Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
05-105730
CITY OF Federal December 8, 2005 Andrew Cherny 20816 Oh Avenue South Des Moines, WA 98198 CITY HALL F E 33325 8th Avenue South • PO Box 9718 y Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com RE: File No. 05-105730-00-PC; PREAPPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY CAEP Office Building, 350XX 1" Avenue South, Federal Way Dear Mr. Cherny. Thank you for participating in the preapplication conference with the City of Federal Way's Development Review Committee (DRC) held December 1, 2005. We hope that the information discussed at that meeting was helpful in understanding the general requirements for your project as submitted. This letter summarizes coinments given to you at the meeting by the members of the DRC. The members who reviewed your project and provided comments include staff from the City's Planning and Building Divisions and Public Works Department, and representatives from Lakehaven Utility District and Federal Way Fire Department. Some sections of the Federal Way City Code (FWCC) and relevant information handouts are enclosed with this letter. Please be advised, this letter does not represent all applicable codes. In preparing your formal application, please refer to the complete FWCC and other relevant codes for all additional requirements that may apply to your project. The key contact for your project is Jim Harris, 253-835-2641, jim.hams@cityoffederalway.com. For specific technical questionsabout your project, please contact the appropriate DRC representative as listed below. Otherwise, any general questions about the preapplication and permitting process can be referred to your key contact. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed action is construction of an 8,200 square -foot two-story office building with approximately 28 parking stalls and associated site improvements. The proposed site improvements and associated improvements are proposed to be located within the 200-foot buffer of a Category I regulated wetland. MAJOR ISSUES Outlined below is a summary of the major issues of your project based on the plans and information submitted for preapplication review. These issues can change due to modifications and revisions in the plans. These major issues only represent comments that the DRC consider most significant to your project and do not include the majority of the comments provided. The major issues section is only provided as a means to highlight critical requirements or issues. Please be sure to read the entire department comments made in the next section of this letter. -'Mr. Chem Y:. December 8, 2005 Page 2 • Planning Division The proposed site plan identifies significant intrusions into rcgulated wetland buffers. Any intrusions into regulated wetlands and/or wetland buffers requires review and approval by the Hearing Examiner subject to applicable decision criteria contained in FWCC. Impacts to wetlands and buffers should be avoided to the maximum extent possible. The City staff does not support the site plan as proposed at this time without further evaluation and analysis of the wetland, wetland buffer, and potential impacts for the site development. • Public Works Development Services Division Flow Control (detention) and Water Quality facilities are required as part of the site development. See Public Works Development Services Division comments below for specific requirements. • Public Works Traffic Division • If a proposed land use includes a Medical/Dental Office use, then a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) is required in order to assess project impacts and determine traffic mitigation measures. • Street frontage improvements and right-of-way dedication are required along I" Avenue South. DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Outlined below are the comments made by the representatives of each department present at the preapplication conference. Each section should be read thoroughly. If you have questions, please contact the representative listed for that section. PLANNING DIVISION (Jim Harris, 253-835-2641, jim.harris@cityoffederalway.com) l ) Land Use Review Process — The zoning of the subject site is OP, Office Park. The OP zoning district permits office uses pursuant to FWCC Section 22-826 (enclosed). The required review process for an office building is Process III land use review (Site Plan Review) with SEPA review. A development submittal requirements checklist and master land use application are enclosed along with applicable code sections. Given the extent of wetlands and wetland buffers, the procedural provisions of this correspondence will assume that wetland buffer intrusions and/or wetland intrusions will be requested with development of the site. Therefore, this correspondence will outline the procedural requirements of Process IV Hearing Examiner review, as Process IV review is required for any wetland, wetland buffer, and stream buffer intrusion. Per FWCC Section 22-432, if development, use or activity requires approval through Process III and is part of a proposal that also requires Process IV, the entire proposal will be decided upon using Process IV, if the Director of Community Development determines this will make more efficient decision -making. In this case, with such extensive wetlands, it is likely the City would use Process IV for review of the whole proposal, except the design guidelines review. The first procedural step would be -determination of a complete application, and notice of application, within 28 days of application submittal. Next, an administrative State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) determination will be issued by the City. The next procedural step is to issue an administrative design decision on application for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines per FWCC Section 22- 05-105730 Doc. 1, D. 34104 Mr. Chemy December 8, 2005 Page 3 438. Following expiration of the appeal period for the Design Guideline review, a public hearing date will be set for the Process IV components of the proposal. The City staff makes a written recommendation to the Hearing Examiner one week before the hearing. The Hearing Examiner makes the final decision on the Process IV application, unless the Examiner's decision is appealed. The burden Of proof for meeting the Process IV decisional criteria is on the applicant. Building permits can be issued after Process IV approval is granted and final. 2) Stale Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) —The project as proposed requires SEPA review because of the construction of more than 20 parking stalls and buildings over 4,000 square feet (WAC 197-11- 800[l][b][i]). An environmental checklist must be submitted and reviewed prior to the City issuing an environmental decision. 3) Wetlands — According to the City of Federal Way wetland inventory, there is a Category I wetland on the property. The wetland report you submitted from Habitat Technologies dated October 23, 2005, also confirms the presence of a category I wetland. Category I wetlands require a 200-foot setback (buffer) as discussed in FWCC Section 22-1357. As proposed, the building, parking lot and most of the site improvements are located within the 200- foot wetland buffer, as only a small portion of the site is located outside the wetland and buffer area. Therefore, most likely any development would require intrusion into the regulated wetland buffer via Process IV Hearing Examinee- approval and must meet applicable decision criteria for wetland buffer intrusion contained in FWCC Section 22-1359. All aspects of the site development and site improvements such as buildings, parking area, utilities, street improvements, stream culvert extension, access, grading, tree removal, stormwater, and hydrological impacts must be considered and evaluated for wetland and wetland buffer impacts in conjunction with a Process IV wetland or wetland buffer intrusion. Your wetland biologist will need to review the proposed site plan and address applicable decision criteria for each of the project elements listed above. A wetland evaluation and mitigation plan will be required. Please note that there is a significant discrepancy between the October 23, 2005, Habitat Technologies wetland delineation and the wetland delineation prepared for the abutting development to the north of your site. A wetland delineation by Talasea Consultants indicates the wetland boundary extends further north on your property than identified on the Habitat Technologies delineation and extends onto the property to the north, further encumbering your parcel. The City does not have a wetland biologist on staff; however, we. contract with a consulting firm that conducts wetland review on behalf of the City. To have the City review and comment on the accuracy and content of the Habitat Technologies report, you will need to pre -fund the City consultant review. If you want to have the City conduct the review of the Habitat Technologies report, I will initiate a scope of work and three -party contract to determine the estimated cost of review of the wetland report and delineation. Please contact me to discuss the review of your wetland delineation report. 4) Reasonable Use — The City's critical area code, FWCC Section 22-1244, includes a reasonable use Provision where the articles of the critical area code may be waived or modified by the Hearing Examiner through Process IV, when implementation of the critical area regulations would deprive an 05-105730 Doc 1 D. 34104 Mr. Chemy December 8, 2005 Page 4 applicant of all reasonable use of the subject property. The reasonable use exception would be used only after all other design and development options have been considered and evaluated. If the City grants a reasonable use exception, it shall be the minimum necessary to provide the applicant some reasonable use of the property, considering the factors described in FWCC Section 22-1244(c)(1-5). If you would like to further discuss the reasonable use provision, please contact Jim Harris, at 253- 35-2641. 5) Stream — A branch of the West Fork of Hylebos Creek, a salmon -bearing stream, runs through or adjacent to the subject site. The site plan must identify the location of the stream. A minimum 100- foot setback from the ordinary high water mark of the stream is required by FWCC Section 22-1306. Any intrusion in the 100-foot setback requires Hearing Examiner approval through Process IV ria of FWCC Section 22-1312. If an extension of the culvert review, and must meet the de u d ri rder to construct roadway improvements, hen FWCC Section under V Avenue South is req 22-1309 must be addressed and met. 6) Public Notification — With submittal of the application, please provide three sets of stamped envelopes addressed to the property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. Include the City of Federal Way return address (33325 9" Avenue South, PO Box 9718, Federal Way, WA 98063-9718) on all envelopes. For our records, please provide lists of the owners and occupants within 300 feet of the subject site and provide a corresponding parcel map showing the 300-foot radius from the subject site. For your information, the first set of mailing envelopes is used for notification of the complete land use application, because the subject property is within 300 feet of residential zoned property. (FWCC Section 22-392[b][41). The second set of envelopes is used for notification of the SEPA decision and the third set of envelopes is for notification of the public hearing. 7) Application Fees — The project, as proposed, requires the following land use application fees (other fees for wetland consultant review, building permits, and Public Works review and inspection are required): Process I1I $2,071.50 Process IV $3,415.00 SEPA $932.50 Total $6,319.00 The Process III application is for the administrative components of the proposal (Design Guidelines) and the Process N is for any environmentally critical area intrusions. The fee schedule is reviewed and adjusted annually by the City Council. The fees identified above will be modified effective January 1, 2006. 8) Setbacks and Lot Coverage -- A number of building to property line setback options are available in the OP zone dependent of site layout and building design as described in FWCC Section 22-826, notes 2 and 12. Building setbacks are measured from the property line or if adjacent to an access easement from edge of easement. Also note, setbacks are measured after any required right-of-WaY comments below from Sarady Long, Public Works Traffic Engineer, for dedication. Please see the information related to required dedication. Doc. 1 D. 34104 05-105730 Mr. Chemy December 8, 2005 Page 5 No maximum lot coverage is established. Instead, the buildable area will be determined by other site development requirements (i.e., required buffers, parking lot landscaping, surface water facilities, etc.). 9) Perimeter Landscaping — A preliminary landscape plan, prepared by a licensed landscape architect in accordance with FWCC Chapter 22, Article XVII, "Landscaping," is required as part of site plan submittal. Pursuant to FWCC Section 22-1566(h)(1), ten feet of Type III landscaping must be provided along all property lines abutting the public right-of-way or access easements. Pursuant to FWCC Section 22-1566(h)(2), fifteen feet of Type I solid screen landscaping must be provided along the east and south property lines adjacent to residential zones. Pursuant to FWCC Section 22- 1566(h)(3), five feet of Type III landscaping must be provided along all perimeter lot lines, except as noted. 10) Interior Parking Lot Landscaping — Twenty-two square feet of interior lot landscaping, per parking space, must be provided in accordance with FWCC Section 22-1567(b)(1), "Parking Lot Landscaping." Type IV parking lot landscaping is required to be installed at the ends of all rows of parking and disbursed throughout the interior parking area. The site plan must list the specific size of each landscape island proposed for interior parking lot landscaping in order to verify the required calculation is provided. Landscape islands must be a minimum width of six feet between stalls and at the ends of rows. Lighting fixtures shall not replace any required interior parking lot landscaping. 11) Significant Trees — The subject property contains trees that meet the City's definition of "significant." Significant trees are defined by the FWCC as evergreen or deciduous trees in good health, and a minimum of 12-inch caliper or 37 inches in circumference, measured four feet six inches above the ground. Significant trees do not include red alder, cottonwood, poplar, or big leaf maple. Generally, at least 25 percent of the significant trees on site must be retained, or replacement trees provided. Retention of the significant trees is encouraged through meandering of the parking stalls, and in the perimeter landscape areas per FWCC Section 22-1638(a)(4). A significant tree inventory for the site must be provided with the Process IV application. The landscape plan must include a significant tree retention plan in conformance with FWCC Section 22- 1568(c)(2). 12) Height — Pursuant to FWCC Section 22-826, the height allowed is 55 feet above average building elevation in the proposed location in the OP zone. Within 100 feet of the east and south property lines (adjacent residential zones) a maximum building height of 30 feet is permissible per note 3 of FWCC Section 22-826. The preliminary elevations appear to comply with the maximum permissible height. 13) Parking Requirements — Pursuant to FWCC Section 22-826, the parking requirement for an office use development is one stall for every 300 square feet of gross floor area. The proposed 8,208 square -foot office building would be required to provide a total of 28'parking stalls. As shown on the submitted site plan, the proposal provides 27 parking stalls, so one additional stall would be necessary. Pursuant to FWCC Section 22-1442, a maximum of 25 percent of stalls may be compact. A handout entitled "Parking Lot Design Criteria" is enclosed to assist you with further parking lot 1 Pursuant to FWCC Section 22-1379, if the formula for determining the minimum and maximum number of parking spaces results in a fraction, that fraction will be rounded up to the next higher whole number. 05-105730 Doc ID 34104 Mr_ Cherny December 8, 2005 Page 6 design information. Please also refer to the enclosed handout entitled "Accessible Parking" for the correct configuration and labeling of the required handicapped stall. 14) Community Design Guidelines — The subject proposal must comply with the Community Design Guidelines contained in the FWCC. This correspondence highlights the primary applicable design guidelines for the project, but does not necessarily identify all applicable design requirements. Due to the preliminary and conceptual nature of the preliminary elevations, City staff did not conduct a detailed review of the project for compliance with the Community Design Guidelines. The enclosed Community Design guidelines must be reviewed and consulted when developing preliminary plans. Building Orientation — Pursuant to FWCC Section 22-1638(b), buildings in the OP zone with ground floor services should orient major entrances and other pedestrian features to the right-of-way to the greatest extent possible. FWCC Section 22-1636(a)(1), states that in all zones, buildings should generally be oriented to rights -of -way, including building features such as entries and lobbies. Otherwise, screening or art features such as trellises, artwork, murals, landscaping, or a combination thereof, should be incorporated into the street -oriented facade. Additionally, FWCC Section 22- 1634(8)(d)(1), states that primary entrances to buildings should be clearly visible and recognizable from the right-of-way. The submitted site plan and elevations show that the major entrance to the building is oriented towards the parking lot to the north of the building. The building design and orientation should be revised in accordance with applicable code requirements to orient the building to the right-of-way. The building and site design will also need to consider the environmental constraints of the site. Fagade Modulation — Pursuant to FWCC Section 22-1635(b), all building facades that are both longer than 60 feet and visible from either a right-of-way or residential use or zone shall incorporate at least two of the four following options for modulating and/or screening: • Fagade Modulation: A minimum depth of two feet, minimum width of six feet, and maximum width of 60 feet. Alternative methods to shape a building such as angled or curved facade elements, offset planes, wing walls, and terracing will be considered, provided that the intent of the section is met. * Landscape Screening: Eight -foot -wide Type II landscape screening along the base of the facade, except Type W, may be used in place of Type II for facades that are comprised of 50 percent or more window area, and around building entrances. • Canopy or Arcade: As a modulation option, canopies or arcades may be used only along facades that are visible from a right-of-way. Minimum length is 50 percent of the length of the fagade using this option. • Pedestrian Plaza, Size of Plaza: Plaza square footage is equal to one percent of the gross floor area of the building, but it must be a minimum of 200 square feet. The plaza should be clearly visible and accessible from the adjacent right-of-way. The preliminary elevations do not include any of the four facade modulation and screening elements and will need to be revised to meet at least two of the four treatment options. 05-105730 Doc 1 D 34104 Mr. Chemy December 8, 2005 Page 7 FWCC Section 22-1635(c) requires building articulation and scale elements to be included in the design. Articulation elements may include but are not limited to the following: showcase windows; recessed windows; trellises; setbacks and indents; artwork, grills, material and color variations; etc. Please refer to the list of methods of articulation identified in FWCC Section 22-1635(2)(a-g) for specific applications. The district guidelines identified in FWCC Section 22-1638(a)(1-4) must be addressed in the site plan and architectural elevations. Major elements of these guidelines include, but are not limited to, the following: parking location and pedestrian access and circulation, and principle entry design. The site plan must provide for pedestrian connection to the street frontage. Please note that pursuant to FWCC Section 22-1634(d), pedestrian pathways shall be delineated by separate paved routes using a variation in paved texture and color, and protected from abutting vehicle circulation areas with landscaping. Approved methods of delineation include stone, brick, or granite pavers; exposed aggregate; or stamped and colored concrete. The method of pavement delineation should be indicated on the site plan. A written narrative must be provided in conjunction with the land use application identifying how the proposal complies with the applicable design guidelines, as outlined in the FWCC and summarized above. In the hope of ensuring expedient project review, please feel free to contact the Community Development Services Department to schedule a preliminary design analysis prior to formal submittal. 15) Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) — Pursuant to FWCC Section 22-1630, CPTED standards will be applied during project review. In addition, demands on public services will be evaluated during the SEPA review, and mitigation may be required. A CPTED checklist (enclosed) must be completed and submitted with the Process IV application. 16) The site is located within the critical aquifer recharge area and one-year wellhead capture zone. In summary, activities may only be permitted in a critical aquifer recharge area and wellhead protection area if the applicant can show that the proposed activity will not cause contaminants to enter the aquifer. The City shall impose development conditions to prevent degradation of a critical aquifer recharge area and wellhead protection area. A hazardous material inventory statement shall be provided with the Process IV application. 17) Garbage and Recycling — The new office building must be provided with trash and recycling facilities as described in FWCC Section 22-949. The trash enclosure area may not be in required yards (setback areas), may not be located within landscape buffer areas, must be screened according to the landscape chapter, and must be architecturally consistent with the design of the primary structure on site. PUBLIC WORKS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION (Kevin Peterson, 253-835-2734, kevin.peterson@cityoffederalway.com) Land Use Issues — Stormwater Surface water runoff control and water quality treatment will be required per the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) and the City of Federal Way Addendum to the 1998 05-I05730 Doc LD. 34104 Mr. Cherny December 8, 2005 Page 8 KCSWDM. This project meets the requirements for a Full Drainage Review. The project lies within a Level I flow control area, thus the applicant must design the flow control facility to meet this performance criteria. 2. The project also lies within a Resource Stream Protection Water Quality Protection Area. Water Quality Treatment shall be designed to meet the treatment criteria of the Resource Stream Protection Water Quality Menu of the 1998 KCSWDM. 3. At the time of land use site plan submittal, a preliminary Technical Information Report (TIR), addressing the relevance of the project to the eight core and five special requirements of the KCSWDM will be required. A Level 1 downstream analysis shall also be provided in the preliminary TIR. The City has 1 " = 100', five-foot contour planimetric maps that may be used for basin analysis. 4. Show on the preliminary plans, with dimensions and cross -sections, the proposed detention and water quality facilities. Right -of -Way Improvements See the Traffic Division comments from Raid Tirhi, Senior Traffic Engineer, for traffic related items. 2. If dedication of additional right-of-way is required to install street frontage improvements, the dedication shall be conveyed to the City through a statutory warranty deed. The dedicated area must have clear title prior to recording. 3. All stormwater treatment and detention requirements outlined above will be applied to new impervious areas created within the public right-of-way for street improvements. 4. Frontage improvement requirements apply to the parcel's entire street frontage, not just the portion of the site that is being developed. Public Works Building Permit Issues The Federal Way Development Standards Manual (including standard detail drawings, standard notes, and engineering checklists) is available on the City's website at www.cityoffederalw2y.com to assist the applicant's engineer in preparing the plans and TIR. 2. A final TIR shall be prepared for the project and submitted with the permit application. The final TIR will require the signature/seal of a professional engineer registered/licensed in the State of Washington. 3. Bonding is required for all improvements associated with the project. The bond amount shall be 120 percent of the estimated costs of the improvements. An administrative fee deposit will need to accompany the bond to cover any possible legal fees in the event the bond must be called. Upon completion of the installation of the improvements, and final approval of the Public Works Inspector, the bond will be reduced to 30 percent of the original amount for a two-year maintenance period. 05-105730 Doc. 1. D. 34104 Mr. Chemy December 8, 2005 Page 9 4. The developer will be responsible for the maintenance of all storm drainage facilities (including the detention and water quality facilities). The developer will also be responsible for any Public street improvements, which includes during the two-year maintenance period. During that time, the Public Works Inspector will make periodic visits to the site to ensure the developer's compliance with the maintenance requirements. 5. When topographic survey information is shown on the plans, as may be required, the vertical datum block shall include the phrase "DATUM: N.G.V.D.-29" or "DATUM: K.C.A.S.," on all sheets where vertical elevations are called out. 6. All drawings shall be drafted/plotted on 24" x 36" or 22" x 34" mylar sheet with permanent black ink. Drawings submitted for plan review shall be printed on 24" x 36" or 22" x 34" paper. Site plans shall be drawn at a scale of 1" = 20', or larger. No architectural scales are permitter] on engineering plans. 7. Provide cut and fill quantities on the clearing and grading plan. Erosion control measures, per Appendix D, 1998 KCSWDM, must be shown on the plans. 8. The site plan shall show the location of any existing and proposed utilities in the areas affected by construction. PUBLIC WORKS TRAFFIC DIVISION (Raid Tirhi, PE, 253-835-2744, raid.tirhi@cityoffederalway.com) Transportation Impact Analysis Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Section 22-1475 authorizes the requirement of Transportation Impact Analyses to identify transportation impacts of development and identify appropriate mitigation measures. The applicant would be expected to contribute pro-rata shares towards TIP projects impacted by 10 or more peak hour trips. Mitigation improvements necessary beyond those identified in the TIP to meet the City's adopted level -of -service standard are required to be provided by the applicant to meet concurrency requirements of the Growth Management Act. 2. It is not clear to City Staff if a Medical -Dental Office Building is considered as part of the proposal. Therefore, only one of the following two alternatives would apply: a. If a Medical -Dental Office use is not to be considered as part of this proposal, then, based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation 7'h Edition, land use code 710 (General Office Building}, the project would be expected to generate less than 10 new weekday evening and less than 100 weekend peak hour trips onto the nearest key intersection. Therefore, a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) would not be required for this proposal. Instead, four copies of a letter signed by the applicant indicating that medical dental use is not to be considered as part of the proposal must be included as part of the application materials. b. Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation (ITE) 7'h Edition, land use code 720 (Medical Dental Office Building), the project is estimated to generate approx. 31 weekday PM peak hour trips. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by a traffic engineer 05-105730 Doc I.D. 34104 Mr. Chemy December 8, 2005 Page 10 licensed in the state of Washington would then be required to assess project impacts and determine mitigation measures. The traffic engineer should contact the Traffic Division for a scoping sheet in the initial stages of their study. Four final copies must be stamped and submitted to the City. Street Frontage Improvements 3. Per FWCC Section 22-1474, the applicant/owner would be expected to construct street improvements consistent with the planned roadway cross -sections as shown in Map III-6 of the FWCP and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) shown as Table III-19. Based on the materials submitted, staff conducted a limited analysis to determine the required street frontage improvements in meeting the FWCC. Based on the analysis and FWCC, the applicant would be expected to construct street improvements on the following streets to the City's planned roadway cross -sections: I" Avenue South is a Type "I" street, consisting of a 58-foot street with curb and gutter, six- foot planter strips with street trees, eight -foot sidewalks, and streetlights in a 92-foot right-of- way (ROW). Twenty -foot ROW dedication is required from this property. 4. The applicant/owner shall dedicate sufficient public right-of-way along the entire street frontage (0 Avenue South), to widen and improve the abutting public street to the adopted City street standards. ROW dedication shall be conveyed to the City through a Statutory Warranty Deed and must have clear title prior to recording. Per FWCC Section 22-1477, the applicant may make a written request to the Public Works Director to modify, defer, or waive the required improvements. Information about a right-of-way modification requests are available through the assigned planner. BUILDING DIVISION (Scott Sproul, 253-835-2633, scott.sproul@cityoffederalway.com) International Building Code (IBC), 2003 edition Washington State Amendments WAC 5140* International Mechanical Code (IMC), 2003 edition Washington State Amendments WAC 5142* Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC), 2003 edition Washington State Amendments WAC 51-46 & WAC 51-47* International Fire Code (IFC) 2003 Washington State Amendments* National Electric Code (NEC), 2005 edition Accessibility Code ICC/ANSI Al 17.1-2003 Washington State Energy Code WAC 5 1 -11 * 05-105730 Doc I.D. 34104 Mr. Cherry December 8, 2005 Page ] 1 Washington State Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality Code WAC 51-13* *Current State Amendments are dated: July 1, 2004 ** As of January 1, 2002, the State amendments now require arc -fault interrupters for 15-20 amp branch circuits serving sleeping rooms in dwelling units (R-l's). Building Criteria Occupancy Classification: B, A-3, and M proposed Type of Construction: V-B Floor Area: 8203 Number of Stories: two stories Fire Protection: Fire alarm system required. Wind/Seismic: D Basic wind speed 85 Mph, Exposure_, 25# Snow load, Seismic Zone D-1 A complete building permit application and commercial checklist. (Additional copies of application and checklists may be obtained on our web site at: www.cityoffederalway.com.) Submit five sets of drawings and specifications. Specifications shall include: Soils report X Structural calculations X Energy calculations X Ventilation calculations. Note: A Washington State Registered architects stamp is required for additions/alterations (new or existing) of 4,000 gross floor area or greater unless specifically listed as an "exempt" structure per the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). Submit n/a copies with King County Health Department approval stamp for all projects that include food service facilities, septic systems or other elements within the project that require health department approval. Energy code compliance worksheets are required to be completed and included with your permit application. A wet stamp and signature is required on all sheets of plans and on the cover page of any calculations submitted. Federal Way reviews plans on a first in first out basis; however, there are some small projects with inconsequential review requirements that may be reviewed out of order. Review Timing The first comment letter can be expected within six to seven weeks of submittal date. Re -check of plans will occur in one to three weeks after re -submittal. Revised or resubmitted plans shall be provided in the same format, size and amount as the originally submitted plans. Revised/resubmitted drawings shall indicate by means of clouding or written response, 05-105730 Doc.I D. 34104 Mr. Chemy December 8, 2005 Page 12 what changes have been made from the original drawings. Plans for all involved departments will be forwarded from Community Development Services. Federal Way has an expedited review process. Information is available at our front counter. Other Permits & Inspections Separate permits may be required for electrical, mechanical, plumbing, fire suppression systems, and signs. Applicants may apply for separate permits at any time prior to commencement of construction. When required, special inspections shall be performed by WABO approved agencies or by agencies approved by the building official prior to permit issuance. Construction must be approved by all reviewing departments prior to final building division inspection All concerned departments (Planning, Public Works, Electrical, Fire) must sign off before the Building Department can final the structure for occupancy. Building final must be approved prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The City of Federal Way does not issue temporary Certificate of Occupancies. All construction projects may be required to have a pre -construction conference. If a pre -con meeting is required, all subs, the general or representative, the architect or representative, the engineer or representative, electrical contractor and any other interested party, should attend this meeting. Meetings will occur at the Building Department and will be scheduled by the inspector of record for the project. Site -specific requirements: ■ Elevator will be required for access to the second floor, IBC 1104.4. The information provided is based on limited plans and information. The comments provided are not intended to be a complete plan review and further comments are possible at time of building permit plan review. LAKEHAVEN UTILITY DISTRICT (Brian Asbury, 253-946-5400, basbury@lakehaven.org) Water • If additional hydrants or other fire protection system are required or indicated, a developer extension agreement will be required. Additional detail and/or design requirements can be obtained from Lakehaven by submitting a separate application to Lakehaven for either a pre -design meeting or a developer extension agreement (application copies enclosed). Lakehaven encourages the owner to apply for either of these processes early in the pre-design/planning phase to avoid delays in overall project development. A water meter application for a separate meter/service is required for any new connection to the water distribution system, or modification to any existing connection (e.g., larger water service connection), in accordance with standards defined in Lakehaven's current `Fees and Charges Resolution.' 05-105730 Doc, 1 D. 34104 Mr. Chemy December 8, 2005 Page 13 Sewer ■ Sewer service can be obtained through either one of the following options (listed in order of Lakehaven preference): 1) Side Sewer Permit - Connect to existing, sewer main located on the west side of I" Avenue South directly west of the property. A side sewer permit (application and guidance forms enclosed) is required for any new connection to the sanitary sewer system. Minimum slope for side/building sewers is 2%. 2) Developer Extension Agreement - Connect to existing sewer mam/manhole located on the east side of 15` Avenue South, by extending mainline facilities from a location north of the property to a point near the NW corner of the property. A developer extension agreement will be required to construct new sewer main, if this method is selected, for the proposed development. Additional detail and/or design requirements can be obtained from Lakehaven by submitting a separate application to Lakehaven for either a pre -design meeting or a developer extension agreement (application copies enclosed). Lakehaven encourages the owner to apply for either of these processes early in the pre-design/planning phase to avoid delays in overall project development. Minimum slope for side/building sewers is 2%_ Owner will be required to complete and submit a Sewer Use Survey (SUS). Information in the SUS will be used by Lakehaven to determine specific pretreatment requirements. In addition to all other side sewer installation standards, installation of a Type 1, 48" monitoring manhole is required on the private building sewer line. General ■ Charges are assessable against the property at a current rate of $ 5.70 per front foot along 15` Avenue South, for water facilities previously constructed that provide direct benefit to the property. Lakehaven's Capital Facilities Charges are calculated on the basis of Equivalent Residential Units (ERU). Residential equivalency will be estimated based on anticipated water use (1 ERU = 255 gallons per day for water and 220 gallons per day for sewer). Owner will be required to provide a reliable estimate of proposed water consumption (commercial and irrigation) for the property (information from a similar facility may be submitted in lieu of a new estimate). Capital Facilities Charges will be assessed and collected for any increased use above that which may have been previously paid, including increases attributable to usage associated with existing service. Actual water consumption; will be monitored and additional Capital Facilities Charges may be assessed within five years of original connection. Lakehaven's current Capital Facilities Charges are $3,212/ERU for water and $2,702/ERU for sewer. All comments herein are valid for one (1) year and are based on the proposal(s) submitted and Lakehaven's current regulations and policies. Any change to either the development proposal(s) or Lakehaven's regulations and policies may affect the above comments accordingly. FEDERAL WAY FIRE DEPARTMENT (Greg Brozek, 253-946-7241, greg.brozek@federalwayfire.org) Water Supplies for Fire Protection The required fire flow for this project is ? gallons per minute. Doc. LD- 34104 05-105730 Mr. Cherry December 8, 2005 Page 14 A Certificate of Water Availability shall be provided indicating the fire flow available at the site. This project will require ? fire hydrant(s). Existing fire hydrants on public streets are available for this project. Existing fire hydrants on adjacent properties shall not be considered unless fire apparatus access roads extend between properties and easements are established to prevent obstructions of such roads. When any portion of the facility or building protected is in excess of 400 feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on -site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided. Fire hydrants: 1) Shall be located not more than 300 feet on center. All measurements shall be made as vehicular travel distance. 2) Shall not be located closer than 50 feet to any building. 3) Shall not be obstructed by any structure or vegetation, nor shall the visibility of the fire hydrant be impaired for a distance of 50 feet in the direction of vehicular approach to the fire hydrant. (KCFD #39 Administrative Policy Guideline No. 1004) Fire hydrant locations are subject to the approval of the Fire Marshal or his/her designee. When exposed to vehicular damage, fire hydrants shall be suitable protected. Fire hydrants shall be in service PRIOR to and during the time of construction. Fire Apparatus Access Roads Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided when any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building is located more than 150 feet from fire apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. EXCEPTION: When buildings are completely protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, these provisions may be modified by the chief. Plans for fire apparatus access roads shall be submitted to the fire department for review and approval prior to construction. Fire apparatus access roads: 1) Shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. 2) Shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of a 30-ton fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. 3) Shall be not less than a 20-foot inside turning radius and not less than a 40-foot outside turning radius. 4) With a dead-end in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with a cul-de-sac or Fire Department approved alternative at the dead end. All such cul-de-sacs shall be not less than 80 feet in diameter. 5) Gradient shall not exceed 12 percent. (KCFD #39 Administrative Policy Guideline No. 1006) 05-105730 Doc LD. 34104 Mr. Chemy December 8, 2005 Page 15 Designated fire lanes may be required for emergency access. This may be done during the plans check or after the facility is in operation. When required, approved signs or other approved notices shall be provided and maintained for fire apparatus access roads to identify such roads and prohibit the obstruction by parking and other obstructions. Fire apparatus access road gates shall comply with KCFD #39 Administrative Policy Guideline No. 1003. Fire apparatus access roads shall be installed and made serviceable PRIOR to and during the time of construction. Fire -Extinguishing Systems Three (3) sets of plans and specifications for automatic fire -extinguishing systems, standpipes and their appurtenances shall be submitted to the fire department for review and approval prior to installation. Plans shall be drawn to an indicated scale, on sheets of uniform size, with a plan of each floor, and shall show those items listed in Chapter 14 ofNFPA 13 that pertain to the design of the system. Sprinkler plans shall bear a Washington State Certificate of Competency stamp. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed in all occupancies requiring 2,000 gpm or more fire flow or where the total floor area included within the surrounding exterior walls on all floor levels, including basements, exceeds 10,000 square feet. Fire walls shall not be considered to separate a building to enable deletion of the required automatic fire -extinguishing system. (FWCC Chapter 8, Article 11, Division 4) The automatic fire -suppression system shall be connected to the fire alarm system (last zone) in all buildings having an automatic fire detection system. The system demand pressure (to the source) required in a hydraulically designed automatic fire sprinkler system shall be at least 10 percent less than the correlative water supply curve pressure. Fire department connections shall comply with KCFD 39 Administrative Policy Guideline No.1002. Automatic Fire Detection System An automatic fire detection system shall be installed in all buildings exceeding 3,000 square feet gross floor area. This fire detection system shall be monitored by a central and/or remote station conforming to the current"requirements of the National Fire Protection Association standards and/or the fire chief or designee. (FWCC Chapter 8, Article Il, Division 4) Plans and specifications for fire alarm systems shall be submitted to the fire department for review and approval prior to system installation. Plans and specifications shall include, but not be limited to, a floor plan; location of all alarm -initiating and alarm -signaling devices; alarm control and trouble -signaling equipment; annunciation; power connection; battery calculations; conductor type and sizes; voltage drop calculations; manufacturer, model numbers and listing information for all equipment, devices and materials; details of ceiling height and construction and the interface of fire safety control functions. Fire alarm systems, automatic fire detectors, emergency voice alarm communication systems and notification devices shall be designed, installed and maintained in accordance with NFPA 72 and other nationally recognized standards. 05-105730 Doc 1 D. 34104 Mr_ Chemy December 8, 2005 Page 16 Systems and components shall be listed and approved for the purpose for which they are installed. A remote fire alarm annunciator panel(s) shall be installed at the following location(s): Fire alarm control panel and remote annunciator panel keys shall be located: In a Supra lock -box to be located Portable Fire Extinguishers Portable fire extinguishers shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 10. Fire Department Access to Buildings Exterior doors and openings required by the International Building Code and/or the International Fire Code shall be maintained readily accessible for emergency access by the Fire Department. An approved access walkway leading from fire apparatus access roads to exterior openings required by the International Building Code and/or the International Fire Code shall be provided when required by the Chief. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background. Numbers shall be a minimum of six (6') inches in height. When access to or within a structure or an area is unduly difficult because of secured openings or where immediate access is necessary for life-saving or firefighting purposes, the chief is authorized to require a key box to be installed in an accessible location. The key box shall be of a type approved by the chief and shall contain keys to gain necessary access. THESE FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMENTS ARE VALID FOR 180 DAYS FROM REVIEW AND ONLY FOR THE PLANS REVIEWED. CLOSING This letter reflects the information provided at the preapplication meeting and is intended to assist you in preparing plans and materials for formal application. We hope you find the comments useful to your project. We have made every effort to identify major issues to eliminate surprises during the City's review of the formal application. The completion of the preapplication process in the content of this letter does not vest any future project application. Comments in this letter are only valid for one year as per FWCC Section 22-1657. As you know, this is a preliminary review only and does not take the place of the full review that will follow submission of a formal application. Comments provided in this letter are based on preapplication materials submitted. Modifications and revisions to the project as presented for this preapplication may influence and modify information regarding development requirements outlined above. In addition to this preapplication letter, please examine the complete FWCC and other relevant codes carefully. Requirements that are found in the codes that are not addressed in this letter are still required for your project. 05-I05730 Doc. 1. D. 34104 Mr_ Chemy December 8, 2005 Page 17 If you have questions about an individual comment, please contact the appropriate department representative noted above. Any general questions can be directed towards the key project contact, Jim Hams, 253-835-2641. Sincerely, J hm Harns Senior Planner enc: FWCC Section 22-826 FWCC Article XVII — Landscaping FWCC Article XIV — Critical Areas Mailing Notice Handout FWCC Article XVII — Landscaping FWCC Article XIX — Community Design Guidelines CPTED Checklist Process IV Handout Master Land Use Application Hazardous Material Inventory Checklist SEPA Checklist Parking Stall Dimension Chart Accessible Parking Handout Lakehaven Utility District Handouts c: Kevin Peterson, Engineering Plans Reviewer Raid Tihri, Senior Traffic Engineer Brian Asbury, Lakehaven Utility District Greg Brozek, Federal Way Fire Department 05-105730 Doc I.D. 34104 CITY OF Federal January 31, 2006 Andrew Cherny 20816 6"' Avenue South Des Moines, WA 98198 FILE CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South • PO Box 9718 y Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253)835-7000 www. cityoffederal wa y. com RE: File No. 05-105730-00-PC; REASONABLE USE PROVISION CAEP Office Building, 350XX 1" Avenue South, Federal Way Dear Mr. Cherny: This letter provides follow-up information to the December 8, 2005 preapplication summary, regarding the reasonable use process and procedural requirements for property located at the 35000 block of I" Avenue South. Following issuance of the preapplication conference summary letter, you further inquired about the reasonable use provision contained in Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Section 22-1244. As you know, the subject property is highly constrained by wetlands and Hylebos Creek; development must comply with the regulatory provisions of the City's critical area code. In summary, nearly the whole 1.6-acre parcel is encumbered by a wetland, stream, or their associated buffers. The City's critical area code, FWCC Section 22-1244, includes a reasonable use provision where the articles of the critical area code may be waived or modified by the Hearing Examiner through Process IV, when implementation of the critical area regulations would deprive an applicant of all reasonable use of the subject property. The reasonable use process would be used only after all other design and development options have been considered and evaluated. If the City grants a reasonable use exception, it shall be the minimum necessary to provide the applicant some reasonable use of the property, considering the factors described in FWCC Section 22-1244(c) (1-5). As noted in FWCC Section 22-1244, the reasonable use review occurs on a case -by -case basis and would occur in conjunction with a Process IV application for wetland buffer and stream buffer intrusion as discussed in the December 8, 2005 preapplication summary letter. Wetland. and stream buffer intrusions, to the extent proposed on the preliminary site plan, likely would not meet applicable decisional criteria and would not be supported by City staff through the Process IV review. However, due to the extent of site constraints resulting from the wetland and stream and their associated buffers, City staff would move your proposal into a reasonable use review in conjunction with a Process IV wetland buffer intrusion and stream buffer intrusion application. The preliminary site plan shows a 100-foot wetland buffer where the FWCC requires a 200-foot buffer. Rather than developing a site plan based on an overall 50 percent buffer reduction, the site plan should be designed in consideration of the site -specific features and functions and values of the wetland and stream buffer. • y i� Mr. Cherry January 31, 2006 Page 2 If you pursue a Process IV application for development of the site, we encourage you to design the site to avoid wetland and stream buffer impacts to the maximum extent possible. The site plan should incorporate the following design elements: • Reduce parking lot size and stall count to the minimum necessary; ■ Share a common access to the property to the north; • Minimize the building footprint; ■ Implement low impact development (LID) design concepts; • Optimize location of improvements in relation to the physical constraints and characteristics. The FWCC does not provide a mathematical formula to determine what size of building and associated improvements would be appropriate under the reasonable use provision. However, to determine reasonable use of the property, in addition to the design features noted above, a factor the City may consider is the cost of the subject property in comparison to the development potential of other similarly zoned properties. Specifically, the City may develop a formula to determine reasonable use of the property, by comparing the sale price per square foot of the subject property to the assessed or appraised value of other comparable zoned properties per square foot. The specifics of such a formula have not been determined. However the City's intent is to determine what size and type of development should be permitted on the subject property, based on a comparison of the development potential of a similarly priced, non -environmentally constrained OP zoned parcel. Please note that due to the extensive environmental constraints of the site, there will be some potentially significant costs associated with the site design, wetland and stream analysis, and mitigation of impacts. As identified above, City staff cannot determine the outcome of the Hearing Examiner process and reasonable use review. I hope this correspondence provides you with information to assist you in evaluating the development potential of the subject property. If you have any further questions, please contact me at 253-835-2641 or jim.harris@cityoffederalway.com. Sincerely, C "fir Barris Senior Planner c: ' Greg Fewins, Deputy Director of Community Development Services 05-105730 Doc. 1. D. 34895 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (CDRC) Preapplication Conference Sign In Sheet CAEP OFFICE BUILDING 350XX -I" Avenue South File No. 05-105730-00-PC December 1, 2005 NAME REPRESENTING TELEPHONE NUMBER 1. �J l v✓� l r i n^` M1 _ as 2. '2 4. s. a ' i. ■ r-1.. 7 ► . dr. 9. 10. 11. 12. 1 ,y 1 M 016 3—g3T-7,49Gt ze.3 als--L-1 0 _C� — OF35 — RESUBMITTED HABITAT }TECHNOLOGIES 4. r, A' BUILDING WETLAND AND DRAINAGE CORRIDOR EVALUATION AND DELINEATION REPORT PARCEL 2021049017 PROJECT SITE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON prepared for Mr. Andrew Chern_y__ 20816 - 6t" Avenue South Des Moines, Washington 98198 prepared by HABITAT TECHNOLOGIES P.O. Box 1088 Puyallup, Washington 98371-1088 253-845-5119 August 22, 2005 wetlands, streams, fisheries, wildlife -- mitigation and permitting solutions P.O. Box 1088, Puyallup, Washington 98371 voice 253-845-5119 fax 253-841-1942 habitattech@gwest.net TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................'I STUDYPURPOSE..................................................................................................... PROJECTSITE DESCRIPTION................................................................................. 1 BACKGROUNDINFORMATION....................................................................................2 NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY.......................................................................... 2 STATE OF WASHINGTON PRIORITY HABITATS AND SPECIES ............................. 2 STATE OF WASHINGTON STREAM MAPPING........................................................ 2 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MAPPING.......................................................................... 2 SOILSMAPPING........................................................................................................3 WASHINGTON STATE NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM ....................................... 3 ADDITIONALASSESSMENTS................................................................................... 3 ONSITEANALYSIS........................................................................................................3 CRITERIA FOR WETLAND AND STREAM IDENTIFICATION ................................... 3 STUDYMETHODS..................................................................................................... 4 FIELDOBSERVATION...............................................................................................4 soils__ ........................................................................................ — ........................ oils........................................................................................................................ 5 Hydrology................................................................................................................ 5 Vegetation............................................................................................................... 5 WETLAND AND DRAINAGE CORRIDOR DETERMINATION.......................................6 WETLAND FUNCTION AND VALUE ASSESSMENT....................................................7 ONSITEWETLAND VALUATION............................................................................... 9 WILDLIFEOBSERVATIONS..........................................................................................9 11 MOVEMENTCORRIDORS....................................................................................... STATE LISTED PRIORITY SPECIES......................................................................Al 12 FEDERALLYLISTED SPECIES............................................................................... REGULATORY CONSIDERATION..............................................................................12 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS - SECTION 404................................I..............12 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY-_. ..... ........................... 13 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE .....................13 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY - CRITICAL AREas REGuL4 noNs CHAPTER 22....................13 SELECTED DEVELOPMENT ACTION........................................................................20 FIGURES...................................................................................................................... 21 REFERENCELIST....................................................................................................... 22 APPENDIXA - FIELD DATA FORMS.......................................................................... 23 ATTACHMENT A — WETLAND BOUNDARY SURVEY...............................................24 STANDARD OF CARE This wetland and drainage corridor evaluation and delineation report has been completed by Habitat Technologies for the use by Mr. Cherny. Prior to extensive site planning the wetland and drainage corridor boundaries, wetland and drainage corridor classifications, wetland ratings, and proposed buffers should be reviewed, verified, and approved by City of Lacey and potentially other resource and permitting agency(s) staff. Habitat Technologies has provided professional services that are in accordance with the degree of care and skill generally accepted in the nature of the work accomplished. No other warranties are expressed or implied. Habitat Technologies is not responsible for design costs incurred before this document is approved by the appropriate resource and permitting agencies. Bryan W. Peck Wetland Biologist Thomas D. Deming Certified Professional Wetland Scientist INTRODUCTION This report details the culmination of activities and onsite evaluations undertaken to complete a wetland and drainage corridor evaluation as an element of the planning of Parcel 2021049017 located east of I" Avenue South, within the City of Federal Way, King County, Washington (part of Section 20, Township 21 North, Range 4 East, W.M.) (Figure 1). The evaluation and delineation of onsite and adjacent wetlands and drainage corridors is a vital element in the planning and selection or a site development action. The goal of this approach is to ensure that planned site development does not result in adverse environmental impacts to wetland areas. STUDY PURPOSE This purpose of this document is to present the results of an onsite assessment and evaluation of wetlands and drainage corridors within and immediately adjacent to the project site following the methods and procedures defined in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987 Manual), the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Wash. Manual), the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Forest Practice Rules, and the City of Federal Way Critical Areas Regulations Chapter 22. Drainage corridors were also assessed and identified in accordance with the criteria established by the City of Federal Way Critical Areas Regulations Chapter 22 and the State of Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Forest Practice Rules (WAC 222-18-030). This study was designed to accommodate site planning and potential regulatory actions. This report is suitable for submittal to federal, state, and local authorities for wetland boundary verification and permitting actions. PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION The project site was vacant and had undergone prior land use manipulations to include forest harvest, clearing, grading, ditch excavation, culvert installation, internal road creation, external public road and utility development, and the development of surrounding properties. The project site was accessed via 1st Avenue South which formed the western boundary. The project site exhibited two general plant communities. The first plant community was located within the northern portion of the project site and consisted of a mixed upland forest composed of mature second growth Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesir), Western red cedar (Thuja plicata), big leaf maple (Ater macrophyllum), red alder (Alnus rubra), and a variety of shrubs and herbs. The second plant community was located in the southern portion of the project site and consisted of a mixed forest consisting of Western red cedar, black cottonwood, Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), red alder, willow (Salix spp.), and a variety of shrubs and herbs. The second plant community was more typical of a plant association associated with seasonally flooded to damp soil conditions. 1 Cherny 06141 A depressional corridor was identified entering within the western portion of the project site. This depressional corridor was noted to cross generally through the southern portion of the project site and continue offsite to the east and southeast. offsite to the south this depressional corridor appeared to convey a seasonal stream that originated from the Panther take Area offsite to the northwest of the project site. BACKGROUND INFORMATION NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping completed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was reviewed as a part of this assessment. This mapping resource identified a portion of a wetland complex within the southwestern portion of the project site (Figure 2). This wetland complex extended offsite to the west and east. ❑nsite this wetland was defined as palustrine, forested, temporarily flooded (PFOA). The offsite portions of this wetland complex included areas defined as palustrine, forested, temporarily flooded (PFOA); palustrine, scrub -shrub, seasonally flooded (PSSC); and palustrine, open water, permanently flooded (POWH). STATE OF WASHINGTON PRIORITY HABITATS AND SPECIES The State of Washington Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) Mapping was reviewed as a part of this assessment. This mapping resource generally identified the same wetland complex within and adjacent to the project site as the NWI mapping above (Figure 3). This mapping resource further identified an offsite drainage corridor within the eastern portion of this wetland complex. This drainage corridor was further identified to provide habitats for anadromous fish and priority fish. STATE OF WASHINGTON STREAM MAPPING The State of Washington Department of Fisheries Stream Catalog was reviewed as a part of this assessment. This mapping resource did not identify any streams within the project site (Figure 4). This mapping resource did identify West Hylebos Creek generally to the east of 4th Avenue South. This mapping resource noted that West Hylebos Creek provides habitats for coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and steel headlrainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MAPPING The City of Federal Way inventory mapping was reviewed as a part of this assessment. This mapping resource identified the majority of the project site within the West Hylebos 2 Cherny 05141 Wetlands Park Wetland Complex (Figure 5). This mapping resource also identified an offsite stream along the western side of 1st Avenue South generally to the west of the project site. SOILS MAPPING The soil mapping inventory completed by the Soils Conservation Service was reviewed as a part of this assessment. This mapping resource identified the soil within generally the northern portion of the project site as Everett-Alderwood gravelly sandy loams (EwC). The Everett-Alderwood soil series is defined as somewhat excessively drained and formed in very gravelly glacial outwash. Alderwood soil series is defined as moderately well drained and formed in glacial deposits. These soils are not listed as "hydric.° This mapping resource identified the soil generally in the southern portion of the project site as Norma sandy loam (No). The Norma soil series is defined as poorly drained, formed in alluvium, and is listed as "hydric" (Figure 6). WASHINGTON STATE NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM The Washington State Natural Heritage Program was reviewed as a part of this assessment. This resource identified a high quality, undisturbed wetland or a wetland that supports state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species within the Section/Township/Range of the project site. ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENTS A wide variety of assessments have been completed by Federal, State, local, Tribal, and citizen groups within and adjacent to the West Fork of Hylebos Creek (West Hylebos Creek). A number of these assessments have documented the importance of the West Fork of Hylebos Creek for spawning and rearing of regionally and local important anadromous fish (Puyallup Tribal Fisheries Management Division, unpublished). These prior assessments have also evaluated the seasonal drainage that originates from the Panther Lake Area to the northwest of the project site and generally follows 1st Avenue South to the southwestern corner of the project site. The flow patterns within this drainage have been identified as seasonal. Portions of this drainage have also been documented to provide habitats for anadromous and resident fish species. ONSITE ANALYSIS CRITERIA FOR WETLAND AND STREAM IDENTIFICATION Wetlands are transitional areas between aquatic and upland habitats. In general terns, wetlands are lands where the extent and duration of saturation with water is the primary 3 Cherny 05141 factor determining the nature of soil development and the types of plant and animal communities living in the soil and on its surface (Cowardin, et al., 1979). Wetlands are generally defined within land use regulations as "areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions" (1987 Manual). Wetlands exhibit three essential characteristics, all of which must be present for an area to meet the established criteria within the Wash. Manual and the 1987 Manual. These essential characteristics are: 1. Hydrophytic Vegetation: A predominance of plants that are typically adapted for life in saturated soils. 2. Hydric Soil: A soil that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper horizons. 3. Wetland Hydrology: Permanent or periodic inundation, or soil saturation to the surface, at least seasonally. A stream is generally defined as a location where surface waters produce a defined channel or bed. A defined channel or bed is typically an area which demonstrates clear evidence of the passage of water and includes, but not limited to, bedrock channels, gravel beds, sand and silt beds, and defined channel swales. A stream need not contain water year-round. A stream typically does not include irrigation ditches, canals, storm or surface water run-off devices, or other artificial watercourses unless the constructed watercourse conveys a stream which naturally occurred prior to the construction of such watercourse. STUDY METHODS Habitat Technologies completed a series of site visits in June and July 2005. The objective of these site visits was to define and delineate potential wetland and drainage corridor areas which may be present within or immediately adjacent to the project area. Boundaries between wetland and non -wetland areas were established by examining the transitional gradient between wetland criteria along a number of east to west transacts through the site. Onsite activities were completed in accordance with criteria and procedures established in the 1987 Manual, the Wash. Manual, the City of Federal Way Chapter 22, and the WDNR Forest Practice Rules. Delineation was performed using the routine methodology for areas larger than five acres as detailed in the 1987 Manual. Field data sheets are provided in Appendix A and sample plot locations are noted on Attachment A. FIELD OBSERVATION The project site was accessed via 1st Avenue South and included an existing assessors tract parcel (parcel 2021049017). The project site generally sloped from northwest to 4 Cherny 06141 southeast and included a depressional corridor along the southern boundary. The project site was vacant and had undergone prior land use manipulations in past years to include forest harvest, clearing, grading, ditch excavation, culvert installation, internal road creation, and external public road creation. Soils As documented at several sample plots the northern portion of the project site was dominated by soil that exhibited a gravelly sandy loam to sandy loam texture and coloration typical of the Everett-Alderwood gravelly sandy foams soil series association. The soil within the northern portion of the project appeared to drain moderately well and did not exhibit prominent redoximorphic features. As documented at several sample plots the soil within the depressional corridor along the southern portion of the project site exhibited a highly organic to silty loam texture within the surface layer. The surface soil generally to a depth of 10 inches (but often greater than 24 inches) was generally black (10YR 2/1). The subsurface soil was gray (10YR 4/1 to 10YR 5/2) and exhibited a silty loam texture. The subsoil also exhibited prominent redoximorphic features (i.e. soil mottles) and oxidized root channels. The soil within the southern portion of the project site exhibited field characteristics typical of hydric soil. Hydrology Qnsite hydrology appeared to be the result of seasonal stormwater runoff from onsite, adjacent properties, roadside ditches, the topographical depressional character of the southern portion of the project site, and soil characteristics. The northern portion of the project site appeared to drain moderately well and did not exhibit field indicators associated with the movement of seasonal surface water runoff. A depressional corridor dominated the southern portion of the project site. This depressional corridor was identified to continue downsiope and offsite to the east and south into a large wetland complex. This depressional corridor was also identified to extend upslope to the northwest, west of 1" Avenue South. Movement of seasonal surface water within this depressional corridor appeared to be generally to the southeast. This drainage corridor appeared to remain ponded through at least the early portion of the growing season and to remain saturated at or near the surface well into the growing season. Intermittent flow patterns were evident within this depressional corridor and appeared associated with seasonal storm events. Vegetation The project site exhibited a typically two plant communities, both of which had been altered by prior land use actions. The northern portion of the project site was dominated by an upland forest plant community composed a second growth Douglas fir; Western red cedar, Western hemlock, big leaf maple, red alder, black cottonwood, cherry 5 Cherny 05141 (Prunus spp.), and cascara (Rhamnus purshiana). The understory was dominated by a wide variety of shrubs and herbs which included Himalayan blackberry (Rebus procera), evergreen blackberry (Rubes laciniatus), Pacific blackberry (Rubus ursinus), Scot's broom (Cytisus scoparius), rose (Rosa spp.), Indian plum (Oemleria cerasitormis), vine maple (Acer circinatum), hazelnut (Corylus comuta), Oceansp ray (Nolodiscus discolor), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), Pacific red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), red huckleberry (Vaccinium parvifolium), snowberry (Symphoricarpus albus), Oregon grape (Berberis nervosa and Berberis aquifolium), salal (Gaultheria shallon), Pacific ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus), sword fern (Polystichum munitum), bracken fern (Pteridium aquilium), nettle (Urtica dioica), bleeding heart (Dicentra formosa), geranium (Geranium spp.), and false lily of the valley (Maianthemum dilatatum). This plant community was identified as non-hydrophytic in character (i.e. typical of uplands). The plant community within the depressional corridor within the southern portion of the project site also exhibited a forest plant community and dense understory of sapling trees, shrubs, and herbs. Observed species included red alder, black cottonwood, Western red cedar, Sitka willow (Safe sitchensis), Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), crabapple (Pyrus fusca), salmonberry, black twinberry (Lonicera involucrata), Pacific ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus), Douglas spiraea (Spiraea douglash), Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), softrush (Juncus effusus), common lady fern (Athyrium filix-femina), slough sedge (Carex obnupta), beaked sedge (Carex rostrata), skunk cabbage (Lysichitum americanum), water parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa), speedwell (Veronica scutellata), and buttercup (Ranunculus repens). This plant community was identified as hydrophytic in character (i.e. typical of wetlands). WETLAND AND DRAINAGE CORRIDOR DETERMINATION Wetland determination was based on sample plots which contained hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology in accordance with the 1987 Manual and the Wash. Manual. Based on these methods one (1) area within the project site was identified to exhibit all three of the established wetland criteria. In addition, an intermittent drainage corridor (stream) was identified offsite to the south of the southwestern corner of the project site. Wetland A: Wetland A was located within the southern portion of the project site and was identified to extend offsite to the east, south, southeast, and west into a much larger wetland complex. This offsite portion of this wetland complex was identified as a part of the West Hylebos Wetlands Park. Wetland A was dominated by a mixed forest over story that included thickets of native shrubs and herbs. 6 Cherny 05141 Wetland hydrology appeared provided by the topographical depressional character of this area, from seasonal drainage within the wetland, seasonal stormwater sheet flow, and from soils characteristics. Wetland A appeared to remain ponded following seasonal storm events and to remain pondedlsaturated to the surface into at least the early part of the growing season. Wetland A met the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) criteria for classifications of palustrine, forested, seasonally flooded (PFOC). Wetland A was identified to meet the criteria for designation as a City of Federal Way Category 1 Wetland because of the wetland's direct association with the West Hylebos Wetlands Park. Drainage Corridor: A seasonal drainage corridor was identified to the south of the southwestern corner of the project site. This drainage corridor appeared to originate within the Panther Lake Area and to cross via a culvert under 1 st Avenue South. This drainage corridor was identified to continue generally to the southeast, south of the project site. Prior assessments completed by a variety of groups have identified that this drainage exhibited seasonal surface flow patterns, that this drainage was a direct tributary to the West Fork of Hylebos Creek, and that this tributary provided habitats for anadromous and resident fish species. This drainage has been identified to meet the criteria for designation as a City of Federal Way "Major Stream." WETLAND FUNCTION AND VALUE ASSESSMENT Wetlands are known to perform significant roles in the ecosystem, some of which are of immediate value to society. These roles vary greatly with the size, type, hydrology, vegetation, and location of wetland areas. Although the ecological functions performed by these wetlands are complex, interrelated, and difficult to assess and quantify, methods have been developed for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Adamus et al. 1987: Reppert et al. 1979). The functions provided by wetlands include hydrologic support, shoreline protection, stormwater and floodwater storage, water quality, groundwater recharge, and provision of wildlife habitat. The HYDROLOGIC SUPPORT FUNCTION is defined by the measure of hydrologic stability and environmental integrity that the wetland provides. This function is measured by the frequency of inundation and saturation by tidal actions, stream flow, runoff, and precipitation. Wetlands permanently inundated or saturated, or intertidal wetlands are valued as high. Medium valued wetlands are seasonally flooded or are open water systems that remain saturated during most of the growing season. Wetlands that are intermittently flooded or hydrologically isolated are considered of low value. The SHORELINE PROTECTION FUNCTION is defined by the measure of shielding from wave action, erosion, or storm damage that a wetland provides. This function is measured by the location and width of the wetland along shoreline areas, types of 7 Cherny 05141 vegetation present, and the extent of development along the shoreline. A high value is given to wetlands along a shoreline that have a width greater than 200 yards and dense woody vegetation. A medium value is given to a wetland with a width of 100 to 200 yards, sparse woody vegetation, and dense emergent vegetation. Wetlands less than 100 yards in width and emergent or lacking vegetation are considered of low value. The STORMWATER AND FLOODWATER STORAGE FUNCTION is defined by the ability of a wetland to store water and retard flow during periods of flood or storm discharge. Wetlands of larger size are generally considered to have greater ability to provide this function. In addition, wetlands nearer to urban or potentially develop -able areas are also considered to provide greater flood protections than wetlands that are in undeveloped areas. The WATER QUALITY FUNCTION is defined by the physical, biological, and chemical processes which wetlands provide to naturally purify water. This function removes organic and mineral particulates through natural filtration. In general, wetlands of greater size, more dense vegetation, and those that are close to point sources of pollution are considered to be of higher value. Wetlands that are small (<5 acres), lacking dense vegetation, and not close to point or non -point sources of pollution are considered of low value. The GROUNDWATER RECHARGE FUNCTION is defined by the interaction of the underlying geology and soils, and the surface topography. This function provides for the movement of surface water into groundwater systems. Important to this function is wetland size, period of inundation, and depth of standing water within the wetland. High value is given to permanently inundated wetlands greater than 10 acres in size. Medium value is given to wetlands that are seasonally flooded and 5 to 10 acres is size. Wetlands less than 5 acres in size, isolated, and temporarily saturated are considered of low value. The NATURAL BIOLOGICAL FUNCTION is defined by the complexity of physical habitats and biological species within the wetland area. The value given to a wetland depends upon its ability to provide habitat for nesting (spawning), incubation, feeding, rearing, and cover of aquatic and terrestrial animal and fish species. In addition, the ability of a wetland to provide support for varying food chains is an important element in value assessment. Wetlands of high species diversity, three or more habitat types, unique habitat features, large in size, and associated with a permanent stream or tidal marsh is considered of high value. Wetlands with moderate species diversity, two habitat types, moderate in size, and associated with an intermittent stream or high salt marsh are considered of medium value. A low value is given to wetlands of low species diversity, small size, and isolated. These six functions are rated low, moderate, or high, based on the criteria outlined above. These criteria are guidelines compiled from Adamus (1987) and Reppert (1979) and professional judgment must be exercised in assessing these criteria. Overall values for a wetland are assigned, based on a synthesis of individual values. In 8 Cherny 05141 addition to intrinsic functions, extrinsic functions are also recognized. These extrinsic functions provide social values that have indirect benefits to wetlands. Education and recreational opportunities are most often mentioned as extrinsic functions. Associated values are often in the eye of the beholder and are thus difficult to evaluate. As such, these functions are not rated, but are nonetheless important when considering creation, restoration, or enhancement projects. ONSITE WETLAND VALUATION Wetland A was evaluated following the functional value assessment process noted above and identified to exhibit an overall HIGH value. Water Quality and Hydrologic Support (High) -- Wetland A was identified to extend offsite to the west, east, and south and be a portion of a large wetland complex. The Wetland A complex appeared to be greater than thirty (30) acres in size. Wetland A appeared to retain approximately 90% of the runoff that occurred within the local area for at least a short time into the growing season and exhibited a vegetation density greater than 90%. The primary water quality benefit provided by this wetland included the biofiltration of surface stormwater from on and offsite areas. This wetland also provided base flow support for the West Fork of Hylebos Creek, a tributary to the Hylebos Creek System. ■ Stormwater Storage and Groundwater Recharge (High) - Wetland A appeared to retain a high amount of stormwater from on and offsite at least into the early part of the growing season. Areas within Wetland A appeared to remain ponded throughout the growing season. Natural Biological Function (High) - Wetland A exhibited a high range of plant diversity and vegetation complexity primarily associated with a forested, shrub, emergent, and open water wetland area. Wetland A also exhibited a high amount of unique habitat features. The plant community had been modified and managed by past land use activities. Wetland A appeared to provide a variety of habitats for amphibians, cavity nesting waterfowl, migratory and resident waterfowl, shorebirds, mammals, birds of prey, anadromous fish, and resident fish. WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS The onsite assessment of fish and wildlife species presence was also completed as a part of the onsite assessment of wetland and drainage corridor characteristics. Onsite activities documented observations of individual species presence, the general location of the species sighting, and the life history activity being undertaken. For many of the smaller, less mobile species (i.e. small mammals, amphibians) the project site may provide all of their life history requirements (nesting, cover, feeding, and reproduction) while for the more mobile species (i.e. waterfowl, songbirds, medium sized mammals) 9 Cherny 05141 the project site may be used for only a few of the life history requirements. These more mobile species may depend more upon adjacent habitat for more critical habitat needs such as nesting and cover from predators. Onsite assessment was completed during June and July 2005. Based on plant communities, available habitats, directly observations, and observations within adjacent parcels avian species that were observed or that would be expected within the project site would include bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), red tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), harrier (Circus cyaneus), American crow (Corpus brachynchos), rock dove (Columbia livia), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), Northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus), tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), violet green swallow (Tachycineta thallassina), barn swallow (Hirundo rustics), brown creeper (Certhia familiaris), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), American robin (Turdus migratorius), dark eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), Steller's jay (Cyanocitta stellen), starling (Stumus vulgaris), black capped chickadee (Parus atricapillus), American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), ruffed grouse (Bonasa embellus), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), green -backed heron (Butorides shiatus), red winged blackbird (Agelaius phoenisues), marsh wren (Cistothorus palustirs), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), Western screech owl (Otus kennicotti), rufous hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus), common mallard, and wood duck (Aix sponsa). The majority of these avian species would be expected to feed throughout the project site. Many of these species would be expected to also nest within or immediately adjacent to wetland, and seek cover within this wetland. However, no large nests suitable for bald eagle nesting were observed from the project site boundary. Mammal species observed (directly or indirectly) or expected within the project site would include black tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus), coyote (Canis latrans), raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa), opossum (Didelphis virginianus), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), shrew (Sorex spp.), Townsend mole (Scapanus townsendil), bats (Myotis spp.), muskrat (Ondatra zibthica), Townsend chipmunk (Futamias townsendi), eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), and Douglas squirrel (Tamiasciurus douglash). The project site would also provide habitats for Pacific treefrog (Hyla regilla), red legged frog (Rana aurora), western toad (Bufo boreas), northwestern salamander (Ambystoma gracile), roughskin newt (Taricha granulosa), and common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis). No direct observations of fish species were documented during the assessment. However, the West Fork of Hylebos has been documented to provide habitats for coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta), cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii), and steelheadlrainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Downstream portions of Hylebos Creek have been documented to provide habitats for Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). The Hylebos Creek System has also 10 Cherny 06141 been planted with juvenile coho salmon, chum salmon, steel head/rainbow trout, and Chinook salmon as a part of the Puyallup Tribal Fisheries Management Salmon Hatchery Programs. MOVEMENT CORRIDORS As identified onsite a number of well -used game trials were present within and adjacent to Wetland A. These game trails were primarily directed along the upland edge of Wetland A and generally followed along site topography patterns. As defined by tracks and observations medium and large mammals (i.e. coyote, raccoon, black -tail deer) are using these game trails for daily movement. Such game trails would also be expected to be used for seasonal movement of these animals. The connection of onsite and offsite wetland areas was also evident via seasonal drainage patterns. These areas provide aquatic and terrestrial corridors for the movement for species dependent upon aquatic habitats (i.e. fish, reptiles, amphibian, mammals). STATE LISTED PRIORITY SPECIES A number of wildlife species identified by the State of Washington as "Priority Species" were observed onsite, either directly or indirectly (i.e. tracks, scat), or would be expected to utilize the onsite habitats. The majority of these species are identified as "game species" and are regulated by the State of Washington through recreational hunting bag limits, harvest seasons, and harvest area restrictions. This "game species" include black tailed deer, mourning dove, coyote, wood duck, coho salmon, chum salmon, steelhead/rainbow trout, cutthroat trout, Chinook salmon, common mallard, and ruffed grouse. A limited number of "State Candidate" or "State Monitored" species were observed, or potentially could utilize the habitats provided by the project site. State Candidate species are presently under review by the State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) for possible listing as endangered, threatened, or sensitive. A single State Candidate species — pileated woodpecker — was noted to utilize the snags and logs within the forested areas for feeding. No nesting areas were observed onsite for this species. "State Monitored" species that are native to Washington but require habitat that has limited availability, are indicators of environmental quality, require further assessment, have unresolved taxonomy, may be competing with other species of concern, or have significant popular appeal. While no State Monitored species were observed onsite as a part of this study, great blue heron have been documented to occur offsite. 11 Cherny 05141 FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES No federally listed endangered. threatened, or candidate species, or critical habitats for such species, are documented to occur within the project site. However, bald eagle (Haliaeefus leucocephalus) — a listed threatened species — have been documented within the area and may occasionally overfly, and potentially hunt the Wetland A complex. In addition, Hylebos Creek downstream of the project site is documented to provide habitats for Chinook salmon — a listed threatened species. The presence of Chinook salmon within the Hylebos Creek System has been speculated to be a direct result of Puyallup Tribal hatchery outplanting programs rather than the suitability of the Hylebos Creek System to provide habitats for this species. REGULATORY CONSIDERATION The proposed alteration of lands defined by various federal, state, and local authority rules and regulations as "wetlands" raises environmental concerns that are generally addressed in the development review process. These concerns center on the development's potential adverse impacts to the structure, function, value, and size of these "wetland" areas. Such adverse impacts may include: a reduction in wildlife habitats, reduced surface water quality, reduced water retention, a reduced ground water recharge rate, reduced plant species diversity, and the reduction in the function and value of other associated wetland and non -wetland characteristics. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS - Section 404 Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States" without a permit from the Corps of Engineers (Corps). The Corps has jurisdiction over freshwater systems waterward from the ordinary high water line of a water body or waterward from the upland boundary of the adjacent wetland. The definition of fill materials includes the replacement of aquatic areas with dry land, grading which changes the surface contour of a wetland, and mechanized land clearing in wetlands. For the purposes of Section 404 permitting the Corps makes the final determination as to whether an area meets the wetland definition and would be subject to regulation under the Corps program. Applications to the Corps for permitting actions must follow the 1987 Manual wetland delineation format. Currently the Corps has two specific types of permits which apply to wetland fill proposals. These two types are a series of specific Nationwide Permits and the Individual Permit. The Nationwide Permit process identifies specific categories of work that can be undertaken following a set of specific conditions applicable to each Nationwide Permit number. The Corps requires an Individual Permit where a proposed activities within an identified jurisdictional wetland area can not be authorized under one of the Nationwide Permits. Within the Individual Permit process the Corps undertakes a much more in-depth review of the proposed project and the proposed 12 Cherny 05141 impacts. The Corps must evaluate whether the benefits derived from the project outweigh the foreseeable environmental impacts of the project's completion. All projects that proceed forward using either one of the Nationwide Permits or the Individual Permit process must also comply with the provisions of the Endangered Species Act. As defined by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions the Corps of Engineers does not typically regulated "isolated" wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Under this decision "isolated" wetlands do not exhibit a continuous surface water connection to other, downstream aquatic system. STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Proposed action undertaken through either of the Corps of Engineers processes (Nationwide, Individual, or isolated) may also subject to the provisions of the Washington State Department of Ecology Wafer Qualify Certification Process. Projects that may be exempt from Corps of Engineers Section 404 jurisdiction may still require review by the Washington State Department of Ecology to ensure consistency with State water quality protection provisions. STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Proposed action undertaken within the ordinary high water mark of a stream require review and potential permitting through the WDFW via the hydraulic permit approval (HPA) process. Such permitting requires the submittal of a permit application and associated project plans to the WDFW Regional Biologist. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY - Critical Areas Regulations Chapter 22 This City of Federal Way regulates activities in and around sensitive wetland and stream areas. The City has adopted the following criteria to define wetlands and streams for purposes of this regulation. Category 1 Wetlands meet one of the following criteria: a. Contain the presence of species or documented habitat recognized by state or federal agencies as endangered, threatened or potentially extirpated plant, fish or animal species; or b. Contain the presence of plant associations of infrequent occurrence, irreplaceable ecological functions, or exceptional local significance including but not limited to estuarine systems, peat bogs and fens, mature forested wetlands, groundwater exchange areas, significant habitat or unique educational sites; or c. Have three or more wetland classes, one of which is open water. 13 Cherry 05141 Category 2 Wetlands are greater than 2,500 square feet in area, do not exhibit the characteristics of Category 1 wetlands, and meet one of the following criteria: a. Are contiguous with water bodies or tributaries to water bodies which under normal circumstances contain or support a fish population, including streams where flow is intermittent; or b. Are greater than one acre in size in its entirety; or c. Are less than or equal to one acre in size in its entirety and have two or more wetland classes, with neither class dominated by non-native invasive species. Category 3 Wetlands are greater than 2,500 square feet in area and do not exhibit those characteristics of Category 1 or 2 wetlands. Major stream means any stream, and the tributaries to any stream, which contains or supports, or under normal circumstances contains or supports, resident or migratory fish. If there exists a natural permanent blockage on the stream course which precludes the upstream movement of anadromous salmonid fish, then that portion of the stream which is downstream of the natural permanent blockage shall be regulated as a major stream. Minor stream means any stream that does not meet the definition of "major stream." The City of Federal Way has established the following standard protective buffers for regulated wetlands and streams. WETLAND OR STREAM STANDARD CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PROTECTIVE BUFFER WIDTH Cate o 1 Wetland 200 feet Category 2 Wetland 100 feet Cateaory 3 Wetland 50 feet Major Stream 100 feet Minor Stream 50 feet The protective buffer is measured perpendicular from the identified wetland boundary or from the ordinary high water mark of a stream. The City of Federal Way may allow intrusions into regulated wetlands, streams, and the associated protective buffers for such areas based on the following: 22-1358 - Structures, improvements, and land surface modifications within regulated wetlands. (a) Generally. No land surface modification may take place and no structure or improvement may be located in a regulated wetland except as provided in this section. 14 Cherry 05141 (b) Public park. The city may allow pedestrian access through a regulated wetland in conjunction with a public park. The access, if approved, must be designed to the maximum extent feasible to protect the wetland from any adverse effects or impacts of the access and to limit the access to the defined access area. (c) Rehabilitation. The director of community development may permit or require an applicant to rehabilitate and maintain a regulated wetland by removing detrimental material such as debris and inappropriate vegetation and by requiring that native vegetation be planted. These actions may be required at any time that a condition detrimental to water quality or habitat exists. (d) Modification. Other than as specified in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, the city may approve any request to locate an improvement or engage in land surface modification within a regulated wetland using process IV. The specific location and extent of the intrusion into the regulated wetland must constitute the minimum necessary encroachment. Approval of a request for improvements or land surface modification within a regulated wetland through process IV shall be based on the following criteria: (1) it will not adversely affect water quality. (2) It will not adversely affect the existing quality of the wetland's or buffer's wildlife habitat. (3) It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities. (4) It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards. (5) It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor to the city as a whole, including the loss of open space. (5) It will result in no net loss of wetland area, function or value. (7) The project is in the best interest of the public health, safety or welfare. (8) The applicant has demonstrated sufficient scientific expertise and supervisory capability to carry out the project. (9) The applicant is committed to monitoring the project and to making corrections if the project fails to meet projected goals. (e) Required information. As part of any request under this section, the applicant shall submit a report, prepared by a qualified professional approved by the city, that includes the following information: (1) Mitigation plan. A mitigation plan shall include the following elements: a. Environmental goals and objectives. b. Performance standards. c. Detailed construction plans. d. Timing. e. Monitoring program for a minimum of five years. f. Contingency plan. g. 'Subject to the applicant's election of timing alternatives provided in subsection (e)(4) of this section, a performance and maintenance bond in an amount of 120 percent of the costs of implementing the mitigation plan or the contingency plan, whichever is greater. (2) Mitigation. Mitigation of wetland impacts shall be restricted to restoration, creation or enhancement, within the same basin, of in -kind wetland type which 15 Cherny 05141 results in no net loss of wetland area, function or value. Where feasible, mitigation measures shall be designed to improve the functions and values of the impacted wetland. (3) Minimum acreage mitigation ratio. The following are ratios for providing restoration, creation or enhancement of impacted wetland areas. The first number of the ratio specifies the acreage of wetland requiring restoration, creation or replacement and the second specifies the acreage of wetlands impacted. wetland Category Creation and Restoration Enhancement Category 1 (all types) 6:1 12:1 Category 2: • Forested 3:1 6:1 • Scrub/Shrub 2:1 4:1 • Emergent 2:1 4:1 Category 3: • Forested 2:1 4:1 • Scrub/Shrub 1.5:1 3:1 • Emergent 1.25:1 2.5:1 The director may permit or require the above replacement ratios to be increased or decreased based on the following criteria: a. Probable success of the proposed mitigation. b. Projected losses in function or value. c. Findings of special studies coordinated with agencies with expertise which demonstrate that no net loss of wetland function or value is attained under an alternative ratio. d. In no case shall the minimum acreage replacement ratio be less than 1.25:1. (4) Timing. All required wetland mitigation improvements, including monitoring, shall be completed and accepted by the director of community development prior to beginning activities that will disturb regulated wetlands, or the applicant shall provide the performance and maintenance bond specified in subsection (e)(1)(g) of this section. In either event, the applicant may not take any action that disturbs a regulated wetland or its buffer until the director has reviewed and approved the mitigation plan. All wetland- or buffer -disturbing activities, and all mitigation, shall be timed to reduce impacts to existing plants and animals. (5) Inspections. The applicant shall pay for services of a qualified professional selected and retained by the city to review the wetland mitigation report and other relevant information, conduct periodic inspections, issue a written report to the director of community development stating that the project 16 Cherny 06141 complies with requirements of the mitigation plan, and to conduct and report to the director on the status of the monitoring program. 22-1359 Structures, improvements, and land surface modification within regulated wetland buffers. (a) Generally. Except as allowed in this section, no land surface modification may take place and no structure or improvement may be located within a regulated wetland buffer. (b) Buffer Averaging. Buffers may be averaged only when the wetland or the buffer which is proposed to be reduced contains habitat types which have been so permanently impacted that reduced buffers do not pose a detriment to the existing or expected habitat functions. Through process 111, the applicant must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the director of community development that the proposed buffer averaging will meet all of the following criteria: (1) Reduced buffers will not affect the water quality entering a wetland or stream; (2) Reduced buffers will not adversely affect the existing quality of wildlife habitat within the wetland or the buffer; (3) Reduced buffers will not result in unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards; and (4) Reduced buffers will not be detrimental to any other public or private properties, including the loss of open space. At no point shall the buffer width be reduced to less than 50 percent of the required standard buffer width, unless the buffer, in existing conditions, has already been permanently eliminated by previous, legally permitted actions. The total area contained within the buffer after averaging shall be equal to the area required for standard buffer dimensions. (c) Essential public facilities, public utilities and other public improvements. The director of community development may permit the placement of an essential public facility, public utility or other public improvements in a regulated wetland buffer if he or she determines that the line or improvement must traverse the buffer because no feasible or alternative location exists based on an analysis of technology and system efficiency. The specific location and extent of the intrusion into the buffer must constitute the minimum necessary encroachment to meet the requirements of the public facility or utility. (d) Minor improvements. Minor improvements such as footbridges, walkways and benches may be located within the buffer from a regulated wetland if approved through process III, based on the following criteria: (1) it will not adversely affect water quality; (2) It will not adversely affect the existing quality of the wetland's or buffer's wildlife habitat; (3) It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities; (4) It will not Lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards; and 17 Cherny 06141 (5) It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor to the city as a whole. (e) Buffer reduction. Through process III, the director of community development may reduce the standard wetland buffer width by up to 50 percent, but in no case to less than 25 feet, on a case -by -case basis, if the project includes a buffer enhancement plan which utilizes appropriate native vegetation and clearly substantiates that an enhanced buffer will improve and provide additional protection of wetland functions and values, and where one of the following conditions can be demonstrated: (1) Existing conditions are such that the required standard buffer exists in a permanently altered state (e.g., roadways, paved parking lots, permanent structures, etc.) which does not provide any buffer function, then the buffer can be reduced for that portion where the intrusions are existing. (2) Except for Category 1 wetlands, existing conditions are such that the wetland has been permanently impacted by adjacent development activities, as evidenced by such things as persistent human alterations or the dominance of non-native invasive species. (3) A project on an existing single-family lot platted prior to the incorporation of the city, where imposition of the standard buffer would preclude reasonable use of the lot. The director shall have the authority to determine if buffer averaging is warranted on the subject property and, if so, may require additional buffer area on other portions of the perimeter of the sensitive area- (f) Modification. Other than as specified in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, the city may approve any request to locate an improvement or engage in land surface modification within the buffer from a regulated wetland through process IV, based on the following criteria: (1) It will not adversely affect water quality; (2) It will not adversely affect the existing quality of the wetland's or buffer's wildlife habitat; (3) It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities; (4) It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards; and (5) It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor to the city as a whole, including the loss of open space. Any modification under this subsection shall not reduce the standard buffer by more than 50 percent, and in no case shall the remaining buffer be less than 25 feet. The city may require, as a condition to any modification granted under this subsection, preparation and implementation of a wetland buffer enhancement plan to protect wetland and buffer functions and values. (g) Revegetation. The applicant shall stabilize all areas left exposed after land surface modification with native vegetation normally associated with the buffer. (h) Buffer increases. The director shall require increased environmentally sensitive area buffer widths on a case -by -case basis when the director determines that a larger buffer is necessary to protect environmentally sensitive area functions, values or hazards based on site -specific conditions. This 18 Cherny 05141 determination shall be supported by appropriate documentation showing that additional buffer width is reasonably related to protection of environmentally sensitive area functions and values, or protection of public health, safety and welfare. Such determination shall be attached as permit conditions. The determination shall demonstrate that at least one of the following factors are met: (1) There is habitat for species listed as threatened or endangered by state or federal agencies present within the sensitive area and/or its buffer, and additional buffer is necessary to maintain viable functional habitat; (2) There are conditions or features adjacent to the buffer, such as steep slopes or erosion hazard areas, which over time may pose an additional threat to the viability of the buffer and/or the sensitive area. In such circumstances the city may choose to impose those buffers, if any, associated with the condition or feature posing the threat in addition to, or to a maximum, beyond the buffer required for the subject sensitive area. 22-1312 Intrusion into stream setbacks. (a) Essential public facilities, public utilities and other public improvements. The director of community development may permit the placement of an essential public facility, public utility or other public improvements in a setback from a stream if he or she determines that the line or improvement must traverse the setback area because no feasible alternative location exists based on an analysis of technology and system efficiency. The specific location and extent of the intrusion into the setback area must constitute the minimum necessary encroachment to meet the requirements of the public facility or utility. "Public utility and other public improvements" shall not include improvements whose primary purpose is to benefit a private development, including without limitation interior roads or privately owned detention facilities installed within or during the construction of a residential subdivision, binding site plan, or other commercial development. (b) Minor improvements. Minor improvements such as footbridges crossing the stream, walkways and benches may be located within the setback area if approved through process III, based on the following criteria: (1) It will not adversely affect water quality; (2) It will not adversely affect the existing quality of wildlife habitat within the stream or setback area; (3) It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities; (4) It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards; (5) It will not be materially detrimental to any other property nor to the city as a whole; and (6) It is necessary to correct any one of the adverse conditions specified in subsections (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this subsection. (c) Other intrusions. Other than as specified in subsections (a) and (b) of this section, the city may approve any request to locate an improvement or engage in 19 Cherny 05141 land surface modification within stream setback areas only through process IV, based on the following criteria: (1) It will not adversely affect water quality; (2) It will not adversely affect the existing quality of wildlife habitat within the stream or setback area; (3) It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities; (4) it will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards; (5) It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor to the city as a whole, including the loss of significant open space; and (6) It is necessary for reasonable development of the subject property. SELECTED DEVELOPMENT ACTION No Selected Development Action for the Parcel 2021049017 project site was been defined at the time of completion of this report. 20 Cherny 05141 FIGURES 21 Cherny 05141 HABITAT TECHNOLOGIES Figure I Site Vicinity 'BASK P �:,DA • f S C . f �F 'h l �:` �fpj r�.• •ir gg• .�� d�.11I� ;icy' � r - •�'xA � � s .... Or HABITAT AT Figure 2 TECHNOLOGIES NWI Resource Mapping f a I 1' S�{ 1 iII4 S .r.. HABITAT Figure 3 TECHNOLOGIES PHS Mapping HABITAT TECHNOLOGIES Selected Stream RIVE(1:2R 0) Fish Distribution: Coho DNR Trans24k Spawning Paved i2oad Rearing Unpaved Road Road Surface poWmented Unknown sence - Istoric „• Trail Presence - xz Railroad Presumed Road Presence - AbandonedlOrp- PPotential han Untlete tc ed No Data WATERBODIES PLSS Townships (1:24.000) PLSS Sections COUNTY CITIES u Major Cities o Cities a Towns Figure 4 WE)FW Stream dapping HABITAT TECHNOLOGIES i t P r s L A S .. qq 3481h St Figure 5 City of Federal Way Critical Areas IL Ur ��. Sch ! ' O n o Z �° �. • C s a P y D 2 0 3ne `e oaa 33 r 3 2 � �� � • � S 1.' e p X J a �.. a 1 0 ttvr` �+ f a Lake ° S T i - a 206 a C 26� fm k 6 = s t m b f' 4 f �p ± r `� HABITAT Figure 6 TECHNOLOGIES Soil Mapping REFERENCE LIST Adamus, P.R., E.J. Clairain Jr., R.D. Smith, and R.E. Young. 1987. Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET); Volume II: Methodology, Operational Draft Technical Report Y-87, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Office of Biological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, FWS/OBS-79/31. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. Hitchcock, C.L., A. Cronquist. 1977. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington. Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State wetland rating system for western Washington — Revised. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #04-06-025. Reppert, R.T., W. Sigleo, E. Stakh iv, L. Messman, and C. Meyers. 1979. Wetland Values - Concepts and Methods for Wetland Evaluation. Research Report 79-R1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soils Conservation Service. Soils Survey of Thurston County Area Washington. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Publication Number 96-94. Washington State Department of Fisheries, Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization, Volume 1., 1975 22 Cherny 05141 APPENDIX A - FIELD DATA FORMS 23 Cherny 05141 T C 14 C T cs Q i a Q _U Q d U) N 0 LL o C Z co IL E a C L c +r z a z a= W H 1 SAMPLE PLOT SP1 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project/Site Parcel # 2021049017 Applicant/Owner: I nvestigator: Habitat Technologies Date: 21 JUN 05 County: King State: Washington Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO Community ID: Is the area a potential Problem area? YES NO Transect ID: VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an *) t d'ica tar Dominant Plant 5 ecies Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant S ecies Alnus rubra Stratum T n FAC 1. 2. Acer macroph Ilum SAP FACU 3. Oemleria cerasiformis S FACU 4. Rubus laciniatus S FACU - 5. Rubus procera S FACU 6. Rubus ursinus S FACU 7. Rubus spectabilis S FAC+ 8. Equisetum arvense H FAC Pol stichum munitum j H FACU Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC 33% (except FAC-). Include species noted (*) as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks: Forested community next to prior cleared area HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph Other No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: None Depth to Saturated Soil: None Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated Saturated in upper 12" Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " Water -Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Onsite assessment during early summer 2005 Area appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events Field indicators of wetland hydrology NOT present SAMPLE PLOT SP1 Map Unit Name: Everett-Alderwood gravelly sandy loams Taxonomy (Subgroup) Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) 0-5 10YR 3/2 5-18 10YR 5/1 to 10YR 4/2 Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors None 10YR 4/6 Drainage Class: Varies Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type YES NO Mottle Texture, Concretions, Abundance/Contrast Rhizospheres, etc. Few/prominent Very gravelly loam Very gravelly loam Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer Organic Streaking Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Soil appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events Prominent redoximorphic features NOT present Field indicators of hydric soil NOT present WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES NO Hydric Soils Present? YES NO Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Remarks: WETLAND CRITERIA NOT MET Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? NO Forested community next to prior cleared area Area appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events NO evidence of wetland hydrology patterns SAMPLE PLOT SP 2 Project/Site Applicant/Owner: DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Parcel # 2021049017 Date: 21 JUN 05 County: King Investigator: Habitat Technologies State: Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO Community ID: Is the area a potential Problem area? YES NO Transect ID: Washington VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an *) _,. n___:__ c•»..a..... I.,.ii...,+.,r I nnrnin-znf Aiant CnariaC 4trAttim Indicator LJVI 1. I III ICI II Alnus rubra T FAC 2. Acer circinatum S FAC- 3. Equisetum arvense H FAC 4. Geranium robertianum H FACU+ 5. Maianthemum dilatatum H FAC 6. L sichitum americanum H OBL 7. Ath rium filix-femina H FAC 8. Pol stichum munitum H FACU Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC-). Include species noted (*) as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks: HYDROLOGY 63% Western oortion of project site in depressional swale Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph Other No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS. Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: None Depth to Saturated Soil: None Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated Saturated in upper 12" x Water Marks x Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands x Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " x Water -Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Onsite assessment during early summer 2005 Area appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Field indicators of wetland hydrology present Map Unit Name: Seattle muck Taxonomy (Subgroup) Profile Description: Depth (inches) Horizon 0-18 Hydric Soil Indicators: Matrix Color (Munsell Moist) 10YR 2/1 Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor x Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions x Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors SAMPLE PLOT SP 2 Drainage Class: Poorly drained Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type YES NO Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Rhizospheres, etc. None Organic loam Concretions x High Organic Content in Surface Layer Organic Streaking Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Soil appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Prominent redoximorphic features present Field indicators of hydric soil present WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES NO Hydric Soils Present? YES NO Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Remarks: WETLAND CRITERIA MET Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? YES Western portion of project site in depressional swale Area appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Evidence of wetland hydrology patterns SAMPLE PLOT SP 3 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project/Site Parcel # 2021049017 Applicant/Owner: Investigator: Habitat Technologies Date: 21 JUN 05 County: King State: Washington Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO Community ID: Is the area a potential Problem area? YES NO Transect ID: VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an *) nnminnnt Pignt gnpriPS Stratum Indicator I Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indic 1. Alnus rubra T FAC 2. Rhamnus purshiana T FAC- 3. Acer circinatum S FAC- 4. E uisetum arvense H FAC 5. Dicentra Formosa H FACU 6. Heracleum lanatum H FAC+ 7. Polvstichum munitum H FACU A Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC-). Include species noted (*) as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks HYDROLOGY 43% Western portion of project site Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph Other No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: None Depth to Saturated Soil: None acent to degessional swale Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated Saturated in upper 12" x Water Marks x Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands x Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " x Water -Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Onsite assessment during early summer 2005 Area appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Field indicators of wetland hydrology present SAMPLE PLOT SP 3 Map Unit Name: Seattle muck Taxonomy (Subgroup) Profile Description: Depth (inches) Horizon 0-14 14-18 Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Matrix Color (Munsell Moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 4/1 t10YR 5/1 x Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions x Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist) None 10YR 4/6 Drainage Class: Poorly drained Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type YES NO Mottle Abundance/Contrast Few/faint Texture, Concretions, Rhizospheres, etc. Organic loam Fine sandy loam Concretions x High Organic Content in Surface Layer Organic Streaking Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Soil appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Prominent redoximorphic features present Field indicators of hydric soil present WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES NO Hydric Soils Present? YES NO Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Remarks: WETLAND CRITERIA NOT MET Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? NO Western portion of project site adjacent to depressional swale Area appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Evidence of wetland hydrology patterns Wetland Edge SAMPLE PLOT SP 4 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project/Site Parcel # 2021049017 Applicant/Owner: Investigator: Habitat Technologies Date: 21 JUN 05 County: King State: Washington Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO Community ID: Is the area a potential Problem area? YES NO Transect ID: VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an *) f]nrninant Plant Soecies Stratum Indicator I Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indic 1. Pseudotsu a menziesii T FACU 2. Alnus rubra T FAC 3. Acer macroph Ilum SAP FACU 4. Rubus s ectabilis S FAC+ 5. Rubus procera S FACU 6. E uisetum arvense H FAC 7. Maianthemum dilatatum H FAC 8. Polvstichum munitum H FACU Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC-). Include species noted (*) as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks. Forested communil HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)- Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph Other No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: None Depth to Saturated Soil: None 50% u lo►ae of depressional swale Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated Saturated in upper 12" Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " Water -Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Onsite assessment during early summer 2005 Area appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events Field indicators of wetland hydrology NOT present 1 SAMPLE PLOT SP 4 Map Unit Name: Everett-Alderwood gravelly sandy loams Taxonomy (Subgroup) Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) 0-8 8-18 Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor 10YR 2/2 10YR 5/1 Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions x Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors None 10YR 4/4 Drainage Class: Varies Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type YES NO Mottle Texture, Concretions, Abundance/Contrast Rhizospheres, etc. Few/prominent Duff loam Fine sandy loam Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer Organic Streaking Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Soil appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events Prominent redoximorphic features NOT present Field indicators of hydric soil NOT present WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES NO Hydric Soils Present? YES NO Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Remarks: Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? NO WETLAND CRITERIA NOT MET Forested community upslope of depressional swale Area appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events NO evidence of wetland hydrology patterns SAMPLE PLOT SP 5 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project/Site Parcel # 2021049017 Applicant/Owner: Investigator: Habitat Technologies Date: 21 JUN 05 County: King State: Washington Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO Community ID: Is the area a potential Problem area? YES NO Transect ID: VEGETATION Dominant (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to Plant S ecies Stratum Indicator I Dominant Plant Species Alnus rubra T FAC wetlands with Stratum an *) Indic 1. 2. 1 Rhamnus purshiana T FAC- 3. Rubus ursinus S FACU 4. Maianthemum dilatatum H FAC 5. Galium aparine H FACU 6. Dicentra Formosa H FACU 7. Polystichum munitum H FACU A Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC-). Include species noted (") as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations- Remarks - HYDROLOGY Forested communi Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph Other No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: None Depth to Saturated Soil: None 29% u looe of deoressional swale Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated Saturated in upper 12" Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " Water -Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Onsite assessment during early summer 2005 Area appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events Field indicators of wetland hydrology NOT present r Map Unit Name: Everett-Alderwood gravelly sandy loams Taxonomy (Subgroup) Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) 0-3 3-9 9-18 10YR 3/2 10YR 4/1 Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions x Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors None None SAMPLE PLOT SP 5 Drainage Class: Varies Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type YES NO Mottle Texture, Concretions, Abundance/Contrast Rhizospheres, etc. Duff Gravelly sandy loam Gravelly sandy loam Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer Organic Streaking Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Soil appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events Prominent redoximorphic features NOT present Field indicators of hydric soil NOT present WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES NO Hydric Soils Present? YES NO Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Remarks: WETLAND CRITERIA NOT MET Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? NO Forested community upslope of depressional swale Area appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events NO evidence of wetland hydrology patterns SAMPLE PLOT SP 6 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project/Site Parcel # 2021049017 Applicant/Owner.- Investigator: Habitat Technologies Date: 21 JUN 05 County: King State: Washington Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO Community ID: Is the area a potential Problem area? YES NO Transect ID: VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an *) Dominant Plant Species Stratum indicator I Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indic 1. Alnus rubra T FAC 2. Acer circinatum S FAC- 3. Rubus procera S FACU 4. Maianthemum dilatatum H FAC 5. 6. 7. 8. Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC-). Include species noted (*) as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks Forested communil HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks). Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph Other No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: None Depth to Saturated Soil: None 50% acent to depressional swale Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated Saturated in upper 12" Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " Water -Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Onsite assessment during early summer 2005 Area appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events Field indicators of wetland hydrology NOT present 1 SAMPLE PLOT SP 6 Map Unit Name: Everett-Alderwood gravelly sandy loams Taxonomy (Subgroup) Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) 0-4 4-18 10YR 3/2 Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors None Drainage Class: Varies Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type YES NO Mottle Texture, Concretions, Abundance/Contrast Rhizospheres, etc. Duff Loose loam Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer Organic Streaking Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Soil appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events Prominent redoximorphic features NOT present Field indicators of hydric soil NOT present WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES NO Hydric Soils Present? YES NO Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Remarks: WETLAND CRITERIA NOT MET Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? NO Forested community adjacent to depressional swale Area appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events NO evidence of wetland hydrology patterns SAMPLE PLOT SP 7 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project/Site Parcel # 2021049017 Date: Applicant/Owner: County: Investigator: Habitat Technologies State: Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO Community ID: Is the area a potential Problem area? YES NO Transect ID: 21 JUN 05 King Washington VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an *) r, M-4- < ir�+"M Inrlir•ntrnr I nnminnnt Plant ..RnPCIP.S Stratum Indicator 1 V Tsu a heteroph Ila T FACU 2. Acer circinatum S FAC- 3. Equisetum arvense H FAC 4. Maianthemum dilatatum H FAC 5. Ath rium filix-femina H FAC 6. 7. 8. f 1 Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC-). Include species noted (*) as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks HYDROLOGY 60% Depressional swale in central portion of project site Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph Other No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS. Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: None Depth to Saturated Soil: None Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated Saturated in upper 12" x Water Marks x Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands x Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " x Water -Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Onsite assessment during early summer 2005 Area appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Field indicators of wetland hydrology present SAMPLE PLOT SP 7 Map Unit Name: Norma silt loam Taxonomy (Subgroup) Profile Description: Depth (inches) Horizon 0-18 Hydric Soil Indicators: Matrix Color (Munsell Moist) 10YR 2/1 Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor x Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions x Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist) None Drainage Class: Poorly drained Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type YES NO Mottle Texture, Concretions, Abundance/Contrast Rhizospheres, etc. Organic loam Concretions x High Organic Content in Surface Layer Organic Streaking Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Soil appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Prominent redoximorphic features present Field indicators of hydric soil present WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES NO Hydric Soils Present? YES NO Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Remarks: WETLAND CRITERIA T MET Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? YES Depressional swale in central portion of project site Area appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Evidence of wetland hydrology patterns SAMPLE PLOT SR 9 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project/Site parcel # 2021049017 Applicant/Owner: Date: 21 JUN 05 County: King Investigator: Habitat Technologies State: Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO Community ID: Is the area a potential Problem area? YES NO Transect ID: Washington VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an *) n_r ;nnnt ❑jnnt Cnwriaa Stratum [ndicator I Dominant Plant S ecies Stratum ludic 1. Rhamnus purshiana T FAC- 2. Salix scouleriana S FAC 3. Rubus procera S FACU 4. Rubus ursinus S FACU 5. Sambucus racemosa S FACU 6. Rubus spectabilis S FAC+ 7. Maianthemum dilatatum H FAC 8. Urtica dioica H FAC+ Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC-). Include species noted (*) as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks. HYDROLOGY 50% Lower slope in central portion of project site Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph Other No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: None Depth to Saturated Soil: None Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated Saturated in upper 12" x Water Marks x Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands x Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " x Water -Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Onsite assessment during early summer 2005 Area appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Field indicators of wetland hydrology present SAMPLE PLOT SIP 9 Map Unit Name: Norma silt loam Taxonomy (Subgroup) Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) 0-18 10YR 2/1 Hydric Soil Indicators. Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor x Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions x Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Drainage Class: Poorly drained Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type YES NO Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Rhizospheres, etc. None _ Organic loam Concretions x High Organic Content in Surface Layer Organic Streaking Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Soil appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Prominent redoximorphic features present Field indicators of hydric soil present WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES NO Hydric Soils Present? YES NO Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Remarks: WETLAN❑ CRITERIA NOT MET is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? NO Lower slope in central portion of project site Area appears to drain poorly following seasonal storm events Evidence of wetland hydrology patterns Wetland Edge SAMPLE PLOT SP 10 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project/Site parcel # 2021049017 Applicant/Owner: Date: 21 JUN 05 County: King Investigator: Habitat Technologies State: Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO Community ID: Is the area a potential Problem area? YES NO Transect ID: Washington VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an *) nr%rninnnt Plant Snarriac Stratum Indicator i Dominant Plant Svecies Stratum Indicator 1. Acer macro h Ilum T FACU 2. Alnus rubra T FAC 3. Rubus procera S FACU 4. Dicentra Formosa H FACU 5. Pol stichum munitum H FACU 6. 7. 8. Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC 20% (except FAC-). Include species noted (*) as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks: Forested communit upslope of depressional swale HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph Other No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: None Depth to Saturated Soil: None Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated Saturated in upper 12" Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " Water -Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Onsite assessment during early summer 2005 Area appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events Field indicators of wetland hydrology NOT present Map Unit Name: Everett-Alderwood gravelly sandy foams Taxonomy (Subgroup) Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) 0-5 10YR 3/2 5-18 10YR 4/1 to 10YR 4/2 Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors None 10YR 4/6 SAMPLE PLOT SP 10 Drainage Class: Varies Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type YES NO Mottle Texture, Concretions, Abundance/Contrast Rhizospheres, etc. Few/prominent Sandy loam Sandy loam Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer Organic Streaking Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks Soil appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events Prominent redoximorphic features NOT present Field indicators of hydric soil NOT present WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES NO Hydric Soils Present? YES NO Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Remarks: WETLAND CRITERIA NOT MET Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? NO Forested community upslope of depressional swale Area appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events NO evidence of wetland hydrology patterns SAMPLE PLOT SP 12 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project/Site Parcel # 2021049017 Applicant/Owner: Date: 21 JUN 05 County: King Investigator: Habitat Technologies State: Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES NO Community ID: Is the area a potential Problem area? YES NO Transect ID: Washington VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with an *) Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator I Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indic 1. Rhamnus purshiana T FAC- 2. Corylus cornuta S FACU 3. Acer circinatum S FAC- 4. Sambucus racemosa S FACU 5. Maianthemum dilatatum H FAC 6. Urtica dioica H FAC+ 7 8 Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACK or FAC (except FAC-). Include species noted (*) as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands Describe Morphological Adaptations Remarks: HYDROLOGY 33% FnrPSted community uuslope of depressional swale Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph Other No Recorded Data Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS. Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water Pit: None Depth to Saturated Soil: None Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated Saturated in upper 12" Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 " Water -Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Onsite assessment during early summer 2005 Area appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events Field indicators of wetland hydrology NOT present SAMPLE PLOT SP 12 Map Unit Name: Everett-Alderwood gravelly sandy loams Taxonomy (Subgroup) Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) 0-18 10YR 2/1 Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions x Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors None Drainage Class: Varies Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type YES NO Mottle Texture, Concretions, Abundance/Contrast Rhizospheres, etc. Sandy loam Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer Organic Streaking Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Soil appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events Prominent redoximorphic features NOT present Field indicators of hydric soil NOT present WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES NO Hydric Soils Present? YES NO Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Remarks: WETLAND CRITERIA NOT MET Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? NO Forested community upslope of depressional swale Area appears to drain moderately well following seasonal storm events NO evidence of wetland hydrology patterns ATTACHMENT A — Wetland Boundary Survey 24 Cherny 05141 CITY OF �. Federal Way November 10, 2005 CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South • PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www. cityoffederal wa y. com Andrew Cherry via email: andrew.cherny@boeing.com 20816 6 h Avenue South Des Moines, WA 98198 RE: FILE No. 05-105730-00-PC; CAEP OFFICE BUILDING - PREAPPLICATION MEETING 350XX 1" Avenue South, Federal Way Dear Mr. Cherry: The above -referenced proposal has been assigned to me as project planner. At this time, the application and preliminary site plan have been routed to the members of the Development Review Committee. A meeting with the project applicant and Development Review Committee has been scheduled as follows: Thursday, December 1, 2005 —10:00 AM Hylebos Conference Room City Hall, Second Floor 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 We look forward to meeting with you to discuss your proposal. Contact me at 253 835-2641 or jim.harris@cityoffederalway.com if you have any questions. Sincerely, �t arris Senior Planner 05-105730 Doc I D.33982 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 10, 2005 TO: Will Appleton, Development Services Manager (2 copies) Scott Sproul, Assistant Building Official Brian Asbury, Lakehaven Utility District Greg Brozek, Federal Way Fire Department Stacy Flores, Public Safety Officer FROM: Jim Harris, Senior Planner 253-835-2641 FOR DRC MTG. ON: November 23, 2005 - Internal December 1, 2005, 10:00 AM - with applicant FILE NUMBER(s): 05-105730-00-PC RELATED FILE NOS.: None PROJECT NAME: CAEP OFFICE BUILDING PROJECT ADDRESS: 35OXX 1st Avenue South ZONING DISTRICT: OP PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposal for a new 2-story, 8,200 square foot office building and associated site improvements. LAND USE PERMITS: TBD PROJECT CONTACT: ANDREW CHERNY 206 356-0270 MATERIALS SUBMITTED: Preliminary Site Plan ill CIT F :30k*4ftmm0000 Federal Way MASTER LAND USE APPLICATION RECEIVE® DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33325 81h Avenue South PO Box 9718 NOV ® 7 2005 Federal Way WA 98063-9718 253-835-2607;Fax 253-835-2609 CITY OF FEDERAL WRY www.cityoffedera:way.corg WILDING DF.PT. - APPLICATION NO(S) 5 S7 3 PC- Date O 7 - 0S_ Project Name GSA P r-ede aae Wa y gal Property Address/Location �' `fie Parcel Number(s) Z f7 Z 10 q qof ,7 Project Description 0 '5©(4 . � ,I cp_ �1 1PI.FA VF PRINT Type of Permit Required Annexation Binding Site Plan Boundary Line Adjustment Comp Plan/Rezone Land Surface Modification Lot Line Elimination Preapplication Conference Process I (Director=s Approval) Process II (Site Plan Review) Process III (Project Approval) Process IV (Hearing Examiner's Decision) Process V (Quasi -Judicial Rezone) Process VI SEPA w/Project SEPA Only Shoreline: Variance/Conditional Use Short Subdivision Subdivision Variance: Commercial/Residential Required Information Zoning Designation @ komprehensive Plan Designation Value of Existing Improvements ___,Value of Proposed Improvements International,AB�uilding Code (IBC): i i � 3 Occupancy Type Construction Type le, CA S10 s Awe S Applicant [ G� Name: A N J re w au w y Address: Zv0,E r+�1 Ave- S City/State: 1-) e Mo(d'U25 j�(O f} Zip: q9/ q � _ Phone: ao b 02- 70 Fax: �,��� Email: dl Vd C/1 i L' /_ v1 � df Signature: ��� Agent (if different than Applicant) Name: Address: City/State: Zip: Phone: Fax: Email: Signature: Owner Name: _' ,'0 4,v Address: P 6 , ' ,,X -7K City/State: Lr]Ce,4.rr-'114 b ICeS L,,-A Zip: TIN 69 Phone. Fax: Email: Signature: flt, f -, 0 60- - 1 Bulletin #003 — August 18, 2004 Page 1 of 1 k:\Handouts\Ivlaster Land Use Application Medical -Dental Office Building (720) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Number of Studies: 41 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 30 Directional Distribution: 27% entering, 73% exiting Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Average Rate Range of Rates 3.72 0.97 - 8.86 nato Pint nnri Frniatinn Standard Deviation 2.50 500 400 W 'a 300 .... .... ....... U X 1r� CD a)-. .X ... .... ..... .... ..... --- N Q .. 200 : --... _... .... ...' X X X X 100 :._..x:_X _XXX-X.....:..... ......: .... .....; ...- ..-_ X X ' XX X : X X: .XX X X X X : X X . 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve ------ Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.93 Ln(X) + 1.47 R2 = 0.77 Trip Generation,7th Edition 1192 Institute of Transportation Engineers General Office Building (710) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area On a: Weekday, P.M. Peak Hour Number of Studies: 235 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 216 Directional Distribution: 17% entering, 83% exiting Trin Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Rates of Rates 1.4$ 0.49 - 6.39 vaia rwL a11u L-4u""11 4,000 it Z F- 3,000 1,000 0 1000 2000 X =1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: T=1.12(X) + 78.81 Standard Deviation 1.37 ------ Average Rate R2 = 0.82 3000 Trip Generation,7th Edition 1160 Institute of Transportation Engineers