Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
90-101392
REFER TO KING COUNTY PERMIT #2752-60 FOR HISTORY OF THIS SITE GRADING MEETING MINUTES Meeting date: March 7, 1994 Meeting location: Federal Way City Hall Finance Conference Room Subject: Bob Wright Property Purchase Present: Rick Kramer, Grubb and Ellis Philip Keightley, Public Works Director Cary Roe, Deputy Public Works Director - Jeff Pratt, Surface Water Project Engineer 1. Kramer's stated purpose in arranging this meeting is to negotiate with the City, the purchase price of a parcel of property described as Lot 3 on the attached "Exhibit A." 1� 2.I At present Kramer has an option on Lot 1 and Lot 2 of the attached exhibit. t� u�y ite plum v - I v► 3. Kramer ind Cates that, in conjunction with purchasing Lots 1 and Lot 2, he is acting as Mr. Bob Wright's representative for the sale of the remainder of the property (Lot 3). This property is roughly 3.78 Ac (500' X 329') and contains two previously identified wetlands occupying approximately 1.6 acres of the total area. The asking price for the 3.78 acre area is $300,000.00 or roughly $1.82/s.f. 4. Kramer will provide evidence that he does in fact have an option on. Lot 1 and Lot 2. This evidence will be in the form of an abbreviated agreement signed by Mr. Wright. Cf 5. Kramer contends that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has de ezmined= that ch of the ,n area currety_ delineated as weans are in act not wetlands Kramer will provide J D q ez,`Z' cumentation in the form of a "Corps" letter which substantiates this claim. B�ID Kramer indicates that the City has permission to enter Lot 2 for the purpose of surveying, wetland identification, and property appraisal. Kramer indicates that he can G obtain Mr. Wright's permission to enter Lot 3 for the same purpose. Kramer wishes to be present when the Corps of Engineers are on site to delineate wetlands. 7. Kramer suggests the following two City options for the acquisition of Lot 3: Option 1 (preferred by i i ►l i. Kramer is allowed to extend the toe of fill on Lot 2 to the existing sanitary sewer _ crossing (presumably intruding into a wetland and its setback). The Slope of the fill 11) bt) 4 • L. ;1 lje 1 � ell - V.C. r JCL t�s ��� ,T e+o��j� n V Ktr C -sr ► , F !1 will not exceed 2H:1 V and Kramer will import the fill material needed for this at his own expense. Kramer expects the City to bear all mitigation costs associated with any filling of a wetland and/or intrusion into a wetland setback area - an expense that in the past has approached $75,000.00/Ac, not including design or permitting. ii. Kramer will not be required to provide onsite detention on either Lot 1 or Lot 2 - an expense which will range from $150,000 to $250,000. The City will instead provide detention for these lots in the new regional storage facility. Kramer will provide all necessary pretreatment features as required. These features might include water quality facilities. try iii. Kramer will be allowed to use the entire slope area in the calculation of Leguired +� greens ace for both Lot 1 and Lot 2. Further, the wetland setback distance will be L reduced to a distance consistent with. the proposed edge of pavement on Lot 2. iv. Kramer will consider allowing the City to place suitably compacted fill on (i.) above in exchange for a credit to the City of about $5.00 per cubic yard. This work may total $200,000.00. v. Kramer finds it acceptable to access Lot 1 and Lot 2 via a cul-de-sac from the signalized intersection on SR99 extending along the North side of Lot 1 and Lot 2. Option 2 i. City condemns the land needed for the regional storage facility. Kramer is likely to have only Lot 1 and a portion of Lot 2 for development. The above minutes fairly represent a summary of the meeting noted. Rick Kramer, Grubb and Ellis Bob Wright, Property Owner CITY OFr 33530 1ST WAY SOUTH March 11, 1994 Rick Kramer Grubb and Ellis 600 University One Union Square, #1800 Seattle, WA 98101-3117 Subject: Bob Wright Property - March 7, 1994 Meeting Dear Mr. Kramer: Via Fax (206) 661-4000 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003-6210 Enclosed are minutes of our meeting here at City Hall on March 7, 1994. Please make any corrections that you may feel better reflect the content of the meeting, sign the minutes where noted, and return them to me by March 18, 1994. We look forward to working with you to meet your needs and to provide the necessary public facilities in a mutually satisfactory manner. If you have any questions or require further information, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Philip D. Keightley, P.E. Public Works Director PDK\JTP. jg enclosure cc: Bob Wright Ken Nyberg, City Manager Carolyn A. Lake, City Attorney Greg Moore, Director, Community Development Cary M. Roe, P.E., Deputy Public Works Director Ron Garrow, Sr. Development Review Engineer Contract File: WH08,10,11 «vmwerltf Hardcopy to follow TUVS6 W740 Cr Gels W55L� Q�� rr Meeting date: March 7, 1994 (,(I F1 MEETING MINUTES c�% � a - Meeting location: Federal Way City Hall Finance Conference Room Subject: Bob Wright Property Purchase Present: Rick Kramer, Grubb and Ellis Philip Keightley, Public Works Director Cary Roe, Deputy Public Works Director Jeff Pratt, Surface Water Project Engineer r- 1. Kramer's stated purpose in arranging this meeting is to negotiate with the City, the purchase price of a parcel of property described asp on the attached "Exhibit A." S� 2. At present Kramer has an option on Lot 1 and Lot 2 of the attached exhibit. 3. Kramer ind cater that, in conjunction with purchasing Lots 1 and Lot 2, he is acting as Mr. Bob Wright's representative for the sale of the remainder of the property (Lot 3). This property is roughly 3.78 Ac (500' X 329') and contains two previously identified wetlands occupying approximately 1.6 acres of the total area. The asking price for the 3.78 acre area is $300,000.00 or roughly $1.82/s. f. 4. Kramer will provide evidence that he does in fact have an option on. Lot 1 and Lot 2. This evidence will be in the form of an abbreviated agreement signed by Mr. Wright. r 5. Kramer contends that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has Ae erm r 4 _at much of the � v 4 area curr�tly delineated as weans all": in at ict nowetlands Kra tmer will prove e D �� e= "Z1'ocumen la n in the form of a "Corps" letter which substantiates this claim. 04 p . Kramer indicates that the City has permission to enter Lot 2 for the purpose of �� surveying, wetland identification, and property appraisal. Kramer indicates that he can G obtain Mr. Wright's permission to enter Lot 3 for the same purpose. Kramer wishes to be present when the Corps of Engineers are on site to delineate wetlands. 7. Kramer suggests the following two City options for the acquisition of Lot 3: Option 1 (preferred by Kramer) �'�'; i. Kramer is allowed to extend the toe of fill on Lot 2 to the existing sanitary sewer O&A crossing (presumably intruding into a wetland and its setback). The Slope of the fill 4- polvehly rA J S, at el 111' to% C "'i VA t. will not exceed 2H:1V and Kramer will import the fill material needed for this at his own expense. Kramer expects the City to bear all mitigation costs associated with any filling of a wetland and/or intrusion into a wetland setback area - an expense that in the past has approached $75,000.00/Ac, not including design or permitting. ii. Kramer will not be required to provide onsite detention on either Lot 1 or Lot 2 - an expense which will range from $150,000 to $250,000. The City will instead provide detention for these lots in the new regional storage facility. Kramer will provide all necessary pretreatment features as required. These features might include water quality facilities. ir5 iii. Kramer will be allowed to use the entire slope area in the calculation of required U� green space for both Lot 1 and Lot 2. Further, the wetland setback distance will be reduced to a distance consistent with the proposed edge of pavement on Lot 2. iv. Kramer will consider allowing the City to place suitably compacted fill on (i.) above in exchange for a credit to the City of about $5.00 per cubic yard. This work may total $200,000.00. v. Kramer finds it acceptable to access Lot 1 and Lot 2 via a cul-de-sac from the signalized intersection on SR99 extending along the North side of Lot 1 and Lot 2. Option 2 i. City condemns the land needed for the regional storage facility. Kramer is likely to have only Lot 1 and a portion of Lot 2 for development. The above minutes fairly represent a summary of the meeting noted. Rick Kramer, Grubb and Ellis Bob Wright, Property Owner EXHIBIT "A" The lots 1, 2 and 3 are divisions of a 8.26 acres of land in the County of King and State of Washington, City of Federal Way, said land being described. as follows: That portion of the South half of the North half of the North half of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter and that portion of the North half of the South half of the North half of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 20, Township 21 North, Range 4 East, W.M., Lying westerly of state highway. a NA i 131,2rjo SQ,FI, a U v �,n Q cr tJ From: JEFF PRATT To: GregF Date: Monday, March 14, 1994 9:00 am Subject: Wright Property - Wetland Delineation Greg, Might we sit down at your earliest convenience and discuss the Corps letter that Rick Kramer provided? We intend on having Dyanne Sheldon out this week to re -flag her previous delineation and this "corps"espondence might have direct impact on that. Please let me know when might be a good time. Thanks. Jef f CC: CaryR From: RON GARROW To: Philipk,Caryr,Jeffp Date: Monday, March 14, 1994 8:15 am Subject: Bob Wright Property I have read the recent correspondence to Mr. Kramer about the meeting of March 7, 1994. I would like to present this information as a clarification to the information in the attachment. Mr. Kramer is indicating the presence of options on lots 1 and 2 and a negotiating position on lot 3 on behalf of Mr. Wright. Please note that the information at the City shows that the subject lots are actually only 1 lot and that in ❑rder to sell any portion of the property, a short plat of the property must be completed. If I am incorrect about this information, please let me know. Thanks. CC: Kenn,Carolynl,Gregm From: GREG FEWINS To: CHPO.City Hall(Caryr, Jeffp, Philipk), RONG Date: Tuesday, March 15, 1994 7:33 am Subject: Bob Wright Property -Reply Half right oh wise one. There is no such thing as a commercial/industrial short plat. The subdivision would have to be accomplished through a binding site plan process. CC: CHPO.City Hall(Carolynl, Gregm, Kenn), EXHIBIT "A" The lots 1, 2 and 3 are divisions of a 8.26 acres of land in the County of King and State of Washington, City of Federal Way, said land being described as follows: That portion of the South half of the North half of the North half of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter and that portion of the North half of the South half of the North half of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 20, Township 21 North, Range 4 East, W.M., Lying westerly of state highway. I I"I �•/ YTC PE V ♦i Yrf 3 Lr'60-0• _ I 4F agg °' Ok o J � 1 m r a �� Q ] v i s� m N l �� � — � i LJ Y•L'•10 •L l M H 1 •!I LC!C�6 r i � rn r e. . • Q co w �f m {I LL � t s lJY1 �� � ; •f{'A r V I F —}{ �~ •cam s t ~ rt • 161 lk Pi drA N ry V wY � • $? • K ■ R _ 7�� a2.//1 � 1• V ��J I • n ° �E tea.-.rr- J,r •rr •..v �� n, nlv. if%.`:tiS Q ^IL in to J w - m V h O •.7. m co a O a - �+ i a � • _ N p A Q1 t , REFLY TO ATTENTION OF Regulatory Branch i DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SEATTLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 3755 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98124-2255 AUG 0 51991 Mr. Robert Wright V ®\ 1 34839 Pacific Highway South Federal Way, Washington 98003� Reference: Dear Mr. Wright: RECEIVED MAR 1-1 1994 L Y OF "'E2 L Ay `�/ SURFACE WATER.MANAGEMENT tl � Wright, Robert OYB-4-014843 As indicated in our previous conversations with your agent, Mr. Kramer, the waterbody to be filled, located west of the existing berm, is subject to Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Based on a review of the consultant's reports you submitted to us, study of aerial photos, and field inspections, we have determined the fill is authorized by a general permit, provided the enclosed conditions can be met. Further, we have determined that the pond and low area with wetland vegetation which lie east of the berm to the toe of the existing fill were built in uplands as a sediment detention area, do not meet current Federal wetland criteria, and are not waters of the United States. Since wetlands are dynamic ecosystems highly subject to change and Federal regulations are also subject to change, this determination may be considered valid for only 3 years. (The existing fill was placed on uplands after Corps authorization in 1986.) The regulations governing fill in wetlands with which we administer Section 404 of the Clean Water Act include several nationwide permits. Each nationwide permit authorizes an entire category of work provided certain conditions are met. Nationwide Permit 26 (33 CFR 330.5 (a)(26)) allows the discharge w- fill t'liararial iuzo ;waters or —etl.s-nds that located above a streams' headwaters, if less than 1 acreissubject to loss or substantial adverse modification. The work appears to meet the above criteria for authorization by Nationwide Permit 26. Provided the enclosed conditions are also met (enclosure 1), you will need no further authorization from us for your project. This verification will be valid until the nationwide permit is modified, reissued, or revoked. All the nationwide permits are scheduled to be modified, reissued, or revoked prior to November 13, 1991. It is incumbent upon you to remain informed of changes to the nationwide permits. We will issue a public notice announcing the changes when.they occur. Furthermore, if you commence or are under contract to commence this activity before the date. the nationwide permit is modified or revoked, you will have 12 months from the WE date of the modification or revocation to complete the activity under the present terms and conditions of this nationwide permit. You still must comply with any local, State and Federal requirements pertaining to your project. If you have any questions, please contact Ann Uhrich, telephone (206) 764-3495. Sincerely, Ann R. Uhrich Chief, Environmental and Processing Section Enclosure Copy furnished: Mr. Richard Kramer 3726 219th SE Issaquah, WA. 98027 -ram � A Q P'" ° "• � VJ—VJ --W C] a!o ' - - X (�: M ' 1'--. Ul. m rq Cl vi C1 CD x co Vi �'� i � � • r - P„r-�=' _ � CIS r- � _ � -� = _ '�.. � ,; .-� � . - �'J ram' \.� X r ► � � v�� , ��- n�•r. r •� r � � rR �� 1� r i ■+,``,x f ■ 5C f -9n ,t�tl'; M ny /Q] Itzi t.� +I:S; LDS ► 1-- ru C> r3� rco ► I f fit list ' C+ f `' ► ON \tj + r __ ++�� �� `� / ,+► ► ro 1 - I oI ►►rl lr�, �r���r r"_ - - _ - .._� ����_Y _�..�_..._-....._____- JJ►r + I r 1 �'S'S t5 DATA FORM t NETLAND DETE-MINATION Applicant a Application Project Name:, ame: I i Nuabar: ors - - or �I ray 3 Name: Staters Councyt YJ=4 Legal Description: Tovnship:g�/A/ Rangs:EE, r Utb.: DatePlot Section: E1\1 Vegetation, (list the three dome species is each vegetation layer (5 If only I or 2 layers)). Indicate species with observed morphological or known physiological adaptations with an asterisk. - Indicator Indicator SoeCIAS Status See�clas Status Trees Herbs 2. 8. 777 3. Saoiineslshrubs hoods vines 4'SG�-�C 6. 12. Z of species that are OBL, IFACV, and/or YAC:za2 Mar Ind stors: Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes Ho . Basis: blAe 6 , Soil + Series and phase:' On hrdric soils list? yes F��i No :tattled: Yas; No Mottle color:; Matrix color: b R ?>��C�' Glared: Yes_ 2:00— Other Indicat rs: Hydric soils: Yeses Ho; Basis: • Hydro to xv Zau� nd�d: Yss��; lro.L, Depth of standing water: , Saturated soils: Yea. ; No. Depth to saturated soil: , Other Indicators 11Q N9144 61 t vi rn-�- a 01.,Z- 1-i-7n n -I it Vatland hydrology: Yes-4—i* No, Basis:� Atypical situation: Yeses; No=. ;:oraal Circumstances? Yes Wetland Detersitutiont Wetland = xonwtland ._.....ram , Comments: 10 2—/1 � Id vnvv Deterained by: DATA FOR`! l �ETLA:.;D DETEMINATION Applxc Application Protect Name: Nuo6er:-t -p/ 1 Neat: States County: Legal Diecription: Tovnshigs Range r Date: Plot . o.: Sectia:t: Z7 Vegetation [list the throo d minant species in :each vegetation layer (S if only 1 or Z layers)]. Indicate species with observed morphological or known physiological adaptations with an asterisk. Indicator Indicator sfle� cites Status Soe� Gies Staff_ Trees Herbs 7. All 2. 8. 3. 9. f' Saolinsrs�shrubs .d. U z Woedv vines �- 4. Sic. 10. s. lie 6. 12. Z of species that Ara OBL@ iACW, and/or YACsL22 Other iced ators: . Hydrophycic vagstatioas Yes No � . assist Soil L Series and phase:LOn hydrie soils list? Yes t so' eu�. Mottled: Yeses j NoBottle color:; Matrix Bolos: 01 Gleyed: YesNo Ot er indisato Hydric soils: Yes es So; 3asias a Hvdroloav Inundated: Ye;sue- ; So Depth of standing vaters Saturated soils: Yes ; 7�0. Depth to saturated $oils Other indicators: Vs tland hydroloiy Y■ \,/ i Now. Basis s Atypical situations Yee�; N .formal Circumetaneest Y47Z; Wetland Determinations Wetland Coems` n c s t V (/✓ �ipl'!/`-�/1�1 D■ teruLned by s DATA FOR?! l I ETLA D DETER-MINATION AppleTNk-- Appliestion Pro)ect Nam* r V Nuobar:- (j1 Nana: States Councyr Legal Description: Township: ange r Data:LIMr Plot . .: Section _ <7J3 Vegetation, (list the three dominant species in each vegetation layer (S if only 1 or 2 layera)j. Indicate species with observed morphological or known physiological adaptations with an asterisk. Indicator Indicator Specie: Status Svoc ia`y Stat us Trees bs Le-r Z. T. Lft—,'O 2. 8• � . ����a 6BL.._ 3. p Saolinrslshrubs Voodv vines 4• 10. S. 11. ' - 6. 12* x of species that are OSL. FACW, need/or FACs Other its atorss��. Hydrophytic vegetations Yes T No ��. Sastss v Soil + S s and phase: On hydric soils list? Yes= So :fettled: Yeses,; No Hattie colors. +_= Matrix color: �a r� Gleyeds Yss� xo 0 her indtaaty s Hydric soils: Yes_ Na ; Easiss hydrotory Inundated: Yes`; Saturated soils: Yes Other indicators:a.-11 Upch of standing asters 1►0�.. Depth .t�fosaturated soilr � � Wetland bydrolo;ys Yee; Sony 4` Basiss Atypical Situations Yeo�; Normal Circumstances? Yes Vetland Determinations We land t Comments V Determined b E2 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY Mayor Debra Ertel City Manager J. Brent McFall December 11, 1990 Robert L. Wright 34839 Pacific Highway South Federal Way, WA 98003 33530 First Way South Council Members Federal Way, WA 98003 Mary Gates (206) 6614000 Jim Handmacher Joel Marks Bob Stead Lynn Templeton 1 -2 Jim Webster 011� I LE RE: APPLICATION NO. UPI-90-0005; Land Surface Modification Dear Mr. Wright: The City's Community Development Review Committee has completed a review of the above referenced project. The following is a summary of comments from our meeting. As we have previously discussed, speculative land clearing and grading is only allowed under specific circumstances. As identified in section 11 5.75.4(C) of the Federal Way Zoning Code, speculative land surface modification is restricted to: correction of drainage or erosion problems; creation of necessary utilities or access corridors; or, for unusual circumstances that make it reasonable to allow land surface modification in advance of a building permit. No alteration or impact to sensitive areas or significant trees is permitted. Because of these limitations, it is often more appropriate to delay land surface modification activities until you are prepared to develop the site. As proposed, I do not see that your fill and grade project meets the intent of the speculative land surface modification provisions. Our preliminary recommendation on this request is for denial, until such time as a specific development proposal can be submitted. Because we will be recommending denial, it is unnecessary to complete the environmental review process for issuance of an environmental determination at this time. In the event that your project might be approved through some other course of action (i.e. appeals process), an environmental determination would be required prior to final approval. It is important to raise this issue with you because there is some question regarding the likelihood of wetlands and/or a stream on the site, contrary to information you have provided with the environmental checklist. Through any subsequent environmental review process, this issue will be required to be addressed and resolved. If you choose to proceed with the application, the following items are required to be submitted with the site plan. This information will be needed in order for us to process the application: 1. The names and addresses of all properties within 300 feet shall also include all commercial or residential occupants of those properties. A list of property owners and occupants shall be provided for our records. The stamped, addressed envelopes for property owners and residents within 300 feet must be provided on blank legal size envelopes, rather than your business envelopes. 2. Topography lines on the site plan are illegible and must be darkened or highlighted. 3. An inventory of existing vegetation on the site, indicating the location of significant trees must be provided. 4. A soils report must be provided which contains sufficient information to determine: a. The potential impacts of the proposed land surface modification; and, b. Proposed measures to reduce or eliminate these impacts, as determined by the City. Please be advised that no further action will be taken on this matter until the above items are addressed. If you choose to proceed with the application, the revised information will be rescheduled for review by the committee. It will be necessary for you to provide seven copies of any new or revised full size plan sheets, and one reduced copy no larger than 8 1 /2" by 11 ". After you have reviewed this letter, I would be happy to discuss questions on process or alternatives which are available to you. If you have any questions, please give me a call at 661-4108. Sincerely, Greg Fewins Senior Planner c: Community Development Review Committee / -39/06v CA-" j<, %105 oG rCX,-Cf&uL*O-rvE WIISEY&HA..I PACIFIC 3025-112th Avenue N.E. P.O. Box C-97304 Bellevue, WA 98009-9304 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM November 9, 1990 Greg Fewins, Senior Planner, City of Federal Way Richard Lowe, Senior Project Engineer, W & H Pacific Susan Meyer, Wetland Specialist, W & H Pacific W & H Pacific file No.: 3-420-0202-1.29 WRIGHT PROPERTY, 340th and PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH Land Surface Modification application No. UPI-90-0005 The City of Federal Way has requested a review and commentary of the Wright Property fill and grade application. A SEPA determination will subsequently follow. EXISTING CONDITIONS The property in question contains wetlands and a drainageway, which is a tributary to Hylebos Creek. This drainageway would probably classify as a stream per definition 865, chapter 3, of the Federal Way Ordinance. Deer tracks were observed near the drainageway, and ducks were inhabiting the ponded wetland. The size and boundaries of the wetland areas have yet to be determined. It is quite apparent from field ❑bservations and historical information that human manipulations have helped to create and enhance wetlands on the site. This is largely due to increased. development and thus, increased stormwater runoff coupled with surface manipulations and fill and grade operations. DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS Four alternatives are discussed which may be reviewed. 1. Leave all existing wetlands and channels as they are and build on existing fill. The drainageway that runs north -south through the property is part of the Hylebos Creek Basin. Because the channel has been widened, wetland vegetation has become established along the sides. It would be most beneficial to the Hylebos system if this channel were left as it exists now. A natural, vegetated channel results in higher downstream water quality. Since a portion of the water entering this channel is stormwater runoff, the cleansing properties of its natural vegetation would be an asset. (206) 827-0220 Fax (206) 822-5341 Planning • Engineering • Surveying • Landscape Design • Environmental Services PACIFIC Wright Property November 15, 1990 Page 2 2. Culvert the channel and fill the entire area. Culverting the channel may be a possible alternative. Section 80.90.3.b of the Ordinance allows for culverting of a stream if it is necessary for some reasonable use of the subject property. Under SEPA, however, the impacts such as decreased wildlife habitat, decreased water quality, and increased water flow and velocity would be too great. 3. Divert the channel and fill the entire area. Another possibility for the channel or drainageway would be relocation. If the channel is a defined stream, it will be subject to Section 80.80 of the Ordinance. Otherwise, it would need a wetland determination and delineation, would be subject to Regulated Wetlands, Sections 80.155 and 80.160, and probably would be much more restricted. The City of Federal Way Ordinance allows both culverting and relocation of streams under certain conditions. Water could probably even be diverted from the site to some other off -site channel. However, from a SEPA standpoint, any one of these manipulations would have significant impacts to wildlife and water quality. 4. Leave the channel, fill the ponded wetland, and provide mitigation. The wet ponded area between the toe of the slope and the berm receives water from the overflow of the channel and it appears, sheetflow from the southern edge of the property. If water was diverted from the property, this area would probably still receive enough runoff to flood during parts of the year due to its low elevation in relation to the surrounding area. If left alone, this area could become a significant wetland. In 1989, the soil was sampled and found to be nonhydric. Subsequently, the conclusion was made that the area was not a wetland. It would be wise to recheck the soil conditions. The area has hydrophytic vegetation (which was not noted in the SEPA checklist) and hydrology, and because of the recent surface manipulations, may require the "'problem aream method of wetland determination. This method is described in the "'Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlandsy. If it is still found to be non -wetland, then only the Army Corps of Engineers can determine its jurisdiction. If it is a wetland, impacts of the proposed development would be moderate, and would require mitigation under the City of Federal Way Ordinance and SEPA. RE -DEVELOPMENT INFORMATIO' FEDERAL WAY BUILDING DEPARTMENT 941-1555 PROJECT NAME OCCUPANCY TYPE CONSTRUCTION 3 1. Submit with completed application for permit, -TWO complete sets of plans of 24" x 36" maximum dimension (in Jude architectural, structural3 electrical, drainage, utilities and landscaping). Provide.Ttq each 8 1/2" by 11" and wo�full size site plans for addressing of multiple building sites. 2. At submittal provide One set of structural calculations prepared by a professional engineer, registered in the State of Washington. 3. At submittal provide Two copies of soil investigation and report as specified in Chapter 29 of Uniform Building Code. 4. At submittal provide Two sets of energy code calcs including lighting budget. Washington State Energy Code (1986). 5. Provide Two copies of King County Health Department approved drawings. 6. The City of F.W. has adopted all Uniform Codes, 1988 edition. 7. Washington State Barrier Free Standards apply. 8. Special inspection by an approved testing laboratory is required for site welding, high-strengh bolting, piling operations, sprayed -on fireproofing, structural masonry and cast in place concrete. Include testing lab form with building permit submittal. 9. Separate permits are required for demolition, signs, rack storage, rockeries, etc. Refer to Washington State Department of L & I for electrical permits. Plumbing and mechanical should be included on the main application for permit described in #1 above. 10. Revisions to submitted drawings will be subject to additional plan review fees. 11. The information from the pre -development meeting shall expire without limitation after 180 days. 12. Provide TWO FULL SIZE SITE PLANS APPROVED BY THE F.W. POSTMASTER when installing gang -type mail boxes showing approved locations. 13. No building or portion of a building shall be occupied or used for storage prior to the issuance of the CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. XY� i� a1 c s ate' % % 1 �� t'G o? �1� 14. Other: ' ' 15. Other: DATE PREPARED BY PREDEV.FRM/MSTRFORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA OF: November 16, 1990 ATTN: Greg Fewins FROM: Federal Way Water and Sewer SUBJECT: Agenda Item No. 6 Robert Wright Speculative Fill and Grade 34000 Block, West of Pacific Hwy. So. COMMENTS: Water: None Sewer: The increased loading to the 12" sewer main may require replacement of the PVC piping with ductile iron pipe. Manholes should also be raised to new grade. Manholes are located at the north and south edges of the property line. By; Date: �� �D -CITY OF FEDERAL WAY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE Date: October 30, 1990 To: Tim Miller, Traffic Engineer Bruce Lorentyen, Building Official Frank Atchley, Operations Lieutenant Gregory BVozek, Assistant to Fire Marshall Ricx "i more, e eral Wady Water and Sewer District Richard Lowe, Senior Project Engineer Jake Walker, Director of Planning & Facilities From: Department of CommuniLv Development Project Planner: Greg Few Senior Planner Phone: 941-1555 Subject: Site Plan Review Application No. UPI-90-0005 Submitted for your review is the attached Land Surface Modification application no. UPI-90-0005. Owner: Robert Wright went: Bennett PS & E Location: Vicinity of 34000 block, west of Pacific Highway South. SEPA: Environmental determination required. Proposal: Speculative fill and grade. Please review the application and return any comments to me c- Thusday, November 15, 1990. cc memo: Jim Shama, Puplic Works DirecCor Mickey Corso, Paris and Recreation Di -rector (01.1C-6 1. Group Health Co-op: The detention facicilty should have no police impact. However, I have no idea what the modifications will be so a proper appraisal is not possible. 2. Shucks Parking Lot Addition: I assume the addition will be to the East of the existing building. If so it should not impact the police. It would help the police if the parking lot is well lit. Also there would be a benefit if the parking lot was constructed so as to allow access to the parking lots of the businesses to the North and the East to eliminate the need to go back out onto the street to gain access to these other businesses. 3. Security Fence: No appraisel is possible without a site plan. There should be no police impact as long as there are adequate entrances and exits. 4. Wayside United Church of Christ: This site is inherently dangerous trafficwise because of its location. I couldn't approve any changes to parking areas without a site plan showing any changes to entrances and exits. 5. Decatur High School: There should be no police impact with this project. QWright Grade and Fill: No impact as long as existing rules are followed during grading. RECEIVE, O C T 3 1990 3 o 0 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY ( `S_ 70 �o BUILDING DEPT. Nc] 13s'1 7y CITY OF FEDERAL WAY~ - DEPART14ENT OF COD94UNITY DEVELOPMENT MASTER LAND USE APPLICATION Application # i:331 - q0 _ 000 5 -65 Name of Applicant Address Signature Property Location Legal Description Project Descriptio Date ` r Agent 7` Own a r—�— i l f ., PI prr Kroll C Zone z =n W61 Type of Permit Recuired: SBPA NCtice Sign f Checklist Ma-'_ed Boarc Site Plan Review R R _ Land Surface Modification R R Boundary Line Adjustment _ Binding Site Plan R R R Short Subdivision _ Subdivision R R R _ Shoreline R R _ Variance R R R Conditional Use R R R Use - Process I R R _ Use - Process II R R R _ Use - Process III R R R _ Quasi -Judicial Rezone R R R _ Variance R* R R _ Comp. Plan/Rezone R R Annexation R R R = Recu_red * Optional by City 2-45r xx DEPARTMFNT OF, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Cl - Of Federal Wad 3110 28th Avenue South Federal Way, Washington 98003 (206) 941-1555 LAND SURFACE MODIFICATION APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS Land surface modification is the clearing or removal of trees, shrubs, ground.cover and other vegetation and all grading, excavation and filling activities. unless permitted outright Federal way ng ceCodeand underemodification( of th surfarequireseapproval throughiprocess,I. surf a Land surface modification followingrequiring informationapproval with athrough masterprocess I shall provide application form: o Application fees including site plan review, -land surface modification, use permit I and SEPA (if required). Agent authorization, if application is not signed by the owner. A complete environmental checklist (if required). o A list of names and addresses and one (1) set of stamped addressed legal size envelopes with a City of Federal Way Do &Mr*return address for all property owners and occupants 0104A-4 located within three -hundred (300) feet of separated site.and Thed list of names and envelope as "property owner" an 'occupant." A recent survey of the site. Ten (10) copies of a map showing: r�. The entire parcel and limits of the proposed land surface modification; V%- The location of utilities, easements, structures, right-of-way improvements; 3. Any sensitive area regulated by chapter 80, FWZC (i.e. wetlands, streams, lakes, steep slopes) located within four -hundred (400) feet of any area to be disturbed by the proposed land surface modification; --ky. Existing drainage facilities; sl tUExisting topography, and proposed final grades; �. The map shall be drawn at a scale of one inch equals one -hundred feet (111:100') or larger, and; Provide one copy of all full size plan sheets, no larger than eleven by seventeen (11x17) inches. no An inventory of existing vegetation on the site, indicating the location of significant trees. o A tree retention plan. An erosion control/construction phase storm water control plan. A soils report which contains sufficient information to determine: 1. The potential impacts of the proposed land surface modification, and; '. Proposed measures to reduce or eliminate these impacts, as determined by the City. Vd Additional information'as required at the discretion of the Director. DATE OF FORM September 5, 1990 LANDMOD.HAN/MSTRFORM -2- CITY'OF FEDERAL WAY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE Date: October 30, 1990 To: Tim Miller, Traffic Engineer Bruce Lorentzen, Building Official Frank Atchley, Operations Lieutenant Gregory Borzek, Assistant to Fire Marshall Rick Gilmore, Federal Way Water and Sewer District Richard Lowe, Senior Project Engineer Jake Walker, Director of Planning & Facilities From: Department of Community Development Project Planner: Greg Few Senior Planner Phone: 941-1555 Subject: Site Plan Review Application No. UPI-90-0005 Submitted for your review is the attached Land Surface Modification application no. UPI-90-0005. Owner: Robert Wright Agent: Bennett PS & E Location: Vicinity of 34000 block, west of Pacific Highway South. SEPA: Environmental determination required. Proposal: Speculative fill and grade. Please review the application and return any comments to me by Thusday, November 15, 1990. cc memo: Jim Shanks, Public Works Director Mickey Corso, Parks and Recreation Director I N SCALE` a IgoCX ciEC$ mm ,3plL,L WM Tat zez" A PDkTIDIJ OF THE NEI/4 SEC. Zo,T. Z1 M.,R4 E.,WM �} 0 ✓Yore: VOW 7AXU Fwom E=_sm L14RW1Aki iSC[d17ES. 044.wC AA. a u *WIM0tW dtu4 4 rd AttYYMOX wmv Ku+t CnMNr ,IrrC.nMIa13 L AU 0Et. TMrIcR.am' .cfCrnl.K.Y yrm' A M P'CM1uJ !t'IX rll k WAN Ar[aNiC GMVTRC>T+r�- • vrEtv,rr� DE .x>af�1[mr4v A- AWeMeo e4myx Ce.WAELrAY.•,v aw-ou Tro rk'D W! A,m4 4L yNt all yli LOIw�+tkJ 1 if L Aulw. wA -1%4 0#4/ of dd�► dlAAt/ua A'm1KS �e.en[E Ir*ES.111ikdt+7[Aa'AK7M1Af FPf ?X /MCKN.a.1 d wd/2 �{�Md It LB Ae u.el!'�TNF' a� StltijlMr rtlr. i yldl dlCAer Hk[ d< h^�l' ESVaL Z ",KW_D Nk M� •,IYA`1..Oi rF1 dr+tfWAR jF'4.Vtb OV CtYK7Y pIplrxa:eA�r CRr,Y.r I.DtR:r. roc dr' fttKAft ar+D N71s �W see a Wni Tk£ �n AKtl filAldl.A[rN C, fAUJJ NM' WAt' AMPp1[o p/7NE n\L ��4r•ArEW of xow +RIrl Ai,�,0ej+.Vi�ulGe nG.10`�t{.ur�twJY�•or�+We..-+aye.f Ar�r4i-�df�iNc` al. �Pt!.� xyufr. Aq IrS[L .y RA((4f{+l.• w�['• 6.rMrnatl a RCQrtlf 0 gCKrr/E /3d7i {�ti- m Wt'/drM btdL s7AMr.RM M�R PYXfWFRr �7 4%4&41t�+ ea�e+''+K�.kdr..rs card .u}.kc fHLn °r`.IL axrFre nac rre aema: •rte y'yru/7o'F.v el:mx .vfrx a•rrrer wr,�ro rrr�ralze+ni�v Tryr 4mn.r rm Tlp tltyy rAr-jwv , �eeo 0 wo 01 mcrro rr Fcrx A [ yx nYl'f/Lr'RL' �1:, ■ Au PfA+WK dMcrAH[J ..brat' R/6:A: grrr•r.rrf19 dmu NAIL QAwp, dt 4 eat; v Gad, nIt[Sf dn� 4w r 4PAL .Ce IV yof cer aww er RnTCK .wtetl. x • +A°I7.1ra.dr tW"iWV A:lrYddnRiRN E[�aa�Gd[fcl @P9 iL t� rNE AbOU WaW Ctey aa A [evr' e• �,f A•Pi4NCA Ait{•,J Atsllr Pt of tr,�• tDd dnE aCkt pwlJnrdCrre,d +Ned AtCREJ1. i Prot m AtY `IrAl�vk�bxf KIr��Ml ur .f[nHIY Yn! R1/L ax+�7Y oel�rryprdr a� R/We +errs rx �rzn«rt.lrnVrecrxw urt�sd rKivr � d.unlextnrmdaE ArJ isf•=3>•)rar A rYr •eaR//fcrn�J bme wJdFourt�c ner yeFPu.IR1erE aLLrAr�/r•twIxt BE rE w mneretd �w uw rat trerr mt tecrrredr fHH1iN rK Y� N a+spTd otplm dmmmle Hm Aop rA.r At M444V Af 0*W IeW m ArRCr[udrntl6trCP fS FMr WnIEE• k nK dnAti !K oxeAib. rEd ereer. lYft rt'E-N'Igr; rN 'Nx4 yj 4OliFrALEUC . RR nlKt t IAtC m noes AttWlc eats[ dwC tlr Fu eyftE ✓RT'/ 'rJ! FRL oft" eE • AdnnrNCS ':!>rlufb XAL re 0 b10 . n7WnLChAC" ! nJ�JM.1M"rR'datCl1 rdCNGIZEdE CdiiEEdAFT-- E, t1 l.f• r+4/nFfIA[l71{ *rs d'NC ped,tyu2 J�=w Ab / I �xLsn,>G coaTm3R� -- . _9J� PRM'bsED CONTouRs So. / R PTIO IM/ 7ertlw. of .." iw to 112 of M. 0—t\ 112 of to- /kntn 112 of MDR iert\.e.l 1/e of le. $1. h... t 1/e of ieelion 20, TermMD al Mart\, Vent. got, QJ., AND tMt p.rI,on M the Mortft 1/2 of t\■ iert\ 1/2 of tM Yorth 1/2 of IAi soYt Meet 1/4 at t\• Ib rt A.uS 1/e wr i.Dtlen 20, torn. 11! QI t\sang. a G.l, 11 lying D..t of state Nig�rey; iitpete in IRA County of King, stet. N au Ninglon. VICINITY MAP No T. ...N Rt■. NO. &ATM v1tcolpTION MAq RT CNtCRtpr KALI r0 ogloNtD:RAB - - Te�n�tt PS&INC SURVEYORS and ENGINEERS P.O. Box 1031 NYALLUP WA. 98371 PUYALLUP 945-9833 SEATTLE 13&317e BOB WRIGHT SITE PLAN PHASE Imur NO. of 4- eats: JL'lY 1989 cNicRto: cRe lArpRovMo,:cjcb DRAWN: Ckt5iAt_ yoR No. �-302D I A-01.n M WETLAND-. fivi— 1. LOCATION: of ^f 21-f1-1 7�frfll•a INVENTORY DATE: ACREAGE: 2 1 CLASSIFICATION: FNWiw",M%+ Crnn.e N— Pill aw L,rw, :r,r/M rr, sr -.a AIIWArr lr Nl M.enn fa,er"c,l IlNJ !�l•r trim. /.repo[ errP Mr,n o-.... rrol,eme ri.do.i� M A,wra ydc - CO.MVNITY PLAN AREA: I•rr.l .t y BASIN OR DRAINAGE: Pwrt SsY.d rn .»»....�..+.-ter...-......» ... �.. �.........-ter..........«. r i�:x • i€: r Ws rA . ti wT4NP. h,.r, !J IOCATNW: H « !Ir r.rq Nro,r R•n. ,•r-•, AcaADr; AI ewrrx:Arnx: Irrw.A.Nr.r.. CO•eLMIT' Pun Anu: I.r,N y DII�iI401 P•w ,••./ e...�. •.. RerrR B•d.edw O..I�tT M prwwsMl S.NwM Cwl ry Ilyd,Soo �ww� .wr wxr..,.•+d M..MMrkW rn� 67 29 AMM•F ..rn. r rrw. w..r.r rr...+•..-... wr..r R.r.a., 1) 50 VW: 67 d0 R....r.n wr.w 61MN: JS b0 E�rrk wove N.rMxrerrw.nwAn,.r.e.... sw. rlw er IRr r.w.r r rw.w,.r.r WETLAND RATING: Bee w..r .� I.•I.� w IN dw I- .w..r..Irsl I••nrrr r., Rs r. r. w rrr,rr ,.,I. r x.aN.r wwwr.r w.ee, TI..Ilwr ..a ..r.. w rd.•1 .rrw w �iN M .. Inl,rrnr.e Pw .de .wW , e..rw N Rxllk wales lr eY...r•. t..wm w.r •gwnl ..wWrr r.w wse,L TM r1/,Ikr w'--"..�IksryW u,RWCrr./,wrd,w,A�P.IYrww...w �.w.11lx�TAwwl.,krw • r.ww A.rr II,N. •L•YYM. ti [.P dwI1INb�-. WwW IMRs 2 Nvlebos JO OBSERVED SPECIES: (der to IklMApiNmW 1) T r. IMruK SA, NY, SS, TL 1 Ml.ec "s, rs. CS, SX i-atdReMlprrF.m CXr ..N Bor.: PC, NN, TS, f6, AA, SS .N... AP, Rd, Cr. RA, JN FYR: Od.r. RAREJENDANGEBED/1HREATENED STECIFS: Oder ED lin EN App.Wk 2) SIGNIFICANT HABITAT FEATURES: OUTLET: Type Channel Cw khI PartlaJly blocked OYrF-- Stmaw POTENTIAL STORAGE: EaAARIEA um 0 sc. It. AewrH Aed.e Jar. ft. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS: Portions Of the Btti—I look srtlf/idly "t,Emt.d. 0 pinq ground far household qa b.qe. WETLAND EVALUATION SUMMARY: W Yr are,ti � F M r•..w. Mir I+nw Ie.r r...K..r ..,.1Y n.r, rrN.•.a .1•Awr ir�rt.•rw OI••wM ..w.A,...w�..,.wrw.w..«I.�•r..rwa.r.ewwew. «+YrrN...rr.w.�.. r•.-n. rr.w,w 1 s..•.r�....r.+..w nre...w•..ry�.e,..rw N.v�.e... k.w.. w.A...r�n.r wy «s ..•.ID P•rr•, N r'.r wrm w elYNer,~�-M WrM•wrep-NOTt i• TI.�i �Nr ,.•Y w,VY•.rr,wMl.leMeRyl •r'.Yrl.rl..r'rT..Iw rrwr.,.•,,, Y r,•Yrr,..f•r.w\ ETdrrM.Oy.y Aw.Y - a R.wRdl.l C .W.ow Ilrr.•.n• riwrrwr.r... .wr wl,Y. r.••,W lr.wnkW irr•w 52 26 ClII1IF• wmrw.R r,rry w..rrdn Nrlw wi.rlrr o..y 70 66 VM.d: ew•rywwl.., N.we.N er A•r.•rW �.t1rN 85 62 r,rWrrMyl..r Col-d: :-N.w r.rs± L*M.Yr..rk.Mdw.w.r J2 66 Eswr.le w.R...rr. r�ravaw.rl w.w.r.,wrwwrrr,. RAY !S 69 1...wPrwwra- --,M WETLAND RATING: lM ,rnr.Jwrl.rPw/h NRw >—M wYny ,w... m+�n.l Mryrwrwlw w..•Ir.Ywerwr+tiRN � e.aYwl M••X.:Yu;.: � w.:,:,w.rN.w.gl:r.w�•w.rw'M°',w rw�•w.ww:we9r�i•.~ir: r �,rw l w w.N.w ...., ► w,I.n, w [e• r.ywl, w.n. N.. o,.rr..r..,...Y•.r.r•NI. TMr w rr... r • 4•.,•.,N utlr -W dk. ti KIrN r•ri•.Y //leer/'. 11Ir1eJ F66n 2 Nylebos 1! OBSERVED SPECIES: Imfw to list In AppwWLx 11 Trove AA, PT H-- Re, RD W...- SX, SO Swp,1R,dwJGr dFwn CX, PA B4d. f0, SS, MA, CO, AD, TS, OS, SS M..M. Od—.. RAREJENDANGEREDJTHREATENED SPECIES: Jm*sol.tlnAppwWix2) RIw,dWft b.wr: /Dr W: SIGNIFICANT HABITAT FEATURES food-dock-9 nest Jn v/clMty. Resting.... for .at.rfo.J OUTLET., Type Detention Control Str..tG C.n/hlw- Open D.Illw over.- PJpe POTENTIAL STORAGE: 4horq Ac— 7sc. ft. P.Nnlw Aube JO at. ft. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS Noire Lpacts fro. sdj.-ne eroding flee sod drplsnn.. rat./ gwllty J"cts frm st-9 sod parklnq Joe swroff. WETLAND EVALUATION SUMMARY: D.r Mrera •. r....,....., r... re.Y, ..e..r.Y..r .. e.r �...r•..r�.e.rw.•r.r.w..•.. r.+.+e. ..r• eeAr• M •Nr r.+d•-I rr,w w•K ,. w+w •.dN.. M lr eA�. w M Re. ewwn- TA.,Ir.NI N ••or.✓, r. Tr Pww•4r•w��rw,•N,•rw l.n..b er LrR•w ra r•+n.Ntif+YrAw� . Mew wI PN+MYw dw 1« nrnr., • PYww mnI N •] rlwr.eiw,«rAdr. Re wrtrreN 4.M. brR• wow R...w.., w V.. N,.M w N•w. a• rYL r....II.I ram. Non: TwF-rlw..r.w..R,.e,...,r, e, v,Ml.N, rrr.Mn I.I.eT Rrrr w I,rr rr, fr..•R,na w �w Hylebos Creek Sound Puget Sound DrRlDage I (ROOK ' Q I LAKE �I PRG1= 456 OF 656 53CO71 -0450A P96PEATY W W6 C •TNIS PeoPejuY IsWr W F,�Lsrw,s rLoawm _ r! Gly of / Kew kf AREA NOT WLwe D Ij Ill KEY TO MAP EODTrr rr wrrrY-- Ioorrlr rrw— S Ewn Dwrwws• WNn Ill]IS, Nor« r r •..r.—� emr.w rr B..rrT� Iwrw[RY•wlMr �•—�•-SIJ—�— •rw [k.,IMn M Iwl•• /«rralN.pk. i. rwl rtLw11 ayn V•rrr• ReyL Er•» IN.eM. RurmNr 4l RMIn Frw•r1. •MI.{ ••RA,nrw w M R,," "G.N..4 Y� ra Our N 1 /}1 'EXPLANATION OF ZONE DESIGNATIONS EONE R.PLANATION A A.. N 1.-, 1b.1; /« noel N„IMn..d neee nuwl ln,.n r /r.rnM.l. AD Inn N IWTIM w,nn- neellq CMr hPIM •< kl.w w I II nl mm I)I u.I;wrwr i.rm. sl IruMnlr .n M,•rt WI ne lMN NUM lures. ,rt /unroll•, AN Ann N IIDT..r wwe. Rwkr •Mrt IrPIM1I r, kl.w".. 111w wm ill lnl:I«r IMM n iu,r.rY•Lh� M M M NUW .Teen Al— Ann N I.,.N RhxmW; I..e nw Nnebw we Ibei Nu.l INxw nN AN r. N NOnrr feN r k r r h r«..I mew iw wNriri:.: �i:.`•.: :° • Ann kl•.n XnII ,1 M IIDYr,r use! •N 1ep F.,r IMN; w ceruM wn rM,cl la IODw.r neN IM �IenuM�ln1 ii1r�N Y .•i nr. IM,exn ✓.Nn��..Nl 61 kwn Iw. w I 0N. w INw1. C N,e el wYrYnd R.NeL INe drYM11 o Anw •r .nhx..rlw1, INN _%. Ik N w./L Y Ann N .tin• I..•r nw •M wlMn 1•wr ullonl„k•r nawr h•xw, r nwi IY.d Inrsn mI•a YI Yss Ane N Im., m.m new .Iln wlrAr 1•m nllenl; Ie, Rm1 rkwllwe w.11•N Nrad ISIen rkmlw Lm•k w.e ,•I k IM wem — Neni.ne l,.m A w Vl r•. k ww • r h nrr I«xr nrnlun ux ws N rw rm1 M.rr.e., rvrpeY. wrN: n l.. Ael nn.r rwYT hw dl wn WNn to neelM1N M w wme•MM w w NnM•Irk IYI,m aM1li. Ipxld Neel nu,rl w.l r. ,/ielJq r rwNA w wr•IAY MMIeI IM.n T wr /wrN INITIAL IDENTIf KR I ION CGNN'ERIIOx TO.IGUCAN FOWAAM /lrtlYer A w. IITI R,II r IM WNVERSIDN TO aEGULAR PROGRAM lee yi NrR .. r 6—UN .•rue nruw I.h rr/rr .r n w ,w., .Mn •x.nN•. w MIM A..• ken T• wllrnW M love 1,•.«i.. Y rW 0 Irk k .M runM1r, N, NuwW IYN Iron w. FA:r.. liool /1�a/i., «I/se] r 11 EIT I. ,rEr r nn n. 11 YAi r altl RIpp.I,. BEY. NO. IIIATI OS{CBIp TION BIRD{ By CNtCAIf SCALI 14bTTbdCIdF DI{IONIC: } . • T�T1.�.i' �E'�(�T�T�'\�� Be9n rieff L S<JC E INCe SURVEYORS andENGINEERS BUB WRIGHT DRAINAGE WAY DATA P.O. Sox loll ►UYALLUP WA. 95371 Y, PUYALLUP HS-5531 SEATTLE 639-3474 {NEST NO. RATI I n�EPC 1989 CNICCI• : CRD, KRIS - ■BAWW: 'il.1'STAL ArnoYle: CLD JOB NO.09-3DU } � Ctc� • z7f. 07 Ll 377 5 -¢5 A'ecR � ¢5 CnA dEt. r MIM 4" FACE) ROCK OVERFLOW 5RILLWAY DETAIL Nra DI/CIIIiION MADI /t CNICRID ICAII : AS A0Tt11 OIIIDNI D: RI1B DATA: 31;PT. 1199 CHICRID: (11',6 + DRAWN: CK%TPL A►PIOVID: CM All • 1 r1AVA.f_ W54 RACK PER 0.�tm ) L �CE7AI 5 ,,5 r • L46.0 x r-L• zaq.a �L Ar 4 oc' NTo�E a VE �.7/S• 70 11%wrtss GMEL 4 COP d•6-57%(In W) •� IY , 0itit 10 Flydlot,,�� DC. FJMCI F SFA V -9s I I 4- k7h%Z4', VJEL.D C¢+11RaL MILLI TIES TD OMM GF TE£ )E•F.7Lo CAPTR6 GRAVEL CokhJ- DETAIL SErTID4 rrra r lulCD erineft 1C" SALE INC. SURVEYORS and ENGINEERS P.O. SOX 1031 PUYALLUP WA. 95371 PUYALLUP $454433 SEAT LE 638-3474 rI BOB WRIGHT CROSS- SECTIONS $MAT NO. 3 OF 4 p/ No. E3-30zo Of 3CALE Eatisrul4 9Ewft LI41. 5r1,T FENCE T'O. b M ctrra16 n+ls our l� 6N:J ,,[lAr(d9pp'.J rrnrAY .w'?C! i R'L GR71 N Le(MIAL" !l17 .IfG11 Y IY,dLrArAlrr Iyx.fU[7JOJ Af p0.J[NMF aJ rK /UJ dMl!- Be C1LAiL1 fCAGSED IY � I.CCI Arj [SfrFr:F LS.VrJC g � �i: rK1 !Y/1raC ICYr.KDCYCb A� rJ 6Kf�lYtl +KDS :D UJD LUAtlV6 nlac irw+r dra�'cr•rvaw+. ,i,qw cr,rr Lwunrrx+ m ,,IU+Ire m+rdfs.tJrureY �x oaer.wrea re rAe AAnXaL aTAlw+as ,+ w.r�ry� AJ►.xrlwrlwrvnu.nn+lc ee �Nwar: �e aun rnr�lvl[yuv mwee rr"e�r���mra���: lai} ArR+1 pdUg4•rrerJ IleiXlr[r+e Ali /¢Tcr+.a Jbt JYJAf ertvnW M+U Mff D:ar..tr.rlavu! • fC4'JIWE. eGt.Ar JrCar A.41!AYr.�LLr A A,LVMW.K3�!C�rrir#Y Cd1:7RL JrS1T+:Nr l�IL YC 7+C 1{N ' r�exArn. f 7+R uDrrW Aae ,rawwwrxa u.Mv. dr cw n��rrArd nr�r a+Xx�ae Aec r+,•;lxa ra ac .rrrara.r . w. 'vD/C�.vF�iY � A[XM,nie�rrn0ace �hv rM�'ee�i•'aiJiln�ir �e%aa�rv�,�ro�,rrs�.aea�u�r��rAerfcr.''dw.r��'u ,.A•L'S}AN AlYddSE r.:rreea dflAO� [LW'•Ne ❑>•�L �MrA�.'6C � �•1�r��I,CCIS i++Ai INY dC rr dl ru lC rrf dLILrQn rNJ MV'4177CY.'•MJA' IJYLrrrlfr TC+C AY7 ADTA=.y4+•AIW AZOrNS'Jlr o: i, AA y/. •,7 DI hN Kf 5 YCS RaD 7i R+0 °OC n w e AA Aref iD7 i+ Y ? e6r rAr NYIA!D7! AJ AP/AoYAL CV<AV,cAea re rrrcr A..sxeo' /.rrreAm+?a7 I,+r_[ rr,�llN m Irx A[r OItrJAae dN+e+' AN.ar run 7d roc rAlSnd4r: i+4'Att Luc ar�Y a R[+u]r+,V M[xlrlN. .car r�•+:ua :eaK+! lac . of reCA r7 arr r.•n� aw 1A!"-a Ill A /Cf e7 nr e,T+mArrarxad ercr arrr Te of CdC�rrnOY Aw a wrAr teimr.W.y... c+c�2_•w AJLf!{s ar rcC ,D araa Dr n x n1! nrx �rFs xw ae:�m, r7rura A45@rCi CIClRI Cyryx rw•rrAX Ar.!lL+�9d ]0 ru s'll•,/ w•OIe:;TrnJ, er�.Ttw - i1.rE Jei' t it I NAM C`JL4eLE 6•:.v c:>•�..s ME 11��.". i'Lrs;sr�•'E�I�� iiax��p_*Z a en'rrTW.errenr:�e el M'[f13r Y r.L hewE{rSr:E:Y rr n,L'S+t• 'S! r}'f.e7 Y••vE re6N. ffl ,e [ DEPM Q[GCFd L !h'[aCT, A fCJ[Er A 4,-Da w i f`dee�r,varai[c iLta AraOa 1r�e rC rre >ac�+.nsux Y y N. �c.Esewc LIA'lITS (TYP) COaSC E111uMY><Yo,/ SfE 17ETAIL Sa fNN5-flN6 FILL - .,AREA I / ' AVEA c 530 X 700 = 5. A A( 1 PHASe Y PNAse Z j ry / I ; � J % 1 f r 1'1• I ISJLT f£L.l'1. I t A •jpL ,40Z" EA1114E FILL. AW-A TO t4 .SEEMO A73fl 7SSAW Ml L-' 1E.6 z rFncK vnse4 FILL 15 crnPr� E c' A!r [•• 1e7 eR z'ee•an•u vaxo "L�2TI. r.7!" ru.ftri4�1<C � r✓.K rti'tY at c:iY: i'e a• ��, ,i• 1 } e;- -�' ;i ><.•. �� �� _ It � = �:,�. �� �: II "}� /iA,l{nwrrt r' 77! 3.001P� JATLGf I`_a. - d IXr641Na -01 JAtl1J.J. JPRLLS _ - m ee rNrEISWCK1A1t ! MEi'fd A4'rJ r x, e� �'x ' � � � �� ~•-- �'—tj ��+� A4P7URll4 G�1mvr� 'F r r.�•r.=4 x.�r,.Laar.a•rr.YA ryp�ca�. a�cr�o,,r - CN�Cf! oaM R F'aC aD / 1Tcsc� SYrFF.h'CE Ri7i.+L �, DATI DIICIIPTION MADI IT CHICKID scAll' DIIIONID: RAC- Bennett PSL E (Nc SURVEYORS and ENGINEERS OATI: Sul: IV cNlCXIs: CRB P.O. BOX 1031 PUYALLUP WA. 93371 DRAWN: CRiSVL A►rI°vlo:CR6 _ PUYALLUP 84"933 SEATTLE 839.3474 CZ9SfRW=;7 A aE WL 9f. /. I4SrA1L 3rtr FfUCE 2 00 AIf, cm mY CYEA-44 Ax .45pu Arrad OF rrF.—JeAl mc+'A Nirr3ACE FACmDE3 3. ,osrAul A c*ma--dr argm srs"- OL.AtE nsd z usr YF Wklc LI0&1 PIPE 4 145Q-4 COF-OFF T'KX'i Awe" TRLOCM YO Dk 1r 13T Y,Mspaa +J Re4cri 5: CTFM A&A FCk 9U fW ELrT.YE. 6W b sLaeclearlvE� tAvx�+ r FODT PEEP] 33 Ate.as5 FrI.C. rp I[EY W7Y tAurrus �ROJJD Ot ft11JC FILL. ti�i: SZP5 5-9 AS FntACF, pIL: rN ..L'L•F'.r AiLCfWAVY JAITIL FILL P• Lomwr FxL. Harr 37Cf..0 15 CDM,LErr- ,LL rAC6 Of NJ 9 c7i Of 1I -11 IRA7rxnk J� ue YD rOfL \ JC CtWj AEA11Kr ed Of Xcaf A e.z wrltnS. 3ro ma Pu +F *a v. f&le A57L� L:"' Gcx�enL. Ar my aoa WRIGHT TEMP EROSION c9 SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN /MITT NO. 4 O14 !06 No.69-30zD v 1• 6p 2LSCRIPTION �14st 'Lion Of t irk 160m t h 1/ 2 o f ttb a 4 1/2 of the 60uthe'"t 1/4 of the Northe Township 21 North, Flange 4 East, W-M., tho 1' rth 1/2 of the 6auth 1/2 of the %dwtho.est 1/4 of the Florthwest 1/4 pf 21 ryorth, 1lenje 4 East, W.1. , Yin& 1r 6ltujte in the County of King, Etete ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about our proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." In addition, complete the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: THE WRIGHT PLACE 1 2. Name of applicant: R . L . WRIGHT 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: R.L. WRIGHT #$34839 Pacific Hwy S. Federal Way, WA 98003 927-1393 4. Date checklist prepared: October 2, 1990 5. Agency requesting checklist: CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Will start as soon as permit is issued. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. NO 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. SEE ATTACHED REPORTS AND DRAWINGS 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. NO 10. Li dt any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Department of transportation 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Fill site for possible future manufacturing or grocery store 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you 2 should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. SEE ATTACHED DRAWINGS TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT: B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, teep slopes, mountainous, other. SEE CROSS SECTION b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 2 to 1 c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, mulch)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Clay and sand d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. 0 e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. 30,000 C.Y. from local area f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. NO g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 15% 3 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: SEE ATTACHED PLANS 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. NONE b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. NO c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: NONE 3. WATER a. Surface 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Ditch ( a tributary to the Hylebos creek) 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Fill as shown on attached drawings 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Local fill material approximately 30,000 cubic yards 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. NO ( see drawings) 4 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. RX 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. NO b. Ground 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. NO 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. NONE c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Storm water retention will be designed by:BENNETT P S & E 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. NO d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Retention System 4.PI ANTS 5 a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: _ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir cedar, pine, other — O A16' D A/ L)/ _ shrubs grass _ pasture _ crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulIrush, skunk cabbage, other _ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? NONE c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. NONE d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: None at this time 5. ANLUALS a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, ongbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. NONE c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. NO T d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electrical or Gas Heating for any future development b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. NO c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: NONE 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. NO 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. NONE 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: NONE b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for 7 example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? NONE 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Sitework construction, 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. for about 3 months. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: NONE 8AAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Vacant b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Not for over 10 years. c. Describe any structures on the site. NONE d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? NO e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? M P f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? 736 I P Industrial/industrial Park. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline- master program designation of the site? Not Applicable E h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. NO i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? RB 9 j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? NONe k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: M NONE 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Meets present Code 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. NONE b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. NONE c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: NONE 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Does not apply at this time. 0 b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? NONE c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: NONE 11. LIGHT AND GLARE - - - a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? NONE b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with N$ms? c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? NONE d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: NONE 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Bowling alley Skating rink b. Would. the proposed displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. NO c. Proposed measures to reduce or control- impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: NONE 10 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, nation, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. NO b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. NONE c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: NONE M 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Hwy 99 at 340 th Street New stop light is proposed at this intersection. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? YES c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? 40-50 d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If_ so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). co e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. NO 11 f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. NONE AT THIS TIME g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: NONE 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. NO b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. NONE 16. UTILITIES a�f�useser;;ce, Circle utilities entl electrici available at the site: atural ga ,CwateDr, #elephone, anitary sewer septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, ant the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. None at this time. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. 12 Signature: Date Submitted: 13 i f F r 34839 PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH • FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON 98003 U.S.A. • (206) 838-9141 (206) 927-1393 FAX (206) 838-9143 June 5, 1990 City of Federal Way Building Department 31130 28th Avenue, South Federal Way, WA 98003-5006 ATTENTION: Greg Moore Re: 8 Acres on West side of Highway 99 and 140th. Dear Mr. Moore: tl' In order to develop my 8 acres I need a determination of how I am to treat the ditch that crosses my property. Enclosed are the following reports for your review: 1. Hydraulic Project Approval — from Department of Fisheries dated September 3, 1986 2. Wash. State Dept. of Transportation —dated February 13, 1986 3. Site Investigation — prepared by R. L. Van Wormer 4. Letter from Bennett PS & E, Inc In my opinion, this is not a. wet land and I should be allowed to fill and develop my property. As I suggested in our June 1st meeting, now is the time to develop a plan for all the property north to 360th. A prompt decision would allow construction this year during good weather conditions. Since R. L. WRIGHT MHY-1 f-7t'1 1 PI:, , CC A TD IDeJl'lllliciff- PS&E INC. SURVEYORS AND ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 1031 • PUYALLUP, WA 98371 PUY:845-8833 5EA:838.3474 May 16, 1990 Bob Wright 34839 pacific Hwy S Federal Way, Wa 98003 Re: Filling -Grading Permit 89-3020 Dear Mr. Wright: Project located in the northeast quarter of Section 20, Township 21 North, Range 4 East, W.M. is a small part of a drainage way. The water has flowed historically from the North to the South through a large open ditch. Twenty-five years_ago I rented property from Mr. Vern Freeze adjacent to the SeaTac Auction. There was a drainage ditch on the North property line which was an open channel with cottonwood trees. The drainage ditch flowed from the North. The channel was open through and beyond your property. All of the adjacent property drains directly to the channel without allowing ponding to occur. With the construction of sewers; the ditch was channeled - in some locations and the depth was filled along with some culverts being added. In making the changes, there wasn't the same free drainage to the new channel. This allowed ponding which never occurred before. The new ponding is now being considered a sensitive area. It is incorrect on the part of persons concerned about the environmental status along the channel to say that it existed as a sensitive area prior to the changes that came about. The property adjacent which is served by the drainage way should be treated as a non -sensitive area as it was when I first was in the area. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Cordially, 1. Robert A. Bennett, PLS At i[cL6 C RELY TO Regulatory Branch DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SEATTLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX C-3755 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON SS124.2255 FEB 4 19K Mr. Irvin C. Lloyd U.S. Department of Transportation 708 Southwest Third Avenue Portland, Oregon 97204 Dear Mr. Lloyd: On February 3, 1987, Mr. Jim Green of this office accompanied you and representatives of the Washington State Department of Transportation on a field inspection of two proposed disposal sites for the Interstate-90 (I-90) project. You requested a letter addressing the Corps regulatory jurisdiction on the two sites. The first site is located in Federal Way, Washington, near the inter- section of Pacific Highway South and 344th Street. This property is owned by Mr. Robert L. Wright. At the west end of the site is a stream with an adjacent pond separated by a manmade berm. Due to the disturbed condition of the site, there was little vegetation growing; however, cattails and reed canarygrass were evident and beginning to grow around the fringes of the pond. This pond and adjacent low area east of the pond is over 1 acre in size. A Department of the Army permit will not be required for disposal of I-90 material on this site provided the existing stream and adjacent pond are not affected. The second site is located in Renton, Washington, near the Black River Pumping Station. The site is known as the Black River Technology Park. The Seattle District previously inspected this site on November 14, 1985; and concluded that wetlands do exist on the site. However, under regulations in use at that time, we determined that this site was not a water of the United States and, therefore, not subject to Section 404 jurisdiction. In late 1965, new regulations were issued which became effective January 12, 1987. The November 149 1985, Black River Technology Park juris- dictional determination is currently under review by the Seattle District in light of these new regulations. If you have any -questions, please contact Mr. Jim Green, telephone (206) 764-3495. Sincerely, Satxuel R Casne Chief, Environmental and Processing Section Wetland Determination January 20, 1987 �- Jim Schafer Project Development Office - Olympia Subject: SR 90 Martin Luther King -Way to Yakima St. Material Disposal Site - Wetland Determination Two sites were examined on January 19, 1987, to determine if wetlands were present. Site 1 Site 1 is located west of Pacific Highway S. and south of 348th St. The site is generally rectangular, about 650 feet long (east - west) and 180 wide, about 3 acres in size. A creek was flowing through the site from north to south about two - thirds of•the way to the west boundary. The site was vegetated primarily with goundcover grasses and weeds with a few small Western Red Cedar and alder saplings in the west -central portion of the site. The channel appears to have been deepened and staightened in the past, with sidecast material creating a relatively steep shoreline on each side. There is no riparian vegetation or area for its development within the site. Riparian vegetation is well developed on property to the south and north. There are no wetlands on this site. Site 2 This site is located west of Pacific Highway S. and in the vicinity of an extension of 344th St. It is approximately rectangular, 1100 feet long (east - west) and 332 feet wide. A creek flows from north to south about 700 feet from the east boundary. To the east of this drainage, the site is totally cleared, to the west, some ground cover and trees remain. The creek appears to have been deepened and straightened recently, and a berm was placed along the east shoreline. Immediately adjacent to the berm is a shallow pond of approximately 1 acre size, with an associated low area further east of about one-third acre size. Some fill has been placed in this low area, that is quite organic in nature with cattail stems and tubers mixed within. According to the landowner(Bob Wright), this material was imported from another site and did not originate at this location, and was intended to provide a source of vegetation.-oN.-}�µ1: �c►';, I�%% ; To the north of this site the creek meanders through undeveloped property that is well vegetated with trees and ground 'cover. To the south is a log storage and firewood cutting yard, an area that has been filled in the past. In reviewing aerial photos taken in 18E2 and in discussing the past and present nature of 'the site and its drainage with the landowner, Joe Robel of the Washington Dept. of Fisheries and Dianne Sheldon, King County wetland specialist and in examining the condition of the site at the present time, it is my determination that this site is primarily upland in nature. The hydraulic nature of this site has been permanently altered by grading and excavation, and by changes in surface runoff quantities over the years. The site may have had small wetland areas associated with the stream channel in the past. The current pond is essentially a graded out dirt bottom basin holding water, with some associated low areas that if left alone would undoubtedly develop into a wetland. The functions attributed to this pond are primarily water quality in nature sediment trapping, nutrient retention, and floodwater (storm event) desynchronization. The creek is quite intermittent in nature, subject to runoff from upstream impermeable surfaces. It is my recommendation that these water quality functions be maintained and that an area be established not subject to alteration, that will also develop into a functional wetland. A very small amount of wetland vegetation was observed along the south boundary in a ditch adjacent to the fill to the south. 'There are no naturally occuring wetlands present on this site. Roan 312 f bhav& Building 708 S. V. Third Avenue Portland, Oregon 97204 Y . �•. .. Potential 1-90 waste Site February 9, 1937 r2Cifi�- Highway S./344th St. Irvin S. L10yd epP-010.3 Environ,-4�ntal Programs officer r.r. truest j. vala&i, rdreCtor ;IFf; c:� of pnninj vnd ?rogr.33velOW1�nt portland, tgor, to rebrusry,3, 1937 at th:! ragXlst of Area Erjoinaer Kay, rJ-)]T, and the Property fl,.-ner-, Bob kriolt., I inspected Or, site, a potential wastes Disposal area for 1-90 4 ific ri n')! 3J 5. and 344th Street rrith Jim S. ►af>rr and rZalfrh Nichols, uS T; i-, �recr,, S�sttle District Corps of Engirwers Regulatory Functions Drenc 1, snd frva E,ngin�er Gi�:< Kt;v- Mr. -Wri r)t +aalo like to use 1-93 waste rk=terial to fill icl ,,is pro;,erty it woulu> be ;,',ore desirable fog' d3VElo;);?&nt. 10 rf thy EnvironaentLl Assess�l°nt for the 1-90 mercer islar:ri Exce35 t4. tWri:=1 visnrysel ststes that wetlands will b' Considered when selecting a site far., -:,;ate dis sal. The WrIgnt proposed lanai fill ares has starling vater on one n f t 7' r .° site in regards - of i:r. •ray rer'unsted profession l cvnrlu���o D i P. G,.o��. i7 . •s 7 L'1 71•.".�.�.n�?J of Veti?nr.'s. Cn :��n�anr v ,� , 1987 W. S,^tr,`er �:So a survey of 's- erea, site. 2 .flf the iclr to the on -site 1. i•tr. 4reen nor rzy ,elf !'lac seen the area f:x i rives" .Lo2tion. During the CourSe of our on -site review 4e contacted Mr. lsrig"t at ;pis Office ir.'ilCi7 �$ a ;�I'Ctx:.Iatnly 3 blocks fro'•:: t•;'!P syD jest area. L)jrinc Our r`T�`7►ri'ra'sit :�n :.lt`l Fir. V1,rioilt ::? t!nr-3 sno'.tin P 19CS2 aerial �n;�to of the site a,nl�`-2 fillers`? nt^= a l:a�� nsrrcni porvi tv=+•ards the west en-: of th nropprty. After v:sr �r1 7►'r' 'j'i. ii'� :=t'l mS- In; ri`;' '6 lei T�JI�' of t�l�' ti71-53tr !:{?fli�ltiG[ls� Green 3`[1"' 1 c:--T-atvJ 1 t '+eoul�i t7c is Cfly t�, dISGICrs� -�lG natf'ri al fine p1rc, erty ;rovidinn- t`�' L' istinq strew-.r at1j thY ari,�a�'?nt pond shurelinv' r Pin irregular lint to th east of :`1_., strew; %�,in, not ,af fec- The , -files P,'stsof the strew sera•,. r n �=,;�rox� :vf el>r fifty feet sas cf the s?w.2r ne e R �5 e ry�l7tos, Atte-_th�ent; 3). The CE affir:iel position is indicated in their Fitta::ty .'nt 2) +Fa:=..xltarr L1, 1587 letter {5e4 � i sy cc�y of this rwnorandzn we recommend WOUT be informed •nf our -recce rendstion. -7. Y=right 3'F3S tolri he woj1d "a- InfDrt ed of Oz- decls!on during the re h of fehruary 9. I �Irvin C.: Lloyd C't��] .� yin- tci) 1)ivision (iEA-Wr ) N77Washington State Department of Transportation District 1 Office of District Administrator 6431 Corson Avenue South #C-81410 Seattle, Washington 98108 206 764.4141 Mr. Robert Wright 34839 Pacific Highway South Federal Way, Washington 98003 Dear Mr. Wright: Duane Berentson Secretary of Transportation Febniary 13, 1986 This letter is to inform you of the decision made after visiting you and your proposed waste sites on Pacific Highway South on February 3, 1987. Site 1, the south site, has been previously approved. The decision made on site 2, the north site, is based on the rec x miendation of the Corps of Engineers, the Region 10 FHWA Environmental Program Specialist and our Biologist. Your site photographs indicated that historically a long narrow pond has existed near the west side of the property. After an on site review of the property to determine the existing conditions it urns determined to allow the disposal of 1-90 material at the site. The 1-90 material can not be placed in the stream or the adjacent pond. our photographs shm7 the pond shoreline to be an irregular line approximately 50 feet east of the sewer line manholes. Any I-90 material placed must be placed east of this line. I am attaching the reports of the three specialists that made the recorrnen-- dations on utiich the decision is based. If you have any questions please call Ralph Nichols at 236-4386. Sincerely, X� 4 h�wa� ,L Richard F. Johnson, P.E. tr`� Environmental and Special Services Engineer RHN cc Dick Kay FHWA Iry LLoyd FHWA Sam Casne ME S. A. Moon Jim Schafer !`e; 1_ '+__, j fir- L- U DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES r HYDRAULIC PROJEC' r� APPROVAL R.C.W. 75.20.100 n September 3, 1986 (Applicant should refer tolhisdaIa in all correspondence) PAGE 1 OF 2 PAGES t6 LAST NAME FIRST 9 CONTACT PHONE W Wright Robert 838-9141 19 STREET OR RURAL ROUTE 34839 Pacific Highway South STATE ZIP CJTY Federal Way Washington 98003 ,P WATER TRIBUTARY TO Unnamed Tributary Hylebos Creek ❑QUARTER SECTION TOWNSHIP RANGE X'w) COUNTY 13 1T1Ci/4 20 21N 4E Ki ng MTHIS PROJECT MAY BEGIN TIME LIMITATIONS: Immediately ately DEPARTMENT__OF, _FISHERIES General Admin. Bldg. Olympia, Washington 98504 (206) 753-6650 1 2 3 4 L'J WRIA A B C D g-10.0006 td 15 16 17 F F G TYPE OF PROJECT ,t Culvert Installation Pond Clean -Out ❑6 AND BE COMPLETED BY November 1, 1986 THIS APPROVAL IS TO BE AVAILABLE ON THE JOB SITE AT ALL TIMES AND ITS PROVISIONS FOLLOWED BY THE PERMIT - TEE AND OPERATOR PERFORMING THE WORK. The person(s) to whom this approval is issued may be held liable for any loss or damage to fish life or habitat which results from failure to comply with the provisions of this approval. Failure to comply with the provisions of this approval is a gross misdemeanor, possibly punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. The Department reserves the right, subject to the holders opportunity to a hearing to contest agency actions as provided by the Ad- ministrative Procedure Act, chapter 34.04 RCW, to make additional restrictions or conditions or revoke the approval when new informa- tion shows such action is necessary by the department for the protection of fish life. This department cannot be held liable for any property damage which might occur as a result of this project, except where damages are proximately caused by actions of the department. This approval pertains only to the provisions of the Fisheries and Game Codes. Additional authorization from other public agencies may be necessary for this project. 1. This project shall occur only when the stream is dry. 2. The culvert may be placed two (2) to three (3) feet above the existing streambed. 3. The culvert shall be as short as possible and be large enough in diameter to pass all flows and debris. 4. The inlet and outlet ends of the culvert shall be armored as necessary to prevent erosion. 5. All fill slopes shall be structurally stable and planted with grass upon completion of final grading. 6. A mulch of straw or similar vegetative material shall be spread over all raw slopes. This mulch shall be at least three (3) inches thick. 7. The pond may be graded provided an upstream sill is constructed. This sill should consist of large angular rock. DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES DIRECTOR ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS Date Approval given to ....Wright,, ROper:t............................................................. Stream or Lake ...... Unnalr1-.d, Tr, 0.utarY..-. HY.10osi.Crock................... I .................. Type of Project ..... , Culvert Installation, Pond Clean -Out PROVISIONS: NOTE: Issuance of this permit does not relieve the applicant from King County permit requirements. SEPA: DNS by King County, March 1986. Location: West of Pacific Highway South and north of South 344th Street. Regional Habitat Manager - Joe Robel - Telephone - 753-2980. cc: Robel Johns -Patrol Game r R E! Vg:0 Robert Wright Site Investigation On January 4, 1989, I met with R.L..Wright, of R.L. Wright Construction and Helicopter Service in Des Moines to conduct a site evaluation of a piece of property located on Highway 99 near the Kent-DesMoines road. The site is an area that has been filled for a number of'years, and has continued to be filled recently. The area to the south had been previously filled by an adjacent property owner and is under negotiation with King County. Because of the legal problems on the parcel to the south there is a physical separation (i.e., a man-made draw) between the two pieces of property. There is a single large cedar located in that draw. Along the north side of the fill, the bank is sloughing onto the adjacent property owner's land. This land to the north abuts Highway 99 on the east and extends west to the drainage ditch (i.e., a tributary to Hylebos Creek). All of this area is uplands. The drainage ditch runs from north to south across the property, about two-thirds of the distance between Highway 99 and the west property line. Under current conditions, R.L. Wright Company has created a dike along the east side of the drainage ditch to keep the high drainage ditch flows from flooding the property east of the ditch. It also prevents sediment and silt accumulations from the existing fill from entering directly into the drainage ditch. Because of this dike, the low area back of the dike, between the dike and the toe of the existing fill, has become a water entrapment pond. Because of the lack of -an outlet, this area is currently an intermittently flooded retention pond. The dominant vegetation is reed canarygrass. Surface water runoff,' from a 36 inch pipe that runs under Highway 99 onto the properties, sheetflows westerly toward the north -south drainage ditch. This water has been picked up in a drainage pipe and directed south into the retention area between the fill and the drainage ditch by R.L. Wright Company. This has accelerated the rate of flooding onto the site. With no outlet, this only continues to increase the flood storage, thereby increasing the depth and duration of standing water which will enhance wetland conditions on the site. 1 The ditch through the Wright property has been excavated into a fairly deep, wide area in the drainage ditch that functions as a flow -through pond. The ditch north of the Wright property is being scoured by accumulated runoff, increasing the size of the ditch and increasing the rate at which water is discharged from the west through the Wright property. This water collects from the north and from a second large surface water runoff pipe directed under Highway 99 from the east. To the south, the drainage ditch has been partially obstructed by the placement of dirt and debris in the ditch. In the process, the elevation of the creek was also raised approximately one to two feet higher than the bottom of the drainage ditch on the Wright property. This has create a dam that reduces the flow capacity and backfloods the Wright property. Because of the raised elevation and constricted flow, trees have grown in the drainage ditch. The trees trap debris and sediment, increasing the bottom elevation, which further aggravates the drainage problems south of the Wright property. Historic : By reviewing a series of aerial photographs provided by Mr. Wright and located at Walker Aerial Photo Services, we were able to create a historic analysis of the site. The site was originally farmed. At that time a small drainage ditch/tributary/surface water collection ditch flowed through the property in the same location that it occurs under present conditions. However at that time it was a narrow ditch that only flooded during -high flows. The previous property owner excavated a pond into the area that is now the larger pond or drainage ditch on the site. This appears to have been an effort to slow surface runoff or possibly seep waters from the adjacent property to the west from flowing onto the bottom of the farm field during heavy runoff periods. Once farming discontinued, the area reverted to a mix of native and invader species. There are photographs showing small conifers growing in the site that is now a reed canarygrass retention basin. Mr. Wright and others have identified these as Douglas fir. 2 Mr. Wright stated that, prior to their construction and raising of the dike to reduce the flooding, the retention pond area collected water -but that it readily drained as the waters dropped in the drainage ditch. Because of this, the area was a mix of grass vegetation, with the stand of young, fairly even - aged Douglas fir. -With the construction of the dike, drainage from the area was eliminated and waters could no longer drain from the site. With the extended flooding into the spring growing season, the Douglas firs and -other upland plants, including what appears to have been a substantial starting growth of Scots broom, was eliminated. The dike located on the east side of the ditch was an existing dike prior to King County's wetlands ordinances being passed. At the time of the filling (i.e., dike improvement), the vegetation on the dike (from review of aerial photographs) was predominantly a grass mix with some of what appears to be red alder/Douglas fir growth and Scots broom. The dike reconstruction increased the width and height of an existing structure. It was improved for the purpose of eliminating flooding of personal property. It also was constructed on an area that would have been an upland using the Corps of Engineers multiparameter evaluation procedure. Existing Wetlands Conditions : The retention pond area between the west toe of -the existing fill and the manmade berm along the east side of the drainage ditch is becoming a wetland because of the intermittent flooding and vegetative composition. However, when using the Corps of Engineers delineation procedure and taking soils into consideration, the area still is not a wetland. Using the King County Soil Survey November, 1973, the basic soil on the site was identified as Arents Alderwood series. If the site were properly drained, the area would revert to its historic conditions. Conclusions : The area in question, between the west edge of the fill and the drainage ditch (i.e., the tributary to Hylebos Creek), has become a reed canarygrass drainage swale bog wet area because of 3 a blocked drainage system. Although we have not completed a Corps of Engineers evaluation, there is a question whether the , area is a true wetland. The improved dike, constructed by the Wright Company, has aggravated this flooding condition by eliminating outflow. The overflow structure placed on the dike at the recommendation of Joe Robel does allow for an escape of extreme high waters without scouring the dike, however because of its elevation it does not help in alleviating the wet condition of the site. The dike, constructed across the east edge of the existing drainage ditch, was an expansion and improvement on an existing flood control dike which had, at one time, isolated the drainage ditch from the parcel of property that is now flooded. With the breach in this original dike due to high waters, the area was flooding lud creating a t n fa ming problems. The placement of the new dike, p gg g raising the elevation to protect the area from flooding. The replacement dike was created on top of an old dike that was vegetated with a mix of reed canarygrass, Scots broom, small red alder, and what appears to be some Douglas fir. This should not constitute a fill in a wetland for two reasons; (1) the area was probably not truly a wetland based on predominance of vegetation and the soil type and (2) it was an improvement of an existing condition, which is allowed under King County ordinances to protect property -from flooding. Recommendations : A. Until the water can be removed effectively from the site, the area will continue to increase in wettedness and could become a diverse multi -species -wetland. If the goal is to eliminate all the water from the site, then three things should occur: (1) The pipe entering the basin from the north should be redirected into the drainage ditch, thus preventing water from entering the pond from the north. There is a possibility that the small berm or road which has existed, at the point of the pipe, could be raised to assure that the waters sheetflowing across the adjacent property do not overtop and enter the Wright site. 4 (2) A culvert with a one-way flap gate be installed in the southwest corner of the detention basin into the drainage ditch. The invert of the culvert should be at the lowest surface elevation of the drainage ditch, thereby allowing complete drainage each time the drainage ditch elevation drops. (3) The drainage ditch south of the Wright property should be cleaned, with the removal of trees from the channel until the bottom elevation is' low enough to allow normal flows of water through the system. Problems : In our discussions with Mr. Wright, it was noted that the Washington Department of Fisheries and/or the County appeared to like the concept of the shaded area in the creek south of the site. The shading on the area could be retained through proper dredging and clearing procedures. This would continue to allow stream bank vegetation, particularly along the east side of the stream, but would remove the debris and trees from the ditch bed. The premise that the ditch is a viable fish habitat is questionable based on the physical conditions of the ditch downstream of the -Wright property. The presence of black cottonwood and other species in the stream bed are indications that the area dries up in the summer. Black cottonwood and red alder, although wet tolerant, will not grow in areas where the water stands year round or saturates the root zone during the spring growing season. Their presence indicates that this portion of drainage ditch is dry from a period late in the spring through the summer, and that water is only present in the area in the summer during periods of runoff after summer rains. B. As part of future development, the existing wetland could be utilized as a retention/detention basin for the treatment of surface water runoff from the Wright property. Because of the size of the proposed development area, this could be accommodated in a much smaller basin in the southwest corner of the existing flooded area. As we discussed in the field, waters could be collected in this area and discharged through a high water overflow grass -lined swale system on the crown of the 5 existing dike. The water would run backwards from south to north through this drainage ditch, thereby increasing sediment removal and biofiltration of the surface water that would be collected from the development site on the Wright property. At the north end of the property, the drainage ditch could have an overflow sill which would allow the water to sheetflow into the existing drainage ditch. From there, the water then would flow with the normal flow, downstream to Hylebos Creek. Additional tree/shrub" plantings would be placed on both sides of the open water components that exist'.on the Wright property under existing conditions. This would' re-create and expand the shaded conditions desired by the Fisheries Department. Cleaning the downstream area would allow normal drainage from -the site through the area and, by removing obstructions downstream, increase the potential of fish movement through the area and into the pond. This constitutes the field notes and thoughts of Rex Van Wormer, IES Associates, on the R.L. Wright property, Highway 99, King County, Washington. Sincerely, R.L.-Van Wormer Senior Biologist IES Associates r 1 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Wright Company - Grading Permit 2. Name of applicant: Robert L. Wright 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Robert L. Wright 34839 Pacific Highway South Federal Way, WA 98003 838-9141 4. Date checklist prepared: December 3, 1985 5. Agency requesting checklist: King County BALD 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Grading to start 1986 on both sites. Phase 2 of Project #2 would be undertaken during dry weather in late summer of 1986. It is not known when any buildings would be constructed. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansions, or futher activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.- Building are planned for the future; however we do not know what types, sizes, etc. Therefore, this checklist will address the grading permit - portions only. B. List any environmental information you know about that has been---- prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal - None 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals --- of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your. __- proposal? If yes, explain. None are known. 10. List any government approvals or per■its that will be needed for your r: proposal, if known. Grading permit, SWM approval, possibly an access permit from-WSDOT & .- Fisheries Hydraulic Project Approval. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) This proposal is for a grading permit on 2 parcels of property approximately 1/2 mile apart. The first site (Site #1) is located on the west side of Pacific Highway South just south of South 348th Street. The easterly portion of the 3 acre site is used as the main office of the Wright Company, general contractors. Generally, the site has been cleared and slopes gently towards a ditch running north -south in the westerly 1/3 of the property. See sheets 1 and 2 of the grading plans. Site #2 is located north of Site #1 at the extension of South 344th Street on the west side of Pacific Highway South. This 8 acre -_:- site is also generally clear and slopes gently towards a ditch running north -south in the westerly 1/2 of the site. This site is shown on sheets 3 and 4 of the grading plans. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. -If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. while you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. Please refer to No. 11 above and the plans for vicinity maps and legal descriptions. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS EARTH General description of the site ( circle one): flat, ROLLING,, billy, - steep slopes, Mountainous, other. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Steepest sustained slope is approximately 27% for Site #2 and - approximately 12.5% on Site #1. C. what general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, --- sand, grovel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of - agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland? Site No. 1 is about 50% Everett-Alderwood gravelly -sandy loam and 50% Seattle Muck while Site No. 2 is all Everett-Alderwood -- gravelly-sandy loam according to the King County Soil Survey-_ i d_ Are there surrace indications or history or unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. We estimate approximately 15.000_cubia yards and 55,000 cubic ards of material will be imported for Site 1 and 2, respectively. Most material would be from excess excavations in the area and the owner's contracting business. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Erosion could occur; however, controls will be utilized per King County -- requirements. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Since the project would ultimately be a commercial use, we would -.expect a 90% coverage ultimately-.- h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Standard controls per King County requirements. 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give - approximate quantities, if known. Some dust and equipment exhaust would be generated during the filling operations. b. Are there any off —site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Traffic emissions from Pacific Highway South. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts -tom air, if any: Water can be applied to the soil to keep dust a to minimum.. Exhaust= emissions should not violate current air quality standards. -r- 3. WATER 4 a. Surface 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. A seasonal drainage d/ ch traverses both sites and ultimately flows to Brook Lake. Site No. 2 also experiences water ponding during the wetter winter months due to a low area on the site. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) of the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Work on Site No. 1 would be limited to a culvert installation to get access to the westerly portion of the property. Site No. 2 would re- shape and deepen the low area noted above in item 3.a.1. This is being done both for maintenance of the dead storage and to provide an amenity for the future buildings. Additionally, Site No. 2 would receive a culvert for access to the westerly portion of the property. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None, except for culvert crossings; approximately 500 cubic yards. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions?_ Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No b. Ground 1) Will ground water be withdrawn,, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage: -- 5 industrial, containing the following chemicals..; agricultural; etc.) Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. None C. Dater Runoff ( including stone water) : 1) Describe the source of runoff (including store water) and eethod•of - collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? -If so, describe. The runoff from & to this site is mostly due to a large drainage --- basin to the north and east. The 25 year storm would produce 150.-- cubic feet per second according to staff at King County. For a - more detailed analysis, refer to the drainage calculations. The waters would be collected, ultimately, with catch basins and discharged to the existing drainage ditch which ultimately flows to Brook Lake. - 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If- so,. -generally — describe. No d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and -runoff water impacts, if any: Detention, sedimentation and oil separation will be provided in accordance with King County Standards. 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found -on the site:- X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, or other X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs X grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants; cattail, buttercup, bullrush,--- skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, selgrass, milfoil, other . other types of vegetation b. what kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Any vegetation within the grading area will be removed. C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near=the site. 6 None are known. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Until ultimate development, exposed areas would be hydroseeded with grasses. 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, SONGBIRDS, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the - site. None are known. C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No d. Proposed measures to preserve or enchance wildlife, if any: None 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to most the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. As this proposal is for the grading permit only, no energy would be needed for the completed project. b. Mould your project effect the potential use of solar energy=by -adjacent _- properties? If so, generally describe. - No C. What other kinds of energy conservation features are included in the - plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: None 9. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including expo9ure to toxic - chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. None 1) Describe special emergency services that slight be required. None 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Traffic noise from Pacific Highway South. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with - the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, _- construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Noise from construction equipment during the grading opera tion-would _ba _._ _. during normal working hours. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if.any, _ None a. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?_ A portion of Site No. 1 is the main -office of the Wright Company,_,-,, Site No. 2 is vacant. Commercial enterprises surround these sitaa__.7 3 on all sides except for the north side of Site No. 2 -which _is .vacant-.4. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. - No C. Describe any structures on the site. Site No. 1 contains 3 one story buildings; -Site No. 2 is vacant_>oa= ,. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No e e. what is the current zoning classification of the site? Site No. 1 is M-P-P'� Site No. 2 is M-L-P� f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Same as e. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline waster program designation of the site? N/A h. Has any part of the site been classified as "environmentally sensitive" area. If so, specify. No t" i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? None J. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k_ Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: -- None 1. _ Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible -with existing -end =- project land uses and plans, if any: These properties would ultimately be developed according -to t-heir existing zoning. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate - whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate_ whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing- Impacts,_if _any r None 9 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas: what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? -- N/A b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?- -- N/A C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: It None 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. what type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What -tire .of .day - would it mainly occur? None b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No C. What existing off —site sources of light or glare may affect Your proposal? Street and automobile headlights from Pacific Highway South and lighting,--. from adjacent commercial properties. - d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare i■pactal if -.any: None - 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are _U 4he Immediate vicinity? None b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? -If ._ so, describe. No C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation,, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project applicant, -if any: None 10 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None are known to exist. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any. None 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site,and describe proposed access to the existing street system.. Show on site plans, if any. The sites are served and fronted on the east by Pacific Highway South. One driveway exists for both sites. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes, both sites. C. Now many parking spaces would the completed project have? Now many would the project eliminate? N/A d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements ..to -- existing roads or streets, not including driveways?. -If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of water, ---rails or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak voluameess wooucld occur_ The grading of the projects could genera A20 trips r 4ay. _Tharp - would be no peak volumes. 11 g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if. any; None 1S. PUBLIC SE4 ES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (.for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on -public services, if any: None 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site -ELECTRICITY NATURAL,:, a GAS, WATER, REFUSE SERVICE, TELEPH©NE, SANITARY SEWER,. septic.systes4 other. Sewer is planned for construction in-1986._ ,. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility— providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. None C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. J understand that_,t.be lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: - Date Submitted: �r Welter