �ii � z, } � � _ p•-•�•�_' � • ter . t � �t , a - +; . •t. _ _ _.. _ 71 :Y'�{'•...`_ _ [r 2-"! A Olk 015 oi. AA. F It _�. f. 5OUTH NORTH � .r � �: jam, a• ice'' ..�.t� �� EAST VIEW r TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Ro mca & EribommenW Pboning 15020 Bea CmkRmdNor&aw woo&vvM^ WeebbW-98077 Bu (425)861-7550 - Fa (425WI-7549 FIGURE #8 PHOTO -POINT 5FAPP2 GfRE5TViEH PHASE 11 FEDERAL HAY, i-4A5HINGTON SOUTH RESUBMITTED OCT 2 7 2006 C,J-YY OF FEDERAL AY BUILDING DEPT. 6=(QN I DRAWN OT K5 I PROJECT I G27 ScAu NT5 Haze a IO-257-07,62,1 ccgWhc - Tdims COMW(Nnts,1NQ .1 �w :�� .�`-� �.}� ,+#a- �-.. a •., •� _ 1,� r ell s44ue-; •,T f , +.�.. •�' _ .,+� it .f 5 ..F! � AN 44 7 -.?•.: ; � S- . - - ,may • � �"r r= �• .fix x' - _ - �- '•�'I-ram ir' s 0 116 Your Community Newspaper - Affidavit of Publication Debbie Kaufman, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is the Publisher of The Federal Way Mirror, a semi -weekly newspaper. That said newspaper is published in the English language continually as a semi -weekly newspaper in Federal Way, King County, Washington, and is now and during all of said time has been printed in an office maintained at the aforementioned place of publication of said newspaper. That the annexed is a true copy of a legal advertisement placed by City of Federal Way L-1162 as it was published in regular issues (and not in supplemental form) of said newspaper once each week for a period of one consecutive week(s), commencing on the 4th day of November, 2006 , and ending on the 4th day of November, 2006, bath dates inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its readers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee charged for the foregoing publication is the surn of 9 2.96 which amount has been paid in full, or billed at the legal rate accordin4 to RCW 65.16.090 Subscribed to and sworn before me this 14th day of November, 2006. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, Residing at Federal Way 1'�����►i� � i� rrrrrrrri .41 �Jl cF� PU8L01 ��• 1414 SO. 324TH STREET, SUITE B210, FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 ■ 253-925-5565 0 FAX: 253-925-5750 Federal W NOTICE O PIUB IC LAND USE HEARING Crestview II Apartment Complex - Welland and Stream Buffer Intrusions Notice is hereby given that the City of Feder- al Way Land Use Hearing Examiner will hold a public hearing at 2:00 p.m. on November 21, 2006, in the Federal Way City Council Chambers, 33325 8th Avenue South, in Fed- eral Way, WA. File Number: 05-102533-00-UP Topic: Request to intrude into regulated wet- land and stream buffers associated with de- velopment of a new multi -family complex pursuant to Federal Way City Code (FWCCj Section 22-1312(c) and FWCC Section 22- 1359{f), reRuiring Process IV Hearing Exam- iner's Decision, Project Location: 27822 Pacific Highway South, east of exisling Crestview West Apartments, Fed- erai Way, WA; Parcel ##720480.0200 Applicant: Greg McKenna, F&M Develop- ment, 17786 Des Moines Memorial Dr., Buri- en, WA 98148 Cityy Contact: Deb Barker, Senior Planner, 253-835-2642 Application Received: May 31, 2005 Ag lication Determined Complete: June 16, Notice of Application Issued: July 6. 200 5 Process IV Hearing Date: !November 21, 2006 Any person may participate in the public hearing by submitting written comments to the Hearing Examiner, either by delivering these comments to the Department of Com- munity Development Services prior to the hearing, giving them directly to the Hearing Examiner at the hearing, or by appearing in person, or through a rep"' ntative, at the hearing and presenting public testimony. Any person may request a copy of the decision once made. Written comments should be ad- dressed to: Department of Community De- velopment Services, 33325 8th Avenue South, P❑ Box 9718, Federal Way, WA 98063-9718. The Hearing Examiner will is- sue a decision on the application within 10 working days after the close of the hearing. Only persons who submit written or oral com- ments to the Hearing Examiner may appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision. The appli- cation for the proposal is to be reviewed under applicable codes, regulations, and pol- icies of the City of Federal Way. The official file is available for review durino working hours (Monday through Friday, 8:06 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) in the Department of Com- munity Development Services. Staff reports will be available for review one '"tr 'More the hearingg. FWM#-1162 Date of Publicatrr, .t'�\ CITY OF l Federal Way DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33325 8t" Avenue South PO Box 9718 Federal Way WA 98063-9718 253-835-7000; Fax 253-835-2609 www.cityotfederalway= DECLARATION OF DISTRIBUTION l 4 nO hereby declare, under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Was ' gton, that a: ❑ Notice of Land Use Application/Action ❑ Notice of Determination of Significance (DS) and Scoping Notice ❑ Notice of Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, DNS) ❑ Notice of Mitigated Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, MDNS) ❑ Notice of Land Use Application & Anticipated DNS/MDNS ❑ FWCC Interpretation ❑ Other _ ❑ Land Use Decision Letter Notice of Public Hearing before the Hearing Examiner ❑ Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing ❑ Notice of LUTC/CC Public Hearing ❑ Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Adoption of Existing Environmental Document was ❑ mailed ❑ faxed ❑ e-mailed and/orb posted to or at each of the attached addresses on r Project Name File Number(s) Signa Date K:\CD Administration Files\Declaration of Distribution.doc/Last printed 10/23/2006 1:47:00 PM �LI-2W t4iI Fc�ro�P l� '�2 C��. 6,rcvn cF� Lc brz�..v S-k�s G�kl�i� 33 25 'a{ -IN AL2 a)tkdt,-\ (--e6PXwo CITY OF '!- Federal Way DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33325 8th Avenue South PO Box 9718 Federal Way WA 98063-9718 253-835-7000; Fax 253-835-2609 www.cit offederalwa .coat DECLARATION OF DISTRIBUTION i, hereby declare, under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington, that a: ❑ Notice of Land Use Application/Action ❑ Notice of Determination of Significance (DS) and Scoping Notice ❑ Notice of Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, DNS) ❑ Notice of Mitigated Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, MDNS) ❑ Notice of Land Use Application & Anticipated DNS/MDNS ❑ FWCC Interpretation ❑ Other ❑ Land Use Decision Letter L Notice of Public Hearing before the Hearing Examiner ❑ Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing ❑ Notice of LUTC/CC Public Hearing ❑ Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Adoption of Existing Environmental Document was ❑ mailed ❑ faxed ❑ e-mailed andlor �I pasted to or at each of the attached addresses on 2006. �r� }�Q�L� pl� SU+-' 61 ./1 Project Name File Number(s) 102,S33-od -UPS Signature _ _— Date K:\CD Administration Files\Declaration of Distribution.doc/Last printed 10/23/2006 1:47:00 PM CIT Federal Way NOTICE OF PUBLIC LAND USE HEARING Crestview II Apartment Complex — Wetland and Stream Buffer Intrusions Notice is hereby given that the City of Federal Way Land Use Hearing Examiner will hold a public hearing at 2:00 p.m, on November 21, 2006, in the Federal Way City Council Chambers, 33325 8`h Avenue South, in Federal Way, WA. File Number: 05-102533-00-UP Topic. Request to intrude into regulated wetland and stream buffers associated with development of a new multi -family complex, pursuant to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Section 22- 1312(c) and FWCC Section 22-1359(f), requiring Process IV Hearing Examiner's Decision. Project Location: • 27822 Pacific Highway South, east of existing Crestview West Apartments, Federal Way, WA; Parcel #720480-0200 Applicant: Greg McKenna, F&M Development, 17786 Des Moines Memorial Dr., Burien, WA 98148 City Contact: Deb Barker, Senior Planner, 253-835-2642 Application Received: May 31, 2005 Application Determined Complete: June 16, 2005 Notice of Application Issued: July 6, 2005 Process IV Hearing Date: November 21, 2006 Any person may participate in the public hearing by submitting written comments to the Hearing Examiner, either by delivering these comments to the Department of Community Development Services prior to the hearing, giving them directly to the Hearing Examiner at the hearing, or by appearing in person, or through a representative, at the hearing and presenting public testimony. Any person may request a copy of the decision once made. Written comments should be addressed to: Department of Community Development Services, 33325 8th Avenue South, PO Box 9718, Federal Way, WA 98063-9718. The Hearing Examiner will issue a decision on the application within 10 working days after the close of the hearing. Only persons who submit written or oral comments to the Hearing Examiner may appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision. The application for the proposal is to be reviewed under applicable codes, regulations, and policies of the City of Federal Way. The official file is available for review during working hours (Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) in the Department of Community Development Services. Staff reports will be available for review one week before the hearing. Published in the Federal Way Mirror on November 4, 2006. 05-102533 Doc-I.D. 37711 Z 41k OF Fed'0';:tt=P eral Way DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33325 8th Avenue South PO Box 9718 Federal Way WA 98063-9718 253-835-7000; Fax 253-835-2609 www,cityoffed rolwov.cam DECLARATION OF DISTRIBUTION I, V 2 hf. -,f X hereby declare, .under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington, that a: ❑ Notice of Land Use Application/Action ❑ Notice of Determination of Significance (DS) and Scoping Notice ❑ Notice of Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, DNS) ❑ Notice of Mitigated Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, MDNS) ❑ Notice of Land Use Application & Anticipated DNS/MDNS ❑ FWCC Interpretation ❑ Other ❑ Land Use Decision Letter ❑ Notice of Public Hearing before the Hearing Examiner ❑ Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing ❑ Notice of LUTC/CC Public Hearing ❑ Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Adoption of Existing Environmental Document was 9 mailed ❑ faxed ❑ e-mailed and/or ❑ posted to or at each of the attached addresses on 2006. Project Namer��-�u._,�_;_��}�'Zrr� File Number(s) OS-io) Signature Date U - S -D6 K:\CD Administration Files\Declaration of Distribution.doc/Last printed 1 /23/2006 8:42 AM CITY OF !� Federal Way NOTICE OF PUBLIC LAND USE HEARING Crestview II Apartment Complex — Wetland and Stream Buffer Intrusions Notice is hereby given that the City of Federal Way Land Use Hearing Examiner will hold a public hearing at 2:00 p.m. on November 21, 2006, in the Federal Way City Council Chambers, 33325 8`h Avenue South, in Federal Way, WA. File Number: 05-102533-00-UP Topic. Request to intrude into regulated wetland and stream buffers associated with development of a new multi -family complex, pursuant to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Section 22- 1312(c) and FWCC Section 22-1359(f), requiring Process IV Hearing Examiner's Decision. Project Location: 27822 Pacific Highway South, east of existing Crestview West Apartments, Federal Way, WA; Parcel #720480-0200 Applicant: Greg McKenna, F&M Development, 17786 Des Moines Memorial Dr., Burien, WA 98148 City Contact: Deb Barker, Senior Planner, 253-835-2642 Application Received: May 31, 2005 Application Determined Complete: June 16, 2005 Notice of Application Issued: July 6, 2005 Process IV Hearing Date: November 21, 2006 Any person may participate in the public hearing by submitting written comments to the Hearing Examiner, either by delivering these comments to the Department of Community Development Services prior to the hearing, giving them directly to the Hearing Examiner at the hearing, or by appearing in person, or through a representative, at the hearing and presenting public testimony. Any person may request a copy of the decision once made. Written comments should be addressed to: Department of Community Development Services, 33325 8`h Avenue South, PO Box 9718, Federal Way, WA 98063-9718. The Hearing Examiner will issue a decision on the application within 10 working days after the close of the hearing. Only persons who submit written or oral comments to the Hearing Examiner may appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision. The application for the proposal is to be reviewed under applicable codes, regulations, and policies of the City of Federal Way. The official file is available for review during working hours (Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) in the Department of Community Development Services. Staff reports will be available for review one week before the hearing. Published in the Federal Way Mirror on November 4, 2006. 05-102533 Doc. I.D. 37711 Party of record table - Crestview II Apartments Provided full mailing of 1MNS, Staff Evaluation and exhibits 1. John and Karen Jenkins 28015 20th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 2. Dan and Lome Hall 28019 20`h Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 3. Diane Landsinger 27819 20`h Place South Federal Way, WA 98003 4. Andrea Prouty 2007 South 279th Place Federal Way, WA 98003 Doc. I.D. 37370 MetroScan / King (WA) Parcel Number owner Name Site Address YB Owner Phone --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 422231 422231 •422231 422231 422231 422231 422231 422231 422231 422231 422231 422231 422231 422231 422231 422231 422231 422231 422231 422231 422231 720460 720480 720480 720480 720480 720480 720480 720400 720400 720480 720540 720540 720540 720540 720540 720540 757562 757562 757562 757562 757562 757562 757562 757562 757562 757562 757562 757562 757562 757562 757562 757562 757562 757562 0250 0260 0270 0280 0340 0350 0360 0370 0460 0470 0480 0490 0500 0510 0520 0530 0540 0550 0560 0570 0590 0165 0166 0167 0174 0184 0186 0195 0202 0204 0210 0011 0012 0013 0014 0125 0130 0270 0290 0300 0310 0350 0360 0370 0380 0390 0400 0410 0420 0430 0460 0470 0480 0490 0570 Porter Dennis E & Patr Kaur Nirmal Dougherty Charles P II Dougherty Charles P II Wells Shani D Lukomskiy Ivan K & Nin Moses Brian K Sr/Angel Edwards James Everett/ Le Phong T Doern Reginald B Ferrer Manuel D Chai Alfred T Al-bermany Wahab H Jenkins John D Jr/Kare Mall Daniel R & Lori A Kendrick William L Hocking Charles D Smith Wesley R/Portia Taylor Dennis A/Eva M Rhodes Marjorie A Hooks Lynn D/Ida P State Of Washington State Of Washington Pinsons Lle Chung Tae Mook Dr State Of Washington Silver Shadows Llc Halberg John R State Of Washington Schroeder Steven C Crestview West Partner Altizer Danny A/Christ Welsh Amy J Gill Jerry/Joy B Chand Saleshni V Choi Jung P & Eun K Choi Jung P & Eun K Abe Ryan Kuni Evans Linda J Wilkinson Troy D/Gina Lacap Renato A/Maria B Harrison Brian D Kondo Charles Zook Predrick B/Cherry Larson Jessica R Landsinger Diane M Deerwester Stacey J;+ Trunnell Brad J Palicki Jason/Stephani Zimmerman Mark A Prouty Jeffrey L/Andre Sandoval John L Rohr Lisa Jacobs Lonnie/Michelle Nguyen Chuong;+ 2008 S 282nd St Federal 28116 20th Ave S Federal 2003 S 281st St Federal 2009 S 281st St Federal 2010 S 281st St Federal 28016 20th Ave S Federal 28006 20th Ave S Federal 2005 S 280th P1 Federal 2008 S 280th P1 Federal 2002 S 280th P1 Federal 2000 S 290th P1 Federal 28005 20th Ave S Federal 28011 20th Ave S Federal 28015 20th Ave S Federal 28019 20th Ave S ( No Ma 20101 20th Ave S Federal 28107 20th Ave S Federal 28113 20th Ave S Federal 28119 20th Ave S Federal 28201 20th Ave S Federal 28205 20th Ave S Federal *no Site Address* Federa 27B24 Pacific Hwy S Fede 27802 Pacific Hwy S Fede *no Site Address* Federa 27607 Pacific Hwy S Fede 27606 Pacific Hwy S Fede 27721 Pacific Hwy S Fede 27820 Pacific Hwy S Fade 27800 Pacific Hwy S Fede 27900 Pacific Hwy S Fede 1502 S 279th P1 Des Moin 1506 S 279th Pl Des Moin 1509 S 279th P1 Des Moin 1511 S 279th P1 Seattle 27905 Pacific Hwy S Fede 28001 Pacific Hwy S Fede 2036 S 279th Pl Federal 27026 20th P1 S Federal 27818 20th P1 S Federal 27812 20th Pl S Federal 27803 20th P1 S Federal 27807 20th P1 S Federal 27811 20th Pl S Federal 27815 20th P1 S Federal 27819 20th P1 S Federal 27823 20th P1 S Federal 27827 20th P1 S Federal 27831 20th P1 S Federal 27835 20th P1 S Federal 2003 S 279th Pl Federal 2013 S 279th P1 Federal 2019 S 279th P1 Federal 2025 S 279th P1 Federal 27927 21st Ave S Federal ltlformarlon compiled from various sources. Real Borate Solurtons makes no reprereniationa or warrontie= as to the accuracy or completenew of information contained In this report, 1971 1975 1974 1975 1976 1974 1974 1974 1975 1975 1989 1969 1989 1976 1976 1976 1975 1974 1975 1975 1976 1969 253-941--3733 253--529-1247 253-941-576B 1989 1946 1969 2003 206-212-6281 2003 253-946-1643 2003 2003 1926 1967 1991 1991 1991 1990 1990 1991 1990 1990 1990 1991 1990 1991 1987 1990 1991 1990 1988 253-529-2051 707-751-1733 253-529-3371 253-839-3023 253-941-2399 253-945-1393 & F •� i:l Y �y �, �y � �'I�a �"'" Si�YJr•1H]�C' � w m1.7�1aot• _ j \T11wn5 Ib01100\ ! l?• Ils,l r3 II i® $I IAI\1�' °• _Z+ m In Inn � •.r m + � Im I� {�1 i irNl,m : c"li- -n'.nr�ir.5n.-5a,n. IdlIkA- .-bw—.T— \ Al, ,nw\Itt O� J 11 y iA IWO { �� r wad' Imo+ ly>-,..a 11 ' 'Y � • M.I.-��+Y+1 `{yam arl FS � � A OWN N.1 A P w •� bo Ir �� 1 SIN A � 1 Y I.MI y •� 1. + � " � �$r nlaA 1 III • i r j 11 • � 1� In, IMt �r A y +�i awu Ir A li[ 6MISAr11 al M\1\TI\\ 334�(d ST 6 1 Iy\LOTIqY, f ��••_u NAP 0 J L. 'M J 11 iww t 7 .c Fs f +� lar, 67 , I 1�Y �• � /� � � 1'rr 0'm M. EI01 y.0 ' �4 ro. � airK .ti • �16 aP 7 + I arr I .. .....�., v,i'i'• a 31 ■ ere rr," dtW Imam lWIr 1.4 1 ® IYff 7[j 1j�N+11R ® ' a No .. N 't MM1. i f r.w r • n j cc — � w � w cc R r 427014 • M pin i � a I � 4.7i7rp �- ��� �'►' l*t as r :IY cI At 4f � , M .L �� � � it • YC �C " r,rumr WrrMrll W l� �I� � c -yA Y j4 s i s.rex s DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33325 8th Avenue South PO Box 9718 Federal Way WA 98063-9718 253-835-7000; Fax 253-835-2609 www.cityoffederoiway.00m DECLARATION OF DISTRIBUTION I, `J��• �r a x _ hereby declare, under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington, that a: ❑ Notice of Land Use Application/Action ❑ Notice of Determination of Significance (DS) and Scoping Notice ❑ Notice of Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, DNS) ❑ Notice of Mitigated Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, MDNS) ❑ Notice of Land Use Application & Anticipated DNS/MDNS ❑ FWCC Interpretation ❑ Other ❑ Land Use Decision Letter Notice of Public Hearing before the Hearing Examiner ❑ Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing ❑ Notice of LUTC/CC Public Hearing ❑ Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Adoption of Existing Environmental Document was ❑ mailed ❑ faxed Q e-mailed and/or ❑ posted to or at each of the attached addresses on -- n]� _ . 2006. Project Name �<�� ; ��3 -7r — ( 1 ], -LI -AIJ -�- File Number(s) 0� - )b a1. U P Signature J G "o— Date I) -J-d ., K:\CD Adminisiralion Files\Declaration of Distribution.doc/Last printed 1 /23/2006 8:42 AM 4ik CITY Federalo. Way NOTICE OF PUBLIC LAND USE HEARING Crestview II Apartment Complex — Wetland and Stream Buffer Intrusions Notice is hereby given that the City of Federal Way Land Use Hearing Examiner will hold a public hearing at 2:00 p.m. on November 21, 2006, in the Federal Way City Council Chambers, 33325 8`h Avenue South, in Federal Way, WA. File Number: 05-102533-00-UP Topic: Request to intrude into regulated wetland and stream buffers associated with development of a new multi -family complex, pursuant to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Section 22- 1312(c) and FWCC Section 22-1359(f), requiring Process IV Hearing Examiner's Decision. Project Location: 27822 Pacific Highway South, east of existing Crestview West Apartments, Federal Way, WA; Parcel #720480-0200 Applicant: Greg McKenna, F&M Development, 17786 Des Moines Memorial Dr., Burien, WA 98148 City Contact: Deb Barker, Senior Planner, 253-835-2642 Application Received: May 31, 2005 Application Determined Complete: June 16, 2005 Notice of Application Issued: July 6, 2005 Process IV Hearing Date: November 21, 2006 Any person may participate in the public hearing by submitting written comments to the Hearing Examiner, either by delivering these comments to the Department of Community Development Services prior to the hearing, giving them directly to the Hearing Examiner at the hearing, or by appearing in person, or through a representative, at the hearing and presenting public testimony. Any person may request a copy of the decision once made. Written comments should be addressed to: Department of Community Development Services, 33325 8`h Avenue South, PO Box 9718, Federal Way, WA 98063-9718. The Hearing Examiner will issue a decision on the application within 10 working days after the close of the hearing. Only persons who submit written or oral comments to the Hearing Examiner may appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision. The application for the proposal is to be reviewed under applicable codes, regulations, and policies of the City of Federal Way. The official file is available for review during working hours (Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) in the Department of Community Development Services. Staff reports will be available for review one week before the hearing. Published in the Federal Way Mirror on November 4, 2006. 05-102533 Doc. I.D. 37711 r--- i Tamara Fix - Re: Legal Notice From: Teryl Heller <theller@fedwaymirror.com> To: "Tamara Fix"<Tamara.Fix@cityoffederalway.com> Date: 11 /2/2006 9:40:16 AM Subject: Re: Legal Notice Thank you Tamara. Will publish in 11/4/06 issue as requested. On Nov 2, 2006, at 9:29 AM, Tamara Fix wrote: > Please publish the following legal notice (Crestview Hearing, > 05-102533) in Saturday's (November 4, 2006) issue. > Please furnish an affidavit of publication. > Thanks! > Tamara Fix > Administrative Assistant > City of Federal Way > PO Box 9718 > Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 > 253-835-2602 CITY OF CITY HALL Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com Greg McKenna November 2, 2006 F & M Development 17786 Des Moines Memorial Drive FIL Burien, WA 98148 RE: File #05-102533-00-UP; NOTICE OF SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING Crestview II — Process IV Review of Wetland and Stream Buffer Intrusions Dear Mr. McKenna: The purpose of this letter is to advise you of the various timelines associated with the above -referenced request to intrude into regulated stream and wetland buffers. A public hearinconducted by the Federal Way Hearing Examiner has been scheduled as follows: November 21, 2006 — 2:00 PM Council Chambers Federal Way City Hall, Second Floor 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 2. The public will be notified of this public hearing through mailed notices, and on- and off -site notice boards. You have installed the large on -site notice board. The City will post the notice of hearing on this board. The staff report for this public hearing will be available for distribution on November 14, 2006. I will send you a copy of the report at the above addresses. 4. Pursuant to FWCC Section 22-443(b), the Hearing Examiner must issue a decision on the variance request within 10 working days after the close of the public hearing. I would anticipate his decision approximately December 4, 2006; allowing time for the Thanksgiving holidays. 5. FWCC Section 22-447 contains timelines for appeals of the Hearing Examiner's decision. An appeal must be submitted within 14 calendar days of the issuance of the examiner's decision. If there are no appeals filed, the examiner's decision will become final following the third working day after the time to appeal has expired per FWCC Section 22-446. I've enclosed a copy of the Process IV section of the City's land use code and a guide to public hearings. Please call me at 253-835-2642 if you have any questions. I look forward to moving ahead on the project. Sincerely, k'a_ &_/O Deb Barker Senior Planner enc; FWCC Article VIII, "Process IV Review" Guide to Public Hearings c: Kevin Peterson, Engineering Plans Reviewer Greg Fewins, Deputy Director of CDS 05-102533 Doc- I.D. 38635 FILE CITY OF ti. Federal Way April 4, 2006 Ms. Suzanne Bagshaw Sheldon and Associates, Inc. 5031 University Way NE, #204 Seattle, WA 98105-4341 RE: File #05-102533-00-UP; FORWARD RESUBMITTED DOCUMENTS Crestview II Wetland/Stream Review Dear Ms. Bagshaw: CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www. cityoffederalway- com The purpose of this letter is to forward resubmitted information for the above -referenced project. The project has been revised to reduce the overall number of proposed units and parking stalls from the initial submittal. In addition, the applicant has attempted to reduce the extent of proposed intrusions into regulated wetland and stream buffers. The following information was submitted by the applicant in response to previous City comments including your November 2, 2005 memorandum, and a January 9, 2006 letter, from the City (copy included): o Owner authorization letter dated March 15, 2006 o Addendum letter dated March 29, 2006, from Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. o Geotechnical Engineering Study dated June 29, 2005, prepared by Earth Solutions NW LLC o Revised SEPA checklist dated March 23, 2006 o Revised Al.l - Site plan, A1.2 - Enlarged site plan, A3.0 to A.9 — Elevations prepared by Ross Deckman Architects dated 3/29/06 o Revised L1-L4 prepared by Lynn William Horn & Assoc dated March 25, 2006 o Revised C1 and C2 prepared by Sound Engineering, Inc. dated March 29, 2006 o Revised Preliminary TIR prepared by Sound Engineering dated March 2006 with cover letter o Revised Sensitive Areas report and Mitigation Plan prepared by Talasaea Consultants Inc. dated March 29, 2006 Please review the resubmitted information and provide comments based on the July 22, 2005, Sheldon scope of work. I can be reached at 253-835-2642 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Deb Barker Associate Planner enc: Resubmitted Information 05-102533 Doc. I.D. 35748 V- -Z 1�kCITY OF Federal Way CITY HALL FIL E 33325 8th Avenue South Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com Ms. Suzanne Bagshaw May 9, 2006 Sheldon and Associates, Inc. 5031 University Way NE, #204 Seattle, WA 98105-4341 RE: File #05-102533-UP; FORWARD RESUBMITTED DOCUMENTS/AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED Crestview II Wetland/Stream Review Dear Ms. Bagshaw: The purpose of this letter is twofold: to forward resubmitted information for the Crestview II project and to authorize this review to commence. As previously noted, the apartment complex project has been revised to reduce the overall number of proposed units and parking stalls, and the applicant has attempted to reduce the extent of proposed intrusions into regulated wetland and stream buffers. RESUBMITTAL FORWARDED Last month, City staff reviewed a March 30, 2006 resubmittal, and provided comments to the applicant regarding wetland considerations in advance of Sheldon's review. Sheldon was asked to postpone their review until the applicant addressed City comments referenced in an April 24, 2006 letter. A copy of that letter is included. At this time, the applicant has revised the wetland report and provided a brief cover memo in response to the City's April 24, 2006 comments. Your review of this information, resubmitted on May 8, 2006, is requested. Please find the following resubmitted information: o Revised C 1 and C2 prepared by Sound Engineering, Inc. undated o Revised Sensitive Areas report and Mitigation Plan prepared by Talasaea Consultants Inc. revised date May 5, 2006 o Cover memo from Talasaea dated May 5, 2006 o pe',fF�a[ A-(-t,.41,7, 1L-I Vkvv fo' AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED On April 4, 2006, the City forwarded revised plans and reports resubmitted on March 30, 2006, to your attention. Your Phase 3 Review ofResubmittals Scope of Work, dated April 13, 2006, indicated that a budget of $5,570.00 would be appropriate for review of the resubmitted documents. At this time, funds in the amount of $5,570.00 have been received. Please consider this letter as an authorization to proceed with the review as detailed in your April 13, 2006, Phase 3 Review ofResubmittals Scope of Work. I can be reached at 253-835-2642 if you have any questions about this letter. Sincerely, Deb Barker Associate Planner ene: Resubmitted information April 24, 2006 letter 05-102533 Dac 1 D 36258 1--) FILE CITY OF L Federal Way CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com Ms. Suzanne Bagshaw May 9, 2006 Sheldon and Associates, Inc. 5031 University Way NE, #204 Seattle, WA 98105A341 RE: File #05-102533-UP; FORWARD RESUBMITTED DOCUMENTS/AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED Crestview II Wetland/Stream Review Dear Ms. Bagshaw: The purpose of this letter is twofold: to forward resubmitted information for the Crestview II project and to authorize this review to commence. As previously noted, the apartment complex project has been revised to reduce the overall number of proposed units and parking stalls, and the applicant has attempted to reduce the extent of proposed intrusions into regulated wetland and stream buffers. RESUBMITTAL FORWARDED Last month, City staff reviewed a March 30, 2006 resubmittal, and provided comments to the applicant regarding wetland considerations in advance of Sheldon's review. Sheldon was asked to postpone their review until the applicant addressed City comments referenced in an April 24, 2006 letter. A copy of that letter is included. At this time, the applicant has revised the wetland report and provided a brief cover memo in response to the City's April 24, 2006 comments. Your review of this information, resubmitted on May 8, 2006, is requested. Please fmd the following resubmitted information: 0 Revised C 1 and C2 prepared by Sound Engineering, Inc. undated o Revised Sensitive Areas report and Mitigation Plan prepared by Talasaea Consultants Inc. revised date May 5, 2006 0 Cover memo from Talasaea dated May 5, 2006 AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED On April 4, 2006, the City forwarded revised plans and reports resubmitted on March 30, 2006, to your attention. Your Phase 3 Review ofResubmittals Scope of Work, dated April 13, 2006, indicated that a budget of $5,570.00 would be appropriate for review of the resubmitted documents. At this time, funds in the amount of $5,570.00 have been received. Please consider this letter as an authorization to proceed with the review as detailed in your April 13, 2006, Phase 3 Review ofResubmittals Scope of Work. I can be reached at 253-835-2642 if you have any questions about this letter. Sincerely, U&Ja4-,�� Deb Barker Associate Planner enc: Resubmitted Information April 24, 2006 letter 05-102533 Doc 1 D 36258 FILE CITY OF �. Federal July 31, 2006 CITY HALL Wa 33325 8th Avenue South Y Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com Ms. Suzanne Bagshaw, Ph.D. OTAK 10230 NE Points Drive, Suite 400 Kirkland, WA 98033-7897 RE: File #05-102533-UP; CRESTVIEW II PROCESS IV APPLICATION Revisions Routed Dear Dr. Bagshaw: The purpose of this letter is to route revisions received by the City for the above -referenced proposal. The following resubmittals were received on July 27, 2006, in response to requests for additional information. Please find the following: o Cover letter from Sound Engineering dated July 13, 2006; o Cover letter from Ross Deckman & Associates (RDA) dated July 19, 2006; o Revised Preliminary TIR dated July 2006; o Revised landscape pages L-1, L-2, L-3 prepared by Lynn William Horn dated July 21, 2006; o Revised Cl and C2 prepared by Sound Engineering dated July 13, 2006; and o Revised A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A3.8 prepared by RDA dated July 12, 2006 The City issued a mitigated determination of nonsignificance (MDNS) for the proposed apartment complex effective Wednesday, July 26, 2006. The 14-day comment period runs from July 27 to August 9, followed by a 14-day appeal period from August 10 to August 23, 2006. Any comments received will be forwarded to your attention. As previously noted, following conclusion of the SEPA comment and appeal period, City staff will commence final review of the Process IV application for wetland and stream buffer intrusions in preparation of the Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner. Some of the resubmitted information from Sound Engineering (the TIR or revised Civil pages) may be relevant to that Scope of Work. Please let me know if you have any questions about this letter. Sincerely, i Deb Barker Senior Planner Enclosures as noted 05-102533 Doc 1 D 37444 Sheldon & _ Associates, Inc. 5031 University Way NE #204 • Seattle, WA 96105-4341 Ph 206-522-1214 • Fax 206-522-3507 Crestview II Apartments: Phase 3 Review of Resubmittals Scope of Work Prepared for the City of Federal Way Prepared on April 13, 2006 The following scope of work and cost estimate was developed by Sheldon & Associates, Inc. (S&A) to conduct a third -party review for the City of Federal Way of the revised documents (submitted in March 2006) regarding wetland and stream buffer impacts and proposed mitigation for the Crestview II Apartments addition (Federal Way File # 05-102533-00-UP). This scope of work includes: reviewing the revised documents listed below; analyzing the plans relative to the site conditions, and compliance with Federal Way City Code and previous S&A review memoranda; preparing memoranda of findings and recommendations; and project management. With one exception, review of the revised documents listed below was not included in the previous S&A Scope of Work for Crestview II Apartments: Process IV Application Review (Phase 2), dated July 22, 2005. Review of the revised SEPA checklist will be covered by Task 3 of the July 22, 2005 SOW. 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. Documents to be reviewed include: • Revised SEPA Checklist from Greg McKenna dated March 23, 2006; • Sensitive Areas Report and Enhancement Plan, Crestview II, Federal Way, Washington, by Talasaea Consultants, Inc., dated March 29, 2006; • Preliminary Technical Information Report for Crestview Apartments Phase II Federal Way, Washington, by Brett M. Allen, P.E. of Sound Engineering, Inc., dated March 2006; • Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Apartment Complex Crestview 11, 27900 Pacific Highway South, Federal Way, Washington ES-0134 by Shannon Petrisor, Earth Solutions NW, LLC; • Crestview Phase II Federal Way Preliminary Utility Plan, Sheets Cl and C2, by Sound Engineering, Inc. Second Submittal stamped date March 29, 2006; • Crestview Phase II Federal Way Landscape and Irrigation Plan Sheets L-1, L-2, L-3 and L-4 by Lynn William Horn & Associates, LLC, with hand-written revision date March 25, 2006; • Crestview Phase II Site Plan Sheet Al. 1 and Enlarged Site Plan Sheet A1.2 by Ross Deckman Architect; revised date March 29, 2006; • Letter from Deb Barker, City of Federal Way, to Jason Walker of Talasaea Consultants, Inc. dated January 9, 2006 regarding Permit #05-102533-00-UP — Crestview II Process IV Comments: 27822 Pacific Highway South, Federal Way, WA; • Memorandum from Suzanne Bagshaw of Sheldon & Associates, Inc. to Deb Barker, City of Federal Way, dated May 25, 2005, regarding Review of the Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan, Buffer Averaging and Enhancement, Crestview Phase II and Sheet W1.0 by Talasaea Consultants, Inc., dated March 17, 2005. • Memorandum from Suzanne Bagshaw of Sheldon & Associates, Inc. to, regarding Review of Sensitive Areas Report and Enhancement Plan Proposed Buffer Averaging and Conceptual Mitigation Plan for Crestview II by Talasaea Consultants, Inc., dated 25 May 2005. Scope of Work — Federal Way/ Crestview II: Phase 3 Review of Resubmittals April 13, 2006 Page 1 of 3 Sheldon & aAssociates, Inc. u- 5031 University Way NE #204 • Seattle, WA 98105-4341 Ph 206-522-1214 ■ Fax 206-522-3507 Memorandum from Suzanne Bagshaw of Sheldon & Associates, Inc. to Deb Barker, City of Federal Way, dated October 31, 2005, regarding Meeting for Crestview II on October 28, 2005. Memorandum from Kevin O'Brien of Sheldon & Associates, Inc. to Deb Barker, City of Federal Way, dated August 18, 2005, regarding Federal Way/Crestview II development project — SEPA status: Review of SEPA checklist, prepared by F & M Development/Greg McKenna, dated May 11, 2005 Task 3.1 — Review Revised Documents and Analysis of Revised Plans S&A will review the revised plans and documents listed above for the Crestview II project. The documents will be reviewed for compliance with Federal Way City Code (FWCC) and the previous S&A review memoranda listed above. Particular attention will be paid to proposed impacts to the wetland and stream buffers (including the foot trail) and the appropriateness of the proposed compensatory mitigation per FWCC Process IV evaluation. Assumptions: ■ Funding for review of the revised SEPA Checklist will be covered by funds remaining from Task 3 of the previous S&A Scope of Work for Crestview II Apartments: Process IV Application Review (Phase 2), dated July 22, 2005 ($748.00). Task 3.2 — Prepare Memorandum of Findings Based on information gathered from the previous field visit, FWCC, and the previous S&A review memoranda listed above, staff of S&A will prepare a memorandum summarizing the findings of the review of the revised sensitive areas report and mitigation plan, and other revised documents listed above. FWCC requirements for the proposed wetland and stream buffer impacts, proposed buffer modifications, and the adequacy of the proposed compensatory mitigation plan will be addressed. Assumptions: ■ Funding for preparation of the review memorandum for the revised SEPA Checklist will be covered by funds remaining from Task 3 of the previous S&A Scope of Work for Crestview II Apartments: Process IV Application Review (Phase 2), dated July 22, 2005 ($748.00). • Task 3.2 does not include review of an EIS. • Task 3.2 assumes that drafting conditions for project approval and attending the Process IV hearing will be funded by Tasks 4 and 5 (respectively) of the previous S&A Scope of Work for Crestview II Apartments: Process IV Application Review (Phase 2), dated July 22, 2005. Task 3.3 — Project Management This includes general project management, coordination with City staff, and coordination with the applicant and/or their representatives. Scope of Work — Federal Way/ Crestview II: Phase 3 Review of Resubmittals April 13, 2006 Page 2 of 3 " Sheldon & Associates, Inc. 5031 University Way NE #204 • Seattle, WA 98105-4341 Ph 206-522-1214 . Fax 206-522-3507 Cost Estimate for Crestview II: Phase 3 Review of Resubmittals TASK SB KOB DS KM Exp. Sub -Totals 3.1: Review Revised Documents 16 20 4 2 $2,020 3.2: Prepare Memoranda 4 2 $10 $2,390 3.3: Project Management 10 1 1 1 $1,160 Total Hours Rates Per Hour 46 $90 9 $90 5 $110 1 $60 $4,140 $810 $550 $60 $10 $5,570 SB - Suzanne Bagshaw, Wetland Biologist KOB - Kevin O'Brien, Wildlife Biologist DS - Dyanne Sheldon, Principal KM - Keren Marzi, Business Manager Expenses Include: Photocopies, Printing, and Faxes. Scope of Work — Federal Way/ Crestview II: Phase 3 Review of Resubmittals April 13, 2006 Page 3 of 3 A�k Federal Way January 9, 2006 Mr. Jason Walker, RLA, ASLA Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 15020 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, WA 98077 CITY HALL FILE 33325 8th Avenue South • PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www. cityoffederal way. com RE: Permit #05-102533-00-UP; CRESTVIEW II - PROCESS IV COMMENTS 27822 Pacific Highway South, Federal Way, WA Dear Mr. Walker: This letter provides comments on a conceptual site plan emailed to the City on December 2, 2005. According to your December 2, 2005 letter, the project team revised the site plan in response to comments made at the October 28, 2005 meeting, with City staff and the City's wetland consultant Sheldon & Associates. To reduce impacts, two of the five buildings proposed within the wetland buffer have been eliminated from the project. The majority of the required recreational open space is proposed to be located within wetland buffer areas, in addition to the proposed pedestrian trail. Based on the undated drawing, a total of three buildings, two of which would be constructed above a detention vault, three parking stalls, a drive aisle, recreation open space and a pedestrian trail are proposed to intrude up to 50 feet into the 100-foot wetland buffer and the 100-foot stream buffer. From the City's perspective, the proposed elimination of two buildings from the wetland buffer reduces some but not all of the project's impact on the wetland and stream buffer. From this standpoint, the revised proposal is still very similar in impacts to the wetland buffer as the original proposal. For example, recreational open space within wetland and stream buffer areas still is viewed as a major impact to the buffer, with the need for grading, filling, landscaping, chemicals, etc., as are the storm detention vault and buildings proposed within the wetland and stream buffer. As previously stated, the City is not supportive of the extensive wetland and stream buffer intrusions proposed with this development. Minimal intrusions such as those depicted on the enclosed site plan mockup, for example, could potentially be supported. Reductions in parking requirements could be sought with either shared parking with adjacent properties and/or a thorough parking study that documents that fewer parking spaces will fully serve the proposed use.' A Sheldon & Associates memorandum from the October 28, 2005 meeting, is enclosed per your request. Please be aware that I have not sought Sheldon & Associates review of the December 2, 2005 drawing, as the overall modification to the scope of impacts is largely unchanged. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 253-835-2642 or via email at deb.barkcrCtz cityoffederalway.com if you have any questions about this letter. 1 FWCC Section 22-1377 and FWCC Section 22-1398(2) Mr. Walker January 9, 2006 Page 2 Sincerely, Deb Barker Associate Planner enc: Site plan mockup Meeting memo from Sheldon & Associates dated November 2, 2005 Greg McKenna, F&M Development, 17786 Des Moines Memorial Drive, Burien, WA 98418, Via Fax 206-243-0654 05-102533 Doc. I D. 34648 { Qo t N'd�id ONI-LNVId NOS I'ZM 1�GH5 ZG5_;�NIiHVIVHk NV-IJ ONI1NIVIJ .?lO=l O'ZM IR�I5 R35 - RNIIHV.LVN . AL ric mz • • g7' r � � I I • _! 4 �•"Irr, I I I n 11 rRI I ��f='��r� Q��C7c�aZlc� v t 7- WIN FZI�G AREA % F. STF I ulbu RECB(,Owa sr MAXIMUM 50' ERJFFEF, Rr=Puc.Ti� PROPW5E1? -PdPT VFW FV jr -,o" MATCHLINE 5EE SHEET V42.0 FOR PLANTING PLAN MATCHLINE 5r=E SHEET H2.1 FOR FLANTINO PLAN FILE CITY OF CITY HALL ` 33325 8th Avenue South Ak Federal Way 98 Mailing Address: Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com April 14, 2006 Mr. Greg McKenna Via Fax 206-243-0654 F&M Development 17786 Des Moines Memorial Drive Burien, WA 98148 RE: FILE #05-102533-000-00-UP; 2ND CRESTVIEW II WETLAND CONSULTANT REVIEW ESTIMATE PROCESS IV APPLICATION FOR WETLAND AND STREAM BUFFER MODIFICATIONS Dear Mr. McKenna: Following your March 30, 2005 submittal, of revised documents for the proposed apartment complex, the City forwarded relevant documents to Sheldon & Associates for review. It should be noted that the Sheldon & Associates Scope of Work (SOW) prepared on July 22, 2005, (enclosed) only included review of those documents listed in that SOW. Any revisions to those documents require supplemental funding as noted in the Sheldon & Associates April 13, 2006, Phase 3 Review of Resubmittals Scope of Work enclosed with this letter.' This current task scope identifies several assumptions in order to determine the cost estimate. As previously noted, any deviation from SOW assumptions requires supplemental funding by the applicant. At this point, please review the proposed cost estimate for the Phase 3 Review of Resubmittals Scope of Work. If you agree with the cost estimate, a check in the amount of $5,570.00, payable to the City of Federal Way, must be submitted before Sheldon & Associates will be authorized to review resubmitted documents. I can be reached at 253-835-2642 if you have any questions about this letter or the estimate. Sincerely, �,a- Deb Barker Associate Planner enc: Sheldon Cost Estimate dated April 13, 2006 Sheldon Cost Estimate dated July 22, 2005 1 Phase 3 refers to the 3`d scope of work (SOW) request prepared by Sheldon for the Crestview II project. The original SOW was for wetland and stream determination prior to submittal of the formal application, Federal Way file #05-101314-AD_ Phase 2 was for review of formal submittal documents as identified in the July 22, 2005 SOW, under files 05-102533-UP, etc. Phase 3 covers review of revised documents. Doc [ D 35938 05-102533 44--fSheldon & Associates, Inc. 5031 University Way NE #204 • Seattle, WA 98105-4341 Ph 206-522-1214 • Fax 206-522-3507 Crestview II Apartments: Process IV Application Review Scope of Work Prepared for the City of Federal Way Prepared on July 22, 2005 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 and stream buffer impacts and proposed mitigation for the Crestview II Apartments addition (Federal Way File # 05-101314-000-00-AD). This scope of work includes: reviewing the submitted documents listed below; analyzing the plans relative to the site conditions and Federal Way City Code requirements; preparing memoranda of findings and recommendations; reviewing relevant sections of the Process IV Staff Report; attending the Process IV Hearing; coordination and meetings with the applicant's representatives and City staff; and project management. 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. Documents to be reviewed include: • Letter from F&M Development to Deb Barker, RE: File #05-100226-000-00-PC — Process III & IV Submission, Crestview II Apartments, dated May 11, 2005; • Sensitive Areas Report and Enhancement Plan Crestview II Federal Way, Washington, by Talasaea Consultants, Inc., dated May 25, 2005; • Preliminary Technical Information Report for Crestview Apartments Phase II Federal Way, Washington, by Brett M. Allen, P.E. of Sound Engineering, Inc., dated May 2005; • Environmental Checklist; stamped with 05-102531 and received date May 31, 2005; • ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey of the Crestview Apartments page 2 of 2, by Butler Surveying Inc., stamped with 05-102533 and received date May 31, 2005; • Crestview Phase II Federal Way Preliminary Utility Plan, Sheets C1 and C2, by Sound Engineering, Inc. dated May 11, 2005; • Crestview Phase II Federal Way Landscape Plan Sheets L 1.1, L 1.2, L 1.3; and Irrigation Plan Sheets L 2.1, L 2.2, L 2.3; by Lynn William Horn, LSA, dated January 19, 2005; • Crestview Phase II Site Plan Sheets A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, by Ross Deckman Architect; dated May 10, 2005; and • Memorandum from Sheldon & Associates, Inc. to Deb Barker, City of Federal Way, dated May 25, 2005, regarding Review of the Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan, Buffer Averaging and Enhancement, Crestview Phase II and Sheet W1.0 by Talasaea Consultants, Inc., dated March 17, 2005. • Response Memorandum by Talasaea Consultants, Inc. (10 pages, date unknown) regarding the Sheldon & Associates Review Memorandum dated May 25, 2005. Task 1 — Review Documents and Analysis of Proposed Plans S&A will review the revised plans and documents listed above for the Crestview II project. The documents will be reviewed for compliance with Federal Way City Code (FWCC) based on information gathered during the previous field visit, and the S&A review memorandum dated Scope of Work — Federal Way/ Crestview II: Process IV Review Page 1 of 3 is,Sheldon & Associates, Inc. 5031 University Way NE #204 • Seattle, WA 98105-4341 Ph 206-522-1214 • Fax 206-522-3507 May 25, 2005. Particular attention will be paid to proposed impacts to the wetland and stream buffers (including the foot trail) and the appropriateness of the proposed compensatory mitigation per FWCC Process IV evaluation. Assumptions: • The applicant will also submit a complete wetland delineation report which includes all data sheets and a surveyed wetland map showing the locations of all wetland flags and data points. The applicant may submit either the original wetland delineation report by Habitat Technologies dated March 19, 2004, or a new report per FWCC 22-1356(b). If review of the wetland delineation report and/or stream re-classification request requires an additional site visit, the applicant will be billed on a time and materials basis. • With the exception of the required wetland delineation report, this task only includes review of the documents listed above. This task does include review of the response memorandum from Talasaea Consultants, Inc. recently received by the City (sometime after July 15, 2005) Review of any subsequent submittals or resubmittals will require approval of a supplemental Scope of Work from S&A. Task 2 — Prepare Memorandum of Findings Staff of S&A will prepare a memorandum summarizing the findings of the review of the complete wetland delineation report and the documents listed above. FWCC requirements for the proposed wetland and stream buffer impacts, proposed buffer modifications, and the adequacy of the proposed compensatory mitigation plan will be addressed. Requests for further information and revisions of the proposed actions will be provided. Task 3 — Review SEPA Checklist and Provide Comments Staff of S&A will review the SEPA Checklist prepared by the applicant based on the information gathered from the previous field visit, the documents listed above, FWCC, and the S&A review memorandum dated May 25, 2005. Staff of S&A will prepare a memorandum summarizing the findings of this review including requests for additional information. Assumptions: • The task assumes that SEPA conditions for project approval will be included in Task 4 below. Task 4 — Prepare Project Conditions Staff of S&A will prepare a memorandum with recommended conditions for project approval to address wetland, stream, and buffer issues. These recommended conditions will help ensure that the project satisfies FWCC sensitive areas requirements, and that the project is in compliance with the Process IV Hearing Examiner's Findings and SEPA checklist requirements. Assumptions: • This task does not include review of an EIS. Review of an EIS will require approval of a supplemental Scope of Work from S&A. Task 5 — Prepare for and Attend Process IV Hearing Staff of S&A will review relevant sections of, and provide comments on, the Process IV Staff Report before it is forwarded to the Hearing Examiner. Staff of S&A will attend the Process IV Hearing for the Crestview Apartments Phase II. Scope of Work — Federal Way/ Crestview II: Process IV Review Page 2 of 3 Sheldon & Associates, Inc. 5031 University Way NE #204 • Seattle, WA 98105-4341 Ph 206-522-1214 • Fax 206-522-3507 Assumptions: • The task of reviewing and commenting on the Process IV Staff Report assumes that no formal memorandum will be prepared; that S&A comments will either be sent by e-mail or discussed over the phone. This includes: 4 hours (SB), 1 hour (KOB), and 2 hours (DS). • Attending the Process IV Hearing includes: either 1 hour (SB and KOB) or 2 hours (DS) of preparation for the Hearing, 2 hours for the Hearing, and 2 hours for travel time. If time required for this task exceeds the budgeted amount, the applicant will be billed on a time and materials basis. Task 6 — Two Meetings with City Staff and the Applicant and/or their Representatives Staff of S&A will attend two meetings with City staff and the applicant and/or their representatives. For each meeting, this task includes: 1 hour of preparation for the meeting, 2 hours for the meeting, and 2 hours for travel time. Assumptions: • These two meetings will be held at the request of the applicant. If the applicant requests additional meetings, or if the time required for this task exceeds the budgeted amount, the applicant will be billed on a time and materials basis. Task 7 — Project Management This includes general project management, coordination with City staff, and coordination with the applicant and/or their representatives. Cost Estimate for Crestview II: Process IV Application Review TASK SB KOB DS KM Exp. Sub -Totals 1: Review Documents 16 4 2 $1,980 2: Prepare Memorandum of Findings 20 4 3 $2,442 3: Review SEPA Checklist and Provide Comments and Conditions 4 8 2 $1,276 4: Prepare Project Conditions 8 4 8 $1,936 5: Prepare for and Attend Process IV Hearing 9 6 8 $30 $2,230 6: Two Meetings with Applicant and/or Applicant's Representatives 10 10 10 $60 $2,920 7: Project Management 10 1 3 3 $1,478 Total Hours Rates Per Hour 77 $88 37 $88 36 $110 3 $60 $6,776 $3,256 $3,960 $180 $90 $14,262 SB - Suzanne Bagshaw, Wetland Biologist KOB - Kevin O'Brien, Wildlife Biologist DS - Dyanne Sheldon, Principal KM - Keren Marzi, Business Manager Expenses Include: Mileage, Photocopies, Reproduction, Fax, and Field Supplies. Scope of Work — Federal Way/ Crestview II: Process IV Review Page 3 of 3 m A -A V.- RE --- ------- STR ...... ... ------ ------- ...... .... .. . ...... I'll . . ...... ....... CIT L7� PROJE . . ........ REC BtALom NEW TOT LOT POOL N m 7' Xj 1509 x I t"w !BWFEP, REMGT16N 6-rM. REG:,.APZE v. . . . . . . PROWEE? 5OPT Z., ARE 'k MATCHLINE -5EE 5HEET N2.o r-op, PLANTIN07� 77, MATCHLINE 5EE 5HEET H.2.1 FOR PLANTING PLAN 4N LAKEHAVEN UTILITY DISTRICT _ C60Y -31627 1st Avenu• ,uth * P.D. Box 4249 Federal Way, W,/ ~8063-4249 �~ Seattle: 253-945-1580 Tacoma: 253-927-2922 Fax: 253-529-4081 APPLICATION FO AVAILABILITY CERTIFICATION Water ewer (Check One or Both) L UISTFtICT l75 E' O{!I Y If onl waL� r:Es ch '' 1 `ci :ui :t'rs:the distance: Fiona tl7e nearest: .uhlic sewer.to these, 4res�iises? -. rJ Owner: T 3 i'�, �VE v►�<„�- Agent: FJ U\ c►t�la Lyy�- �jyG �l�c ,, Address: :.7 N(, 1 n4S �� +tiat �1 �, Address: V71(, _ 1t.�ir.�S at I )r' Phone: a0IV - Phone: �O (o� a41- aloct� Site Address: 9�-kM60V=r CyC6-k\J% W fha ( 72M- _ Tax Parcel # 7agj8DoaC 0 Legal Description: A fg!� �& 5W V4 ; Se.c. 33, Vwt ;WN, Ucr- 4E. W.A. 3d4AaL yA w, WA (Attach Map and/or Legal Description, If Necessary) V Availability applied for this property previously? If YES: Date Proposed Use ❑ YES Q NO Name Purpose: (check One) G` Building ❑ Rezone ❑ Preliminary Plat/PUD ❑ Short Plat 1 (Attach plat map or short plat drawing) ❑ Other &ou r�` � Specify Proposed Use: (Complete Appropriate Section) Residential No. of Lots If more than one (1), attach copy of Short Plat/Lot Line Adjustment Application with drawing or Preliminary Plat Plan. Commercial - ATTACH SITE PLAN Type: (Be Specific) Total Building Square Footage: Anticipated Water Use: Fee is $ 60.00 for each rti#lcate (double this amount for water and sewer). Fee must be paid at time of application Please allow approximately one (1) week for issue. Indicate to the right how you wish to be notified when the certificate is completed. C* E:> E:> C:> * M� C� * * b b E:> Multi-Famft - ATTACH SITE PLAN No. of Residential Units 13(0 "'-V -�- 1 Rcc. �w No. of Residential Buildings (o l0-4%c mq5 Recreation Buildings 6-- W/Pool _ No. No. Occupancy (No. of People): pd (gallons per day) Call Gtq RC�<-AN-CA ata when ready for pickup. «F0C>r:. I\JE® Mail completed certificateAta: 1 Z005 of FEDi~RAi_ WA NOTE: Lakehaven Utility District makes no representation that the Availability Certificate will be accepted by the local land use authorities. �7�pr Pr}nrr r1 rtr• -. � . �. PROASEO S E SION RY 7tM wA _R QUALITY I f ' I 121 11! I ' +I I DETEN110N OUTFALL I I I U) I U) I SS i I I I a a w C3 U Z Q w 0 ce 04 a u► AN-'- |A '!• q f§ § f | �� . ��} ��''..:; a � .�i. M!n �r� ; ~ _- _ - - � �+ •~ r- - � _ _ . ii • � �I� � [- _ .. fir:: ''i.� ;='�. _ � • .r � :?r = : Y. - '` �s.� s. �..� fir :s Zv ►. _ % Air _INz a^ AV •� ••r � yy '• '1 - •yam .ji'" •_ ___-� _ r _ �� RYA � _ 4 .T _�. �'`', w '+.yAt W * r •x. ; � _ a_ � = ��i ���L ! r � •_ k., am =� � r: - :�'•! • Of + • ti�-�`_�iQ I r. �� ..4 _�.'.�� `�4fii7`� �� .� .a.'+.+.T� a� � � ass ga ' � -s 1� �n r-le� .�yy, ,r•l� ��'Y''s� M � t�,•.. .sf'r.li;�� . �•. r ` raw ; .•� . i AV tg ��'_ �`=a � -•�.a_ wwt yet Z�..•�.• `,'.�,�.. _ -gyp n ^ _ max' �i '�.'f� '� I tf. _. .. � ��.fll�lisi3�llifl'i�lll�����lfll�4•Illf,���✓�: _ I EM�a i o, o m cn j �r ��nrtOtw0�1 _tlpiN OTitf4^ 1 Y " lit z F i ix X. D 'IEFB a g I s @ slYli eeeeaa s # 3 6a aRi:� cn "g i � IKrK;CCl6i g PTPT�� � cai R T ;tit[C%riR: i! y 0 enc. m m CRESTVIEW PHASE 11 FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON zr Z-1 CEIVED ' 3 12005 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY �30LDING DEPT, 5-1025 3J xIE s � s E[ IN xx fl¢E VICINITY MAP 4 N 20TH AVE. S. NOT TO SCALE 0.5-102515 RECEIVED MAY 8 12005 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY BUILDING DEPT. e CITY OF FEDERAL WAY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 2, 2005 TO: Will Appleton, Development Services Manager Scott Sproul, Assistant Building Official Brian Asbury, Lakehaven Utility District Greg Brozek, Federal Way Fire Department Geri Walker, Federal Way School District Stacey Flores, Public Safety Officer FROM: Deb Barker FOR DRC MTG. ON. June 16, 2005 — Completeness Review FILE NUMBER(s): 05-102533-00-UP Process IV RELATED FILE NOS.: 05-102530-UP (Process III) 05-102531-SE, 05-100226-PC PROJECT NAME: Crestview Apartments - Intrusion into Wetland and stream buffers PROJECTADDRESS: *NO SITE ADDRESS* ZONING DISTRICT: RM 2400 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Process IV request for intrusions into Category II wetland and major stream buffers in conjunction with apartment construction. LAND USE PERMITS: Process III, SEPA, Process IV. PROJECT CONTACT: F & M Development Greg McKenna 17786 Des Moines Memorial Drive Burien, WA 98148 (206) 387-0576 (Cell) MATERIALS SUBMITTED: See submittal item list in AMANDA doc file MAY 3 12005 COE �',G1TY ff_ f "JAL A CITY OF Federal Way MASTER LAND USE APPLICATION DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33325 8`h Avenue South PO Box 9718 Federal Way WA 98063-9718 253-835-2607;Fax 253-835-2609 www.ci ffeder.iiway.com 05- "'' APPLICATION NO(S) d ©DD ' 0U Date lk4m 131 zoo Project Name C GS Property Address/Location ,�}�7 Parcel Number(s) 17-k 900 ! D Project Description 13 lvl L116, ] 'LEANL' Type of Permit Required Annexation Binding Site Plan Boundary Line Adjustment Comp Plan/Rezone Land Surface Modification Lot Line Elimination Preapplication Conference Process I (Director=s Approval) Process II (Site Plan Review) Process III (Project Approval) Process IV (Hearing Examiner's Decision) Process V (Quasi -Judicial Rezone) Process VI SEPA w/Project SEPA Only Shoreline: Variance/Conditional Use Short Subdivision Subdivision Variance: Commercial/Residential Required Information gm-Zoning Designation t-4VL;n Comprehensive Plan Designation K2 IN Value of Existing Improvements Value of Proposed Improvements International Building Code (IBC): Q. S'2 -e b _Occupancy Type Construction Type Bulletin #003 — August 18, 2004 ."I ` 2 -MMAS 8 V 11 Applicant Name: F-eM P C K- Address:1-170 (o pa MOl tJa )-t-U -1091 ON1, Af City/State:,bV¢ l tn,% ,, lrj ,0 1 @ 14V Zip: Phone: • 2,��• q�� Fax: M(a ' 2,4 3' Ofa Email: 9(,rv, 6 �Q�'Y"GLI qrvLr nic-� Signature: Agent (if different than Applicant) Name: Address: (SOL ni L 0,1L City/State: Zip: Phone: Fax: Email: Signature: Gi,fr i cu.✓r j-J Owner Name:'FtJA a.WetlL)phne i'/61KeU7 MC Address. CityZip:/State: a fP i, , +J_ Phone: Fax: Email: Signature: Page 1 of 1 k:\Handouts\lvlaster Land Use Application CITY OF � Federal July 28, 2005 Ms. Suzanne Bagshaw Sheldon and Associates, Inc. 5031 University Way NE, #204 Seattle, WA 98105-4341 5FILE CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South • PO Box 9718 y Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com RE: File #05-102533-00-UP; AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED & FORWARDING SUBMITTAL Crestview II Wetland/Stream Review Dear Ms. Bagshaw: The purpose of this letter is to authorize the services of Sheldon and Associates in a review of the Wetland and Stream proposal and also to forward a submitted letter prepared by the applicant's Wetland consultant for the above -referenced project. Authorization to Proceed In a June 21, 2005 task authorization request, the City requested an estimate and timeline from Sheldon and Associates for review of the proposed wetland and stream buffer intrusions. Your scope of work, dated July 22, 2005, indicated that a budget of $14,262.00 would be appropriate for the identified tasks. At this time, funds in the amount of $14,262.00 have been received. A copy of the wetland consultant task authorization signed by the applicant will be forwarded to your attention. Please consider this letter as an authorization to proceed with the review as detailed in the City's June 21, 2005 task authorization, and per your July 22, 2005 scope of work. Resubmittal Forwarded The City has received a July 15, 2005 letter prepared by Talasaea Consultants, Inc. titled Response to 25 April 2005 and 28 June 2005 Letters. Please add the enclosed letter to your file for review and comment. Receipt and review of this letter is contained in your July 22, 2005 scope of work. I can be reached at 253-835-2642 if you have any questions. Sincerely, AU.n"NN-iL �_ Deb Barker Associate Planner enc: July 15, 2005 letter from Talasaea 05-102533 Doc. LD. 32659 Deb Barker - TAL-927 Comments about stream classification; Crestview II project. J Page 1 From: "David Teesdale" <dteesdale@talasaea.com> To: <suzanne@bogstomper.com> Date: 09/27/2005 2:06:36 PM Subject: TAL-927 Comments about stream classification; Crestview II project. Dear Dr. Bagshaw: We are reviewing the comments from Sheldon and Associates, Inc., regarding our most recent submittal to the City of Federal Way and are currently preparing responses to these comments in a formal submittal to the City. The matter of whether the stream onsite is correctly rated as a Major or Minor stream obviously requires further discussion. We understand the City' s position, the code, and the definitions of Major and Minor Streams. We understand from our recent telephone conversation with you (09-12-05) that classification of streams is a policy issue. We also believe that the stream in question is more correctly classified as a Minor Stream. The crux of the argument appears to hinge on the phrases "Normal Circumstances," and "Natural Barrier" in the code. Our contention is that the "Normal Circumstances" of the stream preclude use or potential use by resident fish or anadromous salmonids. Barring the change from Major to Minor Stream classification, we believe that the project has sufficient merit and grounds to proceed with modification of the stream set -back under the provisions of §22-1312(c)(1-6) through formal evaluation of a Process IV review. Consequently, we believe that it would be mutually beneficial and cost-effective to come to a resolution on this issue in particular. We would appreciate your consideration of our arguments and reasoning. The following paragraphs outline our arguments regarding the stream classification. (From the 19 August 2005 Memorandum) "A.1.1.a The applicant has cited a number of reasons for reducing the stream category from major to minor, including presumably degraded water quality, primary use of the stream as a stormwater conveyance, and the presence of [ow -flow as a natural barrier to fish movement. While changing the rating from major to minor for the onsite stream reach might be warranted, the applicant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to make that determination...." These issues have been addressed in a revision of the Sensitive Areas Report. However, some clarification is warranted. The original report did not speculate that the water quality of the onsite stream is poor, rather that an observation of water quality at the outflow of the culvert under South 272nd Street was turbid. At the time this observation was made, there was no flow within the onsite stream reach. Additionally, there was no flow from the subject property to the inlet of the catchbasin at the southwest corner of the Waterstone Apartment complex. The water within the headwater area of McSorley Creek obviously comes from another source. The stormwater entering the onsite stream reach appears to generally flow through the wetland area quickly with little residence time. We acknowledge that the wetland could improve water quality of this storm water, but the assertion made in the report was that the water quality improvements FDeb Barker-TAL-927 Comments about stream classification; Crestview 11 project. Page 2 provided by the wetland are more than offset by other factors off -site and downstream of the subject property. It was our aim to show that the water quality issues of McSorley Creek are not necessarily improved by the onsite wetland. We acknowledge that this is not a factor in determining fish presence. We acknowledge that streams with seasonal low flow, or no flow, are often used by resident and anadromous salmonids for refugia and overwintering. The original Sensitive Areas Report referred to the low flow as a potential natural barrier. This language has been amended. We also call to attention some of the definition in FWCC regarding Major Streams. These are streams that, under normal circumstances, contain or support resident or migratory fish. The normal circumstances of this stream are: 1) it is dry during the summer months from the headwater areas to the catchbasin mentioned above, 2) approximately 1,100 feet of this stream currently resides in a pipe under the Waterstone Apartment complex, 3) the hydrology of the stream and wetland is currently controlled by stormwater runoff systems of surrounding development, and 4) the catchbasin will present an insurmountable (normal circumstance) barrier to fish migration. We acknowledge that the pipes, catchbasin, and stormwater controls do not constitute a "natural barrier." However, these conditions do constitute the normal circumstances for this stream since it is unlikely that the current conditions will ever change. No flow or ponded water from the headwaters of the stream to the catchbasin inlet means that there is no possibility for resident or anadromous fish to survive anywhere upstream of the catchbasin during the dry summer months. Therefore, when flows return in the wetter months, there will be no upstream populations of resident or anadromous fish to repopulate the onsite stream reach. The possible flow regimes for the 1,100 foot -long pipe were analyzed using Manning's equation and compared to the ability of various salmonids to swim against this flow. Under low -flow scenarios, most salmonid species should be able to swim up the pipe to the catchbasin. However, under these conditions, there will likely be no flow into the catchbasin, or insufficient flow to provide the hydraulic backwater salmonids require for leaping. This also ignores the issue that the catchbasin is protected by a metal trash rack, and the angles necessary to provide successful leaping will not be present. Under conditions where flow is likely to be present in the on -site stream, the hypothetical flow within the pipe at any diameter examined will be great enough that no species of salmonid could reach the end of the pipe (please see the revised Sensitive Areas Report for a more thorough discussion of this topic and data used in the analysis). In summary, we assert that the "normal circumstances" for the onsite stream reach preclude the possibility of usage by resident or anadromous fish at any time of year. The onsite stream should be rated as a Minor Stream. We acknowledge that such a change would be subject to evaluation through a Process IV review. Changes to stream ratings within the City of Federal Way are not without precedent. Recently, some streams have been reclassified from Major to Minor based on the results of habitat studies. These streams include 0390B-1 and 0390B-2, and 0387. However, if the stream remains rated as a Major Stream with 100-foot setback Deb Barker - TAL-927 Comments about stream classification; Crestview II project. Page 3 buffers, the project can still proceed under the criteria outlined in FWCC §22-1312(c)(1-6) through a Process IV review. These criteria are the requirements for modification of stream setbacks in the City of Federal Way. These points shall be addressed below. 1. The project will not adversely affect water quality. The project is designed to protect water quality and to enhance it to the maximum extent practicable. 2. The project will not adversely affect existing wildlife habitat within the stream or setback area. The mitigation plan for the project is aimed at improving and increasing potential habitat for wildlife. 3. It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities. The project aims to increase potential for stormwater retention within the adjacent wetland area. No changes in drainage are planned. 4. It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards. The proposed setback adjustment is located in a relatively flat area. The project will not cause unstable earth conditions or create erosion hazards. The project is designed to reduce erosion potential within the stream. 5. It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property, nor to the city as a whole, including the loss of significant open space. The project has been designed to protect other properties in the vicinity through careful attenuation of stormwater flows off of the development site, and within the stream itself. No properties will be affected off -site. A significant portion of the subject property is being retained as open space Natural Growth Protection Area. 6. It is necessary for reasonable development of the subject property. The City has density standards based on area zoning that developers must adhere to. In order to meet those densities, the development must intrude within a portion of the stream setback. Additionally, the project is designed to provide "Affordable Housing," which has been shown to be critically needed within the metropolitan Puget Sound Region. We appreciate and thank you for your consideration of these issues regarding the stream. David R. Teesdale Wetland Ecologist Talasaea Consultants, Inc 15020 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, Washington 98074 CC: <deb.barker@cityoffederalway.com>, 'Bill Shiels" <bshiels@talasaea.com>, "Jason Walker" <jwalker@talasaea.com> CITY OF Federal August 22, 2005 CITY HALL Way 33325 8th Avenue South • PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com Mr. Greg McKenna F & M Development 17786 Des Moines Memorial Drive Burien, WA 98148 RE: File #05-102530-UP, 05-102531-SE, and 05-102533-UP; COMMENT LETTERS FORWARDED Crestview III Apartments Dear Mr. McKenna: The City of Federal Way issued a notice of complete application for the Use Process III, SEPA, and use Process IV applications for the above -referenced project on July 6, 2005. As part of the environmental and administrative processes, the notice of application was posted at the subject site and mailed to property, owners within 300 feet of the subject site. To date, the City has received four comment letters on the above -referenced applications; copies of those letters are enclosed. The City will provide responses to the various issues raised in the letters. However, should you wish to provide a response to issues identified in the letters, the City will forward your response to the author of the comment letter. I can be reached at 253-835-2642 should you have any questions about this letter or the status of the project. Sincerely, i Deb Barker Associate Planner enc: Letter from Jeffrey and Andrea Prouty Letter from John and Karen Jenkins Letter from Lorri Hall Letter from Diane Landsinger c: Kevin Peterson, Engineering Plans Reviewer Suzanne Bagshaw, Sheldon and Associates 05-102530 Doc I D. 32933 Land erica Commercial Services May 3, 2005 Greg McKenna 17786 Des Moines Memorial Drive Burien, WA 98148 Attn.: Greg McKenna Reference No.(s): Order No.: RT - 20017489-T20 Property Address: , Federal Way, Washington Buyer/Borrowers: To Be Determined Two Union Square 601 Union Street Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-628-2873 Fax: 206-628-0631 05-102533 RECEIVE[ MAY 3 1 zoos Seller(s): CPG, Inc. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY BUILDING ❑EPT, In connection with the above referenced Order, we are enclosing documentation as requested. If we may be of further assistance, please feel free to contact any member of the team listed below Title Team Chief Title Officer Kerry Wise, (425) 317-4413, kwise@landam.com Roger Terriere, Title Officer, (206) 628-2873, rterriere@iandam.com Eric T. Bloomquist, Title Officer, (206) 628-2831, ebloom uist landam.com Marc Wise, Title Officer, (206) 628-3472, mwise landam.corn Toll Free: 1-800-232-8388 Fax :1-206-628-0631 We thank you for this opportunity to serve you. Kerry Wise Chief Title Officer Enclosure(s) Cc: Greg McKenna CB Richard Ellis Jeff Ing Lowell Ing Montgomery, Purdue, Blankinship & Austin Pillsbury Winthrop Transnation Title Insurance Co Attn: Greg McKenna Attn: Mike Hurley Attn: Jeff Ing Attn: Lowell Ing Attn: Montgomery, Purdue, Blankinship & Austin Attn: Pillsbury Winthrop Attn: Transnation Title Insurance Co Order No.: 20017489 L -9 0 -1 LandAmerica Commercial Services **THIRD ** COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE A Two Union Square 601 Union Street Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-628-2873 Fax: 206-628-0631 1. Effective Date: April 28, 2005 at 8:00 a.m. Commitment No.: 20017489 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: General Schedule Rate Owners Policy 10-17-92 Proposed Insured(s): Amount: Premium: Tax: Total: To Be Determined TO COME $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 3. Title to the fee simple estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment is at the effective date hereof vested in: Ing Family Trust 4 4. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Transnation Title Insurance Company sy Authorized Signature Preliminary Commitment Page 1 of 5 Issued by Two Union Square 601 Union Street LandAmerica Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Commercial Services Phone: 206-628-2873 Fax: 206-628-0631 Transnation Title Insurance ComZany COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE Transnation Title Insurance Company, an Arizona corporation, herein called the Company, for a valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, In favor of the proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land described or referred to In Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor; all subject to the exceptions and conditions and stipulations shown herein, the Exclusions from Coverage, the Schedule B exceptions, and the conditions and stipulations of the policy or policies requested. (See the following pages for printed Exclusions from Coverage and Schedule B exceptions contained in various policy forms.) This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of the issuance of this Commitment or by subsequent endorsement and is subject to the Conditions and Stipulations. This commitment is preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate 160 days after the effective date hereof or when the policy or policies committed for shall €slue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the fault of the Company. NOTE: THE POLICY COMMITTED FOR MAY BE E)CAMINED BY INQUIRY AT THE OFFICE WHICH ISSUED THE COMMITMENT, AND A SPECIMEN COPY OF THE POLICY FORM (OR FORMS) REFERRED TO IN THIS COMMITMENT WILL BE FURNISHED PROMPTLY UPON REQUEST. Transnation Title Insurance Company I%E 1if34�rf ��,cattoea�s o �� % _` Attest: Secretary SE►t 16.1991 y: President COMMITMENT CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS 1. The term mortgage, when used herein, shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument. 2. If the proposed Insured has or acquires actual knowledge of any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in writing, the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act of reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclose such knowledge to the Company, or If the Company otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter, the Company at Its option may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall not relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations. 3. Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties included under the definition of Insured in the form of policy or policies committed for and only for actual loss Incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the requirements hereof, or (b) to eliminate exceptions shown In Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the policy or policies committed for and such liability is subject to the insuring provisions and Conditions and Stipulations and the Exclusions from Coverage of the form of policy or policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby incorporated by reference and are made a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein. 4. Any action or actions or rights of action that the proposed Insured may have or may bring against the Company arising out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the status of the mortnage thereon covered by this Commitment must be based on and are subject to the provisions of this Commitment. Commitment Cover - WA (Revised 4/03) Order No. 20017489 EXHIBIT "A" LOT 2 OF KING COUNTY SHORT PLAT NO. 1087026, AS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 9002271403, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. Order No. 20017489 SCHEDULE B REQUIREMENTS: Instruments necessary to create the estate or interest to be properly executed, delivered and duly filed for record. EXCEPTIONS: Schedule B of the Policy or Policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following matters unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company. A. Standard exceptions set forth on the Commitment Cover. B. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed Insured acquires for value of record the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: 1. REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF RCW CHAPTER 82.45 AND SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS THERETO. AS OF THE DATE HEREIN, THE TAX RATE FOR SAID PROPERTY IS 1.78% 2. GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES AND SERVICE CHARGES, AS FOLLOWS, TOGETHER WITH INTEREST, PENALTY AND STATUTORY FORECLOSURE COSTS, IF ANY, AFTER DELINQUENCY: (1ST HALF DELINQUENT ON MAY 1; 2ND HALF DELINQUENT ON NOVEMBER 1) TAX ACCOUNT NO.: 7204800200 YEAR BILLED PAID BALANCE 2005 $9,160.07 $0.00 $9,160.07 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE, NOT INCLUDING INTEREST AND PENALTY: $9,160.07. LEVY CODE: 1205 ASSESSED VALUE LAND: $569,000.00 ASSESSED VALUE IMPROVEMENTS: $0.00 3. NOTICE OF TAP OR CONNECTION CHARGES WHICH HAVE BEEN OR WILL BE DUE IN CONNECTION WITH DEVELOPMENT OR RE -DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND AS DISCLOSED BY RECORDED INSTRUMENT. INQUIRIES REGARDING THE SPECIFIC AMOUNT OF THE CHARGES SHOULD BE MADE TO THE CITY/COUNTY/AGENCY. CITY/COUNTY/AGENCY: WATER DISTRICT NO. 124 RECORDED: JUNE 01, 1981 RECORDING NO.: 8106010916 4. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: PURPOSE: SEWER MAINS AREA AFFECTED: A PORTION OF SAID PREMISES (SAID EASEMENT IS DELINEATED ON THE FACE OF SAID SHORT PLAT) RECORDING NO. 6596626 SAID EASEMENT WAS AMENDED BY RECORDING NO. 9002231336. 5. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: PURPOSE: WATER LINE SYSTEM AREA AFFECTED: A PORTION OF SAID PREMISES RECORDING NO. 9003060831 Page 3 of 5 Order No. 20017489 SCHEDULE B - continued 6. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: PURPOSE: INGRESS AND EGRESS AREA AFFECTED: A PORTION OF SAID PREMISES RECORDING NO. 9003060832 7. ALL COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS, EASEMENTS OR OTHER SERVITUDES, IF ANY, DISCLOSED BY THE SHORT PLAT RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 9002271403. THIS POLICY DOES NOT INSURE THAT THE LAND DESCRIBED IN SCHEDULE A IS BENEFITED BY EASEMENTS, COVENANTS OR OTHER APPURTENANCES SHOWN ON THE PLAT OR SURVEY TO BENEFIT OR BURDEN REAL PROPERTY OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARIES OF SAID LAND. 8. RESERVATIONS OF ALL COAL AND MINERALS. RECORDED: APRIL 16, 1924 RECORDING NO.: 1857273 (COVERS: SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 33) 9. DRAINAGE RELEASE AGREEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: RECORDED: MARCH 12, 1970 RECORDING NO.: 6629037 REGARDING: RELEASE OF DAMAGES 10. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE TRUST UNDER WHICH TITLE IS CLAIMED. A COPY OF THE TRUST AND AMENDMENTS, IF ANY, MUST BE SUBMITTED FOR OUR REVIEW. ANY PROPOSED TRANSACTION MUST COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS PROVIDED FOR IN RCW 11.100.140 AND/OR RCW 11.110.020. 11. RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST OF CPG, INC., AS DISCLOSED BY THE APPLICATION FOR TITLE INSURANCE. WE FIND NO CONVEYANCES OF RECORD INTO SAID PARTY. WE FIND NO PERTINENT MATTERS OF RECORD AGAINST THE NAME OF SAID PARTY. 12. UNRECORDED LEASEHOLDS, IF ANY; RIGHTS OF VENDORS AND HOLDERS OF SECURITY INTERESTS ON PERSONAL PROPERTY INSTALLED UPON THE LAND; AND RIGHTS OF TENANTS TO REMOVE TRADE FIXTURES AT THE EXPIRATION OF THE TERM. NOTE 1: ACCORDING TO THE APPLICATION FOR TITLE INSURANCE, THE PROPOSED INSURED IS TO BE DETERMINED. WE FIND NO PERTINENT MATTERS OF RECORD AGAINST THE NAME(S) OF SAID PARTY(IES). NOTE 2: BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED TO THE COMPANY, ON THE DATE OF THIS COMMITMENT IT APPEARS THAT THERE IS LOCATED ON THE LAND: A COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL VACANT LAND TRACT KNOWN AS: NOT AVAILABLE FEDERAL WAY, WA Page 4 of 5 Order No. 20017489 SCHEDULE B - continued NOTE 3: THE COMPANY REQUIRES THE PROPOSED INSURED TO VERIFY THAT THE LAND COVERED BY THIS COMMITMENT IS THE LAND INTENDED TO BE CONVEYED IN THIS TRANSACTION. THE DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND MAY BE INCORRECT, IF THE APPLICATION FOR TITLE INSURANCE CONTAINED INCOMPLETE OR INACCURATE INFORMATION. NOTIFY THE COMPANY WELL BEFORE CLOSING IF CHANGES ARE NECESSARY. CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS MUST INDICATE THAT THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY ALL PARTIES. NOTE 4: THE FOLLOWING MAY BE USED AS AN ABBREVIATED LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON THE DOCUMENTS TO BE RECORDED, PER AMENDED RCW 65.04. SAID ABBREVIATED LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR A COMPLETE LEGAL DESCRIPTION WITHIN THE BODY OF THE DOCUMENT. LOT 2 OF KC SPL NO. 1087026, REC. NO. 9002271403 NOTE 5: WHEN SENDING DOCUMENTS FOR RECORDING, PLEASE SEND VIA TDS (TITLE DELIVERY SERVICE) IN THE YELLOW RECORDING ENVELOPES WHENEVER POSSIBLE. IF THEY MUST RECORD THE SAME DAY, PLEASE CONTACT THE TITLE UNIT FOR SPECIAL DELIVERY REQUIREMENTS. IF THEY MAY BE RELEASED WITHIN 48 HOURS, THEY SHOULD BE SENT TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: TRANSNATION TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY 1200 SIXTH AVENUE, SUITE 100 SEATTLE, WA 98101 ATTN: RECORDING DEPT. NOTE 6: THERE HAVE BEEN NO DEEDS OR LEASES AFFECTING THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE PAST 10 YEARS (END OF EXCEPTIONS) Investigation should be made to determine if there are any sewer treatment capacity charges or if there are any service, installation, maintenance, or construction charges for sewer, water or electricity. In the event this transaction fails to close, a cancellation fee will be charged for services rendered in accordance with our rate schedule. Unless otherwise requested or specified herein, the forms of policy to be issued in connection with this Commitment will be the ALTA 1998 Homeowner's Policy, the ALTA 1992 Lender's Policy, or, in the case of standard lender's coverage, the CLTA Standard Coverage Policy — 1990. The Policy committed for or requested may be examined by inquiry at the office that issued the Commitment. A specimen copy of the Policy form(s) referred to in this Commitment will be furnished promptly upon request. BEW Enclosures: Sketch Vesting Deed Paragraphs 3-13 Page 5 of 5 SCHEDULE OF EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The matters listed below each policy form are expressly excluded from the coverage of that policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees or expenses which arise by reason thereof. AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION LOAN POLICY (10-17-92) The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees or expenses which arise by reason of: 1. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulatlon (including but not limited to building and zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating to (1) the occupancy, use or enjoyment of the land; (11) the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (Iii) a separation In ownership or a change In the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land Is or was a part; or (1v) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. (b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. 2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding an the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse Balms or other matters: (a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company, not recorded In the public retards at Date of Polley, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this polkcy• (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy {except to the extent that this policy insures the priority of the lien of the insured mortgage over any statutory lien for services, labor or material or to the extent insurance is afforded hereiry as to assessments for street Improvements under construction or completed at Date of Policy); or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the insured mortgage. 4. Unenforceabllity of the lien of the insured mortgage because of the inability or failure of the insured at Date of Policy, or the inability or failure of any subsequent owner of the Indebtedness, to comply with applicable doing business laws of the state in which the land Is situated. 5. Invalidity or unenforceabillty of the lien of the insured mortgage, or, claim thereof, which arises out of the transaction evidenced by the insured mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth -in -lending law. 5, Any statutory lien for services, labor or materials (or the claim of priority of any statutory lien for services, labor or materials over the lien of the insured mortgage) arising from an improvement or work related to the land which is contracted for and commenced subsequent to Date of Policy and is not financed in whole or in part by proceeds of the indebtedness secured by the insured mortgage which at Date of Policy the Insured has advanced or is obligated to advance. 7. Any Balm, which arises out of the transaction creating the Interest of the mortgagee insured by this policy, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws, that is based on: (a) the transaction creating the Interest of the insured mortgagee being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or (b) the subordination of the interest of the insured mortgagee as a result of the application of the doctrine or equitable subordination; or (c) the transaction creating the Interest of the insured mortgagee being deemed a preferential transfer except where the preferential transfer results from the failure: (i) to timely record the instrument of transfer; or (ii) of such recordation to impart notice to a purchaser for value or a judgment or lien creditor. AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION OWNER'S POLICY (10-17-92) The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees or expenses which arise by reason of: 1. (a) Any law, ordinance or, governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating to (1) the occupancy, use or enjoyment of the land; (ii) the character, dimensions or location of any Improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (III) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (iv) environmental protection, or the affect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded In the public records at Date of Policy. (b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. 2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise, thereof has been rewrded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters: (a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the Insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company, not recorded In the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or (e) resulting In loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the estate or interest insured by this policy. 4. Any claim, which arises out of the transaction vesting in the insured the estate or interest Insured by this policy, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws, that Is based on: (a) the transaction creating the estate or interest Insured by this policy being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or (b) the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed a preferential transfer except where the preferential transfer results from the failure: (i) to timely record the instrument of transfer; or (ii) of such recordation to impart notice to a purchaser for value or a judgment or lien creditor. Commitment Cover - WA (Revised 4/03) SCHEDULE OF EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE (continued) AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION HOMEOWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE FOR A ONE -TO -FOUR FAMILY RESIDENCE (10-22-03) in addition to the Exceptions in Schedule B, You are not insured against loss, costs, attomeys' fees, and expenses resulting from: 1. Governmental police power, and the existence or violation of any law or government regulation. This includes ordinances, laws and regulations concerning: (a) building (b) zoning (c) land use (d) improvements on the Land (e) Land division (f) environmental protection This Exclusion does not apply to violations or the enforcement of these matters if notice of the violation or enforcement appears in the Public Records at the Policy Date. This Excluslon does not limit the coverage described In Covered Risk 14, 1516, 17 or 24. 2. The failure of Your existing structures, or any part of them, to be constructed in accordance with applicable building codes. This Exclusion does not apply to violations of building codes H notice of the violation appears in the Publlc Records at the Pollcy Date. 3. The right to take the Land by condemning it, unless: (a) a notice of exercising the right appears in the Public Records at the Policy Date; or (b) the taking happened before the Policy Date and is binding on You if You bought the Land without Knowing of the taking. 4. Risks: (a) that are created, allowed, or agreed to by You, whether or not they appear In the Public records; (b) that are Known to You at the Policy Date, but not to Us, unless they appeared in the Public Records at the Policy Date; (e) that result in no loss to You; or (d) that first occur after the Policy Date - this does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 7, 8.d, 22, 23, z4 or 25. S. Failure to pay value for Your Title. 6. Lack of a right: (a) to any Land outside the area specifically described and referred to in paragraph 3 of Schedule A; and (b) in streets, alleys, or waterways that touch the Land, This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk it or 18. CLTA STANDARD COVERAGE LOAN POLICY 1990 The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees or expenses which arise by reason of: 1. (a) Any law, ordinance or gaverrimental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or refatirig to (i) the occupancy, use or enjoyment of the land; (11) the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (W) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (iv) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. (b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or, alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. 2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded In the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters: (a) whether or not recorded In the public records at Date of Policy, but created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company, not recorded In the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant berame an Insured under this policy; (c) resulting In no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or (a) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the insured mortgage or for the estate or interest Insured by this policy. 4, ilnenforceabiiity of the lien of the insured mortgage because of the Inability or failure of the insured at Date of Policy, or the inability or failure of any subsequent owner of the indebtedness, to comply with applicable doing business laws of the state In which the land is situated. 5. Invalidity or unenforceabllity of the lien of the Insured mortgage, or claim thereof, which arises out of the transaction evidenced by the insured mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth -in -lending law. 6. Any claim, which arises out of the transaction vesting In the insured the estate or interest insured by this policy or the transaction creating the interest of the insured lender, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state Insolvency or similar creditors' tights laws. Commitment Cover - WA (Revised 4/03) SCHEDULE B EXCEPTIONS APPEARING IN ALTA OWNER'S POLICY - STANDARD COVERAGE AND CLTA STANDARD COVERAGE LOAN POLICY 1. Taxes or assessments which are not now payable or which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records; proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the public records. 2. Any facts, rights, interests or daims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the land or which may be asserted by persons in possession, or claiming to be in possession, thereof. 3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, which are not shown by the public records. 4. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey of the land would disclose, and which are not shown by the public records. S. Any lien, or right to a lien, for labor, material, services or equipment, or for contributions to employee benefit plans, or liens under Workmans' Compensation Acts, not disclosed by the public records. 5. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the Issuance thereof; (c) Indian treaty or aboriginal rights, including, but not limited to, easements or equitable servitudes; or, (d) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), (c) or (d) are shown by the public records. 7. Right of use, control or regulation by the United States of America In the exercise of powers over navigation; any prohibition or limitation on the use, occupancy or improvement of the land resulting from the rights of the public or riparian owners to use any waters which may cover the land or to use any portion of the land which is now or may formerly have been covered by water. a. Any service, Installation, connection, maintenance or man charges for sewer, water, electricity, or garbage collection or disposal, or other utilities unless disclosed as an existing Ilen by the public records. SCHEDULE B EXCEPTIONS APPEARING IN ALTA OWNER'S POLICY - EXTENDED COVERAGE 1. Taxes or assessments whkh are not now payable or which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments an real property or by the public records; proceedings by a public agency whtch may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the public records. 2. Underground easements, servitudes or installations which are not disclosed by the public records. 3. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) Indian treaty or aboriginal rights, including, but not limited to, easements or equitable servitudes; or, (d) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), (c) or (d) are shown by the public records. 4, Right of use, control or regulation by the United States of America in the exercise of powersm over navigation; any prohibition or limitation on the use, occupancy or improvement of the land resulting from the rights of the public or riparian owners to use any waters which may cover the land or to use any portion of the land which is now or may formerly have been covered by water. S. Any service, insWllation, connection, maintenance or construction charges forsewer, water, electricity, or garbage collection or disposal, or other utilities unless disclosed as an existing lien by the public records. SCHEDULE B EXCEPTIONS APPEARING IN ALTA LOAN POLICY (10-17-92) and ALTA HOMEOWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE (10-22-03) No general exceptions appear in these policy forms. Commitment Cover - WA (Revised 4/03)