The URL can be used to link to this page

LUTC PKT 03-02-1998ems_. AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3. PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minute limit) 4. COMMISSION COMMENT 5. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Marta Foldi, Montessori School Action Moore/5 min Sign B. Sea/Tac Mall, Phase II Storm Action Pratt/ 10 min Drainage 85% Design C. Briefing on City Center Street Info Roe/ 15 min Design Guidelines D. 1998 Asphalt Overlay Program Action Miller/20 min E. Rezone Request for NW Corner at Action Clark/ 10 min First Avenue South and South 312th Street F. Sensitive Areas Code Amendment Action Largen, McClung/90 min 6. ADJOURN Committee Members: City Staff: Phil Watkins, Chair Greg Moore, Director, Community Development Services Jeanne Burbidge Sandy Lyle, Administrative Assistant Mary Gates 253.661.4116 City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee February 2, `>1998 City Hall. 5:30pm Council Chambers SUMMARY In attendance: Committee members Phil Watkins (Chair), Mary Gates and Jeanne Burbidge; Council Member Linda Kochmar; Director of Community Development Services Greg Moore; Public Works Director Cary Roe; Assistant City Attorney Bob Sterbank; Principal Planner Greg Fewins; Senior Planner Margaret Clark; Street Systems Manager Ken Miller; Community and Government Relations Specialist Daven Rosener; SWM Project Engineer Marwan Salloum; Administrative Assistant Sandy Lyle. 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 5:35pm by Chairman Phil Watkins. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the December 1, 1997, meeting were approved as presented. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment on items other than those included in the agenda. 4. COMMISSION COMMENT There was no additional comment from any of the City Commissions. 5. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Local Option Transportation Taxes - As outlined in state statute, counties may impose a local option gas tax at 10 percent of the state's gas tax rate. The Metropolitan King County Council has sole authority to place this on the ballot. Funds are then distributed on a per capita basis. Some communities strongly favor the tax; others are strongly opposed. The City of Federal Way would see an increase of $856,027 in road improvements dollars. The South County Area Transportation Board (SCATBD) will consider the local option measure at its next meeting. B. Four Post Plan Alternative - In 1990, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) modified the arrival and departure patterns at Seattle -Tacoma International Airport, called the four post pattern. Previous changes resulted in increased noise impacts to Federal Way. The FAA has agreed to conduct a test of an alternative that would shift approximately sixty percent of departing aircraft using the 320th route south to the I-5/Port of Tacoma corridor. The Committee m/s/c the recommendation to support a draft resolution in support of the proposed test. C. BPA Trail Corridor Phase II Acceptance Retainage Release - The BPA Trail Corridor Phase II project was accepted by the Committee as complete. The final construction contract amount was $484,547.52. That amount was $22,201.15 below the $506,748.67 (including contingency) budget that was approved by the City Council on March 18, 1997. The Committee m/s/c recommendation of acceptance to the City Council at its February 17, 1998, meeting. D. Military Road S. S284th St to S288th St Roadwav Construction Proiect Acceptance/Retainaee Release -The Committee m/s/c recommendation of acceptance of the Military Road South, South 284th Street to South 288th Street, Roadway Construction project as complete. The final construction contract amount was $282,127.42, which is $35,843.31 below the $317,970.73 (including contingency) budget that was previously approved by the City Council. The Council will discuss this item at its February 17, 1998, meeting. E. 1997 Asphalt Overlay Project Acceptance and Retainage Release - The Committee m/s/c recommendation of acceptance of the 1997 Asphalt Overlay Project in the amount of $1,453,796.00 as complete. The contract, with Lakeside Industries, Inc., was $303,990.68 below the $1,757,786.68 (including contingency) budget that was approved last year by the City Council. Council will review at its February 17, 1977, meeting. F. 1997 Sidewalk Replacement Project Acceptance and Retainage Release - The Kodo Construction Inc., Sidewalk Replacement Project was completed for $28.00 below the $90,247.50 (including contingency) budget approved by the Council. The Committee m/s/c recommendation of acceptance of the contract as complete in the amount of $90,219.50 to be forwarded to the Council's February 17, 1997, meeting for consideration. G. Metro 6 -Year Plan Implementation/Letter of Confirmation - The Committee discussed new developments in the process of implementing a revised transit route structure. They preferred smaller headways over larger and other minor route revisions. They m/s/c and in a revised letter encouraging the shorter headways and route revisions to be prepared and sent to the King County Council who will be charged with working out the details. H. Weyerhaeuser Comprehensive Plan Change/Zoning Change - Weyerhaeuser Company, Inc., represented by Jerry Hillis, submitted a request for annexation of a parcel of property north of South 320th Street and east of Interstate 5. The second request was presented for the rezoning of a parcel currently within the Potential Annexation Area and bisected by South 336th Street. The Committee directed both be considered during the Comprehensive Plan update process. Lovgren Comprehensive Plan Change/Zoning Change - Bill Stokes, representing Bill and Evelyn Lovgren, presented a request for a change in the Comprehensive Plan for the property located on the east side of Pacific Highway just north of the Pierce County line. The property appears to be an isolated island of residential property and because of its proximity to a state highway may not be conducive to residential development, as it is currently designated. The Committee requested that Mr. Stokes' request be considered aspart of the already existing process of updating the Comprehensive Plan, now scheduled to go forward in the Spring of 1998. SWM Capital Facilities Plan Update -Surface Water Division of the Public Works Department (SWM) asked the Council, through the Land Use/Transportation Committee to authorize reprioritization of this proposed project with its estimated costs in excess of $1 million. The proposed acceleration can be accomplished as suggested due to the fact that the SeaTac Mall Detention has been stalled because of the discovery of contaminated materials within the project alignment. Funds programmed in 1998 for SeaTac Phase 11 and Phase III construction can be reallocated to the South 340th project in 1998. Construction will be postponed until 1999 when the contamination problems should be resolved. The Committee m/s/c recommendation of approval of acceleration by Council at the February 17, 1998, meeting. 6. FUTURE MEETINGS The next meeting will be held on March 2, 1998. The agenda will include only the 1998 Asphalt Overlay Program and the Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) code amendment due to the length of expected discussion on ESA code changes. 7. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 6:25pm. 1: \LU-TRANS\FEB2LUT. SUM Spring Valley Montessori School 36605 Pacific Highway South 0 Federal Way, WA 98003 (206) 927-2557 0 (206) 874-6003 0 Fax (206) 838-5193 www.springvalley.com 0 E-mail: justus@springvalley.org February 20, 1998 Phil Watkins Federal Way City Council 33530 1St Way South Federal Way, WA 98003 RE: City Sign Law Dear Mr. Watkins: Madeleine J. Justus Executive Director Gulsevin Kayihan Director Marta Justus Foldi Director of Development We are writing to you regarding a proposed amendment to the Federal Way sign law (FWCC Article XVI. Signs). Like many other non-profit and for profit businesses, Spring Valley Montessori School has had a great deal of difficulty conforming to the letter of this law despite complying with its spirit ad intent. The stated purposes of the law are to prohibit those signs that are unsafe or do not preserve community aesthetic values (ibid Sec. 22-1596. Purpose.). Spring Valley has a free-standing information sign that does not violate either of these purposes. However, it is alleged to be in technical violation of the purposes' specific implementation. We know that others have found themselves in similar straits. The Spring Valley sign is used solely for the purpose of conveying non-commercial information to the parents of children attending our school. This free-standing sign is the only type of sign that is aesthetically acceptable and reasonably viewable by arriving parents. Furthermore, it is 30 yards within the grounds and is only reasonably seen by those on the school's property. Nonetheless, we have been wrestling with violation allegations for over a year. We believe that the unpopularity of this law stems not from its purpose, but from its blunt and overbroad implementation. Therefore, we are proposing that the city amend its sign law to permit free-standing informational signs under conditions where they do not violate the spirit and intent of the law. Such an amendment would not only benefit Spring Valley and other organizations needing to convey information, but also the citizens of Federal Way that use that information. We are looking forward to the City's action in this matter. Thank you. Sincerely, Marta Justus Foldi Director Development & Facilities A Non -Profit Organization Dedicated To Excellence In Education CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: February 26, 1998 TO: Phil Watkins, Chair Land Use/Transportation Committee FROM: Jeff Pratt, Surface Water Manager I 'A� RE: SeaTac Mall Detention Phase H - 85% Design Status Report As you are aware, the above referenced project is budgeted and under design with construction intended for 1998. However, due to various problems associated with property acquisition Phase II construction is recommended to be delayed until 1999. Recall that Phase I of the referenced project is the already designed and approved improvements which begin at approximately S333rd Street and terminate in a large regional storm water control pond to be constructed upon the Belmor Mobile Home Park property. Phase I construction is scheduled to begin in the late spring of 1998. Phase II of the proposed project improvements consist of replacing and up sizing approximately 3,700 feet of 18 -to 48 -inch -diameter interconnected pipeline between South 324th Street and South 316th Street. This pipeline system conveys flows originating as far north as S.312th Street and services approximately 237 acres of intensely developed properties in the City Center area, including SeaTac Mall and SeaTac Plaza. Phase II improvements also contemplate conversion of the large substandard storm water retention/detention facility, located in the southeastern corner of the SeaTac mall property, to a water quality facility. The following provides a brief synopsis Currently, the project design is estimated estimate are the following completed tasks ■ The topographic surveys ■ The Geotechnical Investigation of the progress on the phase II project to date. to be eighty five -percent complete. Included in this ■ The Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) ■ SEPA determination and project permitting 0 Project design to 85 % Ongoing tasks include: ■ Property negotiations and acquisition The design effort to date has identified three issues which potentially have a major budget impact. The first issue involves a pipe alignment modification requested by the owners of SeaTac Mall. The alignment modification will facilitate construction of a large multistory parking facility on the east side of the Mall. Unfortunately, the proposal will increase the cost of the City's project by an estimated $130,000.00. City staff have drafted and presented an agreement to the owners of the SeaTac Mall suggesting that this additional project expense be borne by them. The second issue involves the removal and disposal of contaminated soil within the existing retention/detention pond owned and operated by SeaTac Mall. The estimated cost of the removal and disposal of the contaminated soil is approximately $332,090.00. City staff have drafted and presented an agreement to the owners of the SeaTac Mall suggesting that the majority of this additional project expense be borne by them. The Third issue which has presented itself recently involves contamination of the subsurface soil and water in the vicinity of 5320th Street near the Mall's easternmost entrance. The contamination was discovered during the subsurface investigation activities associated with the project. The contamination consists of pollutants normally associated with underground storage tanks used for fueling operations. We have notified the Department of Ecology, ARCO, and the Mall owners and are currently working with them to resolve the issue. At this point the estimated cost of the cleanup necessary for the project to move forward is approximately $380,000.00. Although it would appear that the source of the contamination is the ARCO (formerly Diamond Shamrock) station just east of the Mall, this fact has not yet been established beyond doubt. ARCO is currently performing further more detailed subsurface investigation and will present the City, the Mall, and the Department of Ecology the results of their study as soon as it is completed. An assessment of the assignment of the potential cleanup costs awaits the study results. Although the costs associated with the pipeline realignment request and the costs associated with the contaminated soil cleanup (in both locations) will potentially be recovered from others, for purposes of this presentation the project budget status report includes both scenarios, i.e., additional costs = recovered and additional costs recovered: Project Element Cost Comments Planning and Design $ 370,000 Construction $215641527 includes 10% contingency Construction Management $ 250,000 Pipe Alignment Modification $ 130,000 possible recovery from others Hazardous Waste Cleanup at the existing detention pond Hazardous Waste Cleanup in the area of S320th Street Total Appropriated Budget Budget shortfall without cost recovery Budget shortfall with cost recovery $ 332,090 $ 3800000 $4,026,617 $3,002,190 $1,024,427 some possible recovery from others possible recovery from others includes $174,355 in interest earnings $ 224,603 assumes $130,000+ $289,824+$380,000 = $799,824 recovered from others Staff is not requesting a budget adjustment at this time. Rather, we suggest that the above estimated costs will likely be refined as the design, the mutual agreements, and the extent of contamination are further refined. Additionally, staff has not yet been able to obtain the cooperation of the property owners to the north S320th Street. Therefore this portion of the project is not yet fully evaluated. Staff will return to committee and council at appropriate points in the process as it unfolds and as budget implications solidify. Recommendation: Staff recommends that construction of the Phase I1 improvements be delayed until 1999 and that the committee authorize staff to proceed with design and property negotiations returning to the committee at the 100% design completion stage for further reports and authorizations. cc: Project File Day File K:\SWM\PROJECTS\SEATAC\PHASEII8.LUT Briefing on City Center Street Design Guidelines (Information presentation only. There are no attachments.) eOFJC.�FqIOOOOF Date: February 24, 1998 To: Phil Watkins, Chair Land Use and Transportation Committee From: Ken Miller, Street Systems Manager 0A Pearl Kronstad, Streets Engineerge__ Subject: 1998 Asphalt Overlay Program Background: Public Works Staff has developed a list of recommended streets for the 1998 Asphalt Overlay Program. The total budget for the program is $2,298,423.00, and is comprised of the following funding: 1997 Carry forward $ 484,857.00 1998 Budget $1,013,566.00 Street Utility Tax $ 800'000.00 Total Available Funding $2,298,423.00 The streets were selected using the City's pavement management system and were verified by field reconnaissance. Costs shown are estimated, and will be refined once the design of each schedule is completed. These costs include in-house design, inspection, construction administration, and placement of guardrail on a portion of I" Avenue South and 20' Place Southwest. Below is a list of projects to be included in the 1998 Asphalt Overlay Program. The estimated cost of $2,602,022.00 is a preliminary figure; the contract will be awarded within the budget of $2,298,423.00. Schedule A 1st Avenue South (North end) $ 203, 021.00 Schedule B 1st Avenue South (South end) $ 166, 789.00 Schedule C South 356th Street (West end) $ 57, 413.00 Schedule D South 356th Street (East end) $ 98,176.00 Schedule E 35th Avenue Southwest $ 205, 760.00 Schedule F Twin Lakes $ 543, 617.00 Schedule G South 333rd Street $ 105, 838.00 Schedule H Mar 'Cheri $ 176, 993.00 Schedule I Schaum Heights $ 54, 735.00 Schedule J Star Lake $ 180, 802.00 Schedule K Adelaide $ 195, 386.00 Schedule L Ninelake Park $ 144, 275.00 Schedule M Soundcrest $ 425, 217.00 Schedule N 11th Avenue Southwest $ 19, 741.00 Schedule O South 330th Street $ 24, 257.00 Total Preliminary Estimates $2,602,022.00 Once the list of proposed projects for the overlay program is approved by Council, staff will begin final design of the schedules. The anticipated date for advertising the program is May 1998 with construction beginning in June 1998. Also attached for your information is a detailed list of the streets identified for overlay this year and a project location map. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Land Use and Transportation Committee approve placement of the following on the March 17, 1998 City Council consent agenda: 1) Approve the list of proposed streets for the 1998 Asphalt Overlay Program; 2) Authorize staff to advertise the project and return to the Committee with bid results and recommendation for award. KM\PK7g attachment k:Uutc\1998\overlay.ad 3-2-98 LUTC Mtg Preliminary 1998 Asphalt Overlay Project List 1st Ave S From S 292nd St to S 312th St lst PI S From S 308th St to EOR S 3rd Ave S From S 308th St to Cul -de -Sac S S 308th St From 1st Ave S to 3rd Ave S 1st Ave S From S 348th St to Pavement Break (S of S 363rd PI) 2nd Ave S From S 356th St to EOR S S 357th St From Cul -de -Sac W to 2nd Ave S S 357th St From 2nd Ave S to Cul -de -Sac E S 358th St From 1st Ave S to 2nd Ave S S 356th St From 890' W of 2nd Ave S to 370' E S 356th St From Pacific Hwy S to 940' W S 356th St From Enchanted Park Wy to Pacific Hwy S Schedule E - 35th Avenue Southwest 35th Ave SW From SW 325th St to SW 344th St 37th Ave SW From SW 340th St to SW 342nd St SW 342nd St From 35th Ave SW to 39th Ave SW SW 343rd .% From 35th Ave SW to Cul -de -Sac W 26th PI SW From SW 323rd St to Cul -de -Sac S 27th Ave SW From 26th Ave SW to SW 323rd St 27th Ave SW From SW 332nd PI to SW 332nd Ct 28th Ave SW From SW 327th St to SW 329th St 28th Ave SW From SW 329th St to SW 332nd St 29th Ave SW From 30th Ave SW to 28th Ave SW 29th Ave SW From SW 323rd St to SW 324th PI 29th Ave SW From SW 324th PI to Cul -de -Sac E 29th Ave SW From SW 330th St to SW 332nd PI 30th Ave SW From EOR W to 29th Ave SW 30th Ave SW From 29th Ave SW to SW 327th St Cul -de -Sac From 30th Ave SW to Cul -de -Sac W 30th Ave SW From SW 325th St to SW 325th PI 30th Ave SW From SW 325th PI to SW 327th St 32nd Ave SW From SW 323rd St to SW 325 St 36th Ave SW From SW 325 St to EOR S 39th Ave SW From 39th PI SW to SW 328 St Preliminary Project List for the 1998 Asphalt Overlay Program 2/24/98 39th PI SW From SW 327th St to 39th Ave SW 39th PI SW From 39th Ave SW to SW 325th St 40th Ave SW From SW 321st St to Cul -de -Sac W 40th Ave SW From SW 327th St to SW 328th St 40th PI SW From Cul -de -Sac N to SW 321st St 41st Ave SW From SW 320th St to SW 321st St 41st Ave SW From SW 324th St to SW 327th St 41st PI SW From Cul -de -Sac N to SW 321st St 42nd PI SW From SW 325th St to Cul -de -Sac E SW 321st PI From 27th Ave SW to Cul -de -Sac W SW 321st St From Cul -de -Sac E to 42nd PI SW SW 322nd PI From 27th Ave SW to Cul -de -Sac W SW 322nd St From 27th Ave SW to 28th Ave SW SW 323rd .% From 26th Ave SW to 32nd Ave SW Cul -de -Sac From SW 323rd St to Cul -de -Sac N SW 324th El From Cul -de -Sac E to 29th Ave SW SW 325th PI From 30th Ave SW to Cul -de -Sac S SW 325th St From 36th Ave SW to 39th PI SW SW 325th St From 40th PI SW to SW 326th St SW 326th St From Cul -de -Sac E to 39th Ave SW SW 326th St From 43rd PI SW to Hoyt Rd SW SW 327th St From 28th Ave SW to 30th Ave SW SW 327th St From 35th Ave SW to 36th Ave SW SW 327th PI From Cul -de -Sac E to 39th Ave SW SW 327th St From 40th Ave SW to 41st Ave SW SW 328th St From Cul -de -Sac N to 28th Ave SW SW 328th St From 36th Ave SW to SW 327th PI Cul -de -Sac From SW 328th St to Cul -de -Sac S SW 329th St From 29th Ave SW to Cul -de -Sac W SW 331st St From Cul -de -Sac N to 28th Ave SW SW 332nd Ct From Cul -de -Sac E to 27th Ave SW SW 332nd Ct From 27th Ave SW to Cul -de -Sac W SW 332nd PI From 27th Ave SW to 30th Ave SW 8th Ave S From S 333rd St to 9th Ave S S 333rd St From 1st Wy S to EOR Schedule H - Marr 'Cheri 2nd Ave SW From SW 292nd St to EOR S 2nd Ave SW From 2nd PI SW to SW 298th PI Cul -De -Sac From 2nd Ave SW to Cul -de -Sac N Cul -De -Sac From 2nd Ave SW to Cul -de -Sac E 2nd Ave SW From SW 298th PI to SW 299th PI 2nd Ave SW From SW 299th PI to Dash Pt Rd SW Preliminary Project List for the 1998 Asphalt Overlay Program 2/24/98 From From From From From From From From From From From From From From From From From 2nd Ave SW 2nd Ave SW SW 301st St SW 298th PI 2nd Ave SW SW Dash Pt Rd to SW 292nd St SW 293rd St 1st Ave S 3rd Ave SW 2nd Ave SW 1st Ave S 2nd Ave SW 2nd Ave SW 1st Ave S 2nd Ave SW 2nd Ave SW to Cul -de -Sac W to Cul -de -Sac W to SW 303rd St to Cul -de -Sac E to EOR S SW 303rd St to SW 293rd St to SW 294th St to EOR W to EOR W to 2nd P1 SW to 2nd Ave SW to 2nd Ave SW to Cul -de -Sac W to Cul -de -Sac W to 2nd PI SW to 2nd P1 SW 2nd PI S From S 296th PI to Cul -de -Sac S 3rd Ave S From S 296th PI to Cul -de -Sac S 3rd PI S From S 296th PI to EOR S S 294th PI From 1st Ave S to Cul -de -Sac E S 295th PI From 1st Ave S to Cul -de -Sac E S 296th PI From 3rd Ave S to 1st Ave S S 297th PI From 1st Ave S to Cul -de -Sac E 25th DR S From S Star Lk Rd to S 280th PI Cul -de -Sac From 25 Dr S to Cul -de -Sac W Cul -de -Sac 25 Dr S to Cul -de -Sac E 27th Ave S From S 276th PI to S Star Lake Rd S 276th PI From Cul -de -Sac N to S Star lake Rd S 278th Ct From 25 Dr S to Cul -de -Sac W S Star Lake Rd From S 272nd St to S 276th PI 16th Ave SW From SW 307th St to Dash Pt Rd SW 20th PI SW From EOR N to 21st Ave SW 22nd Ave SW From SW 307th St to EOR S 24th Ave SW From EOR N to SW 306th PI 25th Ave SW From EOP S to SW 301st PI 26 Ave SW From EOR E to New Pavement (N of SW 307th St) SW 301st El From 24th Ave SW to 25th Ave SW Preliminary Project List for the 1998 Asphalt Overlay Program 2/24/98 SW 304th St From 18th Ave SW to 21st Ave SW SW 306th Pl From 21st Ave SW to Cul -de -Sac W SW 307th St From 21st Ave SW to 26th Ave SW SW 308th Ct From 22nd Ave SW to Cul -de -Sac E SW 308th PI From 26th Ave SW to Cul -de -Sac E SW 308th St From 22nd Ave SW to Cul -de -Sac W SW 309th.Cl From Cul -de -Sac E to 22nd Ave SW SW 309th St From 22nd Ave SW to Cul -de -Sac E 7th PI S From 8th Ave S to S 325th St 8th Ave S From S 320th St to 7th PI S 9th PI S From Cul -de -Sac W to S 327th St 10th Ave S From S 320th St to S 325th St 10th PI S From S 323rd St to S 327th St S 322nd PI From 10th Ave S to EOR E S 323rd St From 10th Ave S to 10th PI S S 324th PI From Cul -de -Sac W to 10th PI S S 325th St From 7th PI S to 10th PI S S 327th St From 7th PI S to 10th PI S 5th Ave S From Cul -de -Sac N to S 317th St 6th Ave S From S 314th St to S 316th PI 6th Ave S From Cul -de -Sac N to S 320th St 7th Ave S From S 316th PI to S 318th PI Cul -de -Sac From 7th Ave S to Cul -de -Sac E 7th PI S From Cul -de -Sac N to S 317th St 7th PI S From S 317th St to Cul -de -Sac S 8th Ave S From S 312th St to S 320th St 9th Ave S From S 316th St to S 317th St 10th Ave S From S 312th St to S 318th St 11th PI S From 10th Ave S to S 313th St 12th PI S From 13th Ave S to S 315th St Cul -de -Sac From 12th PI S to Cul -de -Sac E 13th Ave S From S 312th St to EOR S S 313th St From 10th Ave S to 13th Ave S S 315th St From EOR E to 8th Ave S S 315th St From 8th Ave S to EOR W S 315th St From EOR to 13th Ave S S 316th PI From 6th Ave S to 7th Ave S S 316th St From 8th Ave S to 9th Ave S S 316th St From 10th Ave S to 13th Ave S S 317th St From 5th Ave S to 7th Ave S S 317th St From 7th Ave S to EOR E Preliminary Project List for the 1998 Asphalt Overlay Program 2124198 S 318th PI From 6th Ave S to 7th Ave S S 318th St From 8th Ave S to 10th Ave S 19 319th St_ From S 318th St to Cul -de -Sac Schell Le N - 11th Avenue Southwest l lth Ave SW From SW 356th St to EOR S Schedule O - South 330th Street S 330th St From Pacific Hwy S to 20th Ave S KM\PK. jg attachment k:\Iutc\1998\overIay.ad 3-2-98 LUTC Mtg 0 a rm MEMO To: Land Use/Transportation Committee Phil Watkins, Chair Jeanne Burbidge Mary Gates From: Margaret H. Clark, AICP, Senior Planner M`' Subject: Request by Bob Scholes, ESM Consulting Engineers, for a Zone Reclassification for 10.88 acres located at the northeastern corner of 1st Avenue South and South 312th Street Date: February 25, 1998 A. REQUEST On behalf of his client, Lyle Homes, Mr. Scholes has submitted a request for a zone change of a 10.88 parcel from a single family residential zone with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet (RS 7.2) to a single family residential zone with a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet (RS 5.0). He has requested that this rezone be processed as part of the current comprehensive plan update (ExhibitA —February 19, 1998, Correspondence). B. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. Parcel No/Legal Description: 2. Size: 3. Existing Comprehensive Plan 4. Existing Zoning: 5. Requested Comprehensive Plan Designation: 6. Requested Zoning: C. DISCUSSION 071049200 (Exhibit B — Vicinity Map) 10.88 acres Single Family - High Density Single Family Residential (RS 7.2) No Change Single Family Residential (RS 5.0) ■ The request is to process the change in zoning classification for this parcel as part of the comprehensive plan update process. Land Use/Transportation Committee February 25, 1998 Page 2 ■ As part of the comprehensive plan update, the city is accepting requests for amendments to the comprehensive plan map. Changes in the comprehensive plan designation for any parcel will be followed by a corresponding change in the zoning designation in order for the zoning designation to conform to the comprehensive plan designation. ■ As part of this process, the city has not been accepting applications for rezones if there is no need for a change to the comprehensive plan designation. ■ There is no need for a change in the comprehensive plan designation for this parcel as both the RS 5.0 and RS 7.2 zones are classified as Single Family - High Density Residential according to the November 1995 City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan. ■ The public notice for the comprehensive plan update did not include rezones if a comprehensive plan amendment was not needed. ■ There is a separate process and fee for rezones. (A rezone such as the requested one is considered a nonproject related quasi judicial rezone and is processed pursuant to Federal Way City Code (FWCC), Article VIII. The fee for a rezone from one single family residential zone classification to another single family residential classification is $450 + $250/acre to a maximum of $11,000, which for this parcel would be $3,170.) ■ The city has not been charging a fee for a rezone request if the rezone is a necessary part of a request for a change in the comprehensive plan designation of a parcel(s). D. OPTIONS The following options are available to the Land Use/Transportation Committee: 1. Deny the request for a zone change to be processed as part of the current comprehensive plan update. In this event, the applicant has the choice of applying for the rezone pursuant to FWCC, Article VIII. 2. Approve the request for a zone change to be processed as part of the current comprehensive plan update. If this option is chosen, staff will publish a new public notice stating that stand alone rezone requests (without the need for a change to a comprehensive plan designation) will be considered as part of the comprehensive plan update. (This may set a precedent which may result in additional rezones only being submitted as part of the comprehensive plan update.) I:\I.=RS\ESM.1/Febnury 25,1998 ESM CONSULTING ENGINEERS, L.L.C. A CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND SURVEY, AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT CONSULTING FIRM February 19, 1998 Job No. 797-01-980-001 Federal Way City Council EXHIBIT A Land Use and Planning Committee �� C/O Mr. Greg Moore, Planning Director 4- 33530 1st Way South Federal Way, WA 98003 RE: 10.88 Acre Site - NE of corner of 1St Avenue South and South 312th Street Dear Sirs: ESM is representing Lyle Homes, contract purchaser of a 10.88 acre site northeast of the corner of 1st Avenue South at South 312th Street (old Fred Meyer site). Attached is a legal description of the subject parcel of land. On behalf of our client, we are requesting that this property be reclassified from RS 7.2 zoning to RS 5.0 as part of your current process in updating the Comprehensive Plan. The current Comprehensive Plan designation is "High Density Single Family", which includes the RS 5.0 zoning classification. In our opinion, this zoning reclassification is logical for the following reasons: 1) The site is bounded on two sides by major city streets: 1st Avenue South (Minor Arterial), and South 312th Street (Collector) which will require significant and costly improvements. 2) A commercial use (7 -Eleven Store) occupies a 0.5 acre site at the northwest corner of the intersection. An existing multi -family apartment project lies immediately adjacent to the site on the north side. Also, Lake Grove Elementary School is immediately adjacent to the site on the north side. Single family and multi -family uses are south, southeast, and east of the site, across South 312th Street and 1st Avenue South. An RS 5.0 zoning classification would be more consistent than RS 7.2 zoning, considering the adjacent multi -family and commercial uses. 3) Allowing for higher density (RS 5.0 vs. RS 7.2) will result in increased affordability in that the per lot infrastructure development cost would be less. This site can be considered as a classic "in -fill" parcel. Based upon our site planning efforts, the difference in zoning will allow 52 dwelling units (vs. 38 under the current zoning). 720 South 348th Street • Federal Way, Washington 98003 Federal Way (253) 838-6113 • Tacoma (253) 927-0619 • Seattle (206) 623-5911 • Fax: (253) 838-7104 Mr. Greg Moore, Planning Project Manager February 19, 1998 Page Two EXHIB17__A___ PAGE_ Q,. F4 - Our client is committed to developing a "first class" project for the City. To meet the City's housing needs, it makes sense to us that these "additional" units be located on this site for the above reasons. We believe this is a logical land use zone for the property in question. Please call me at (253) 838-6113 if you have any questions or need further information. Very truly yours, ESM CONSULTING �VGERS, L.L.C. ROBERT D. SCHOLES, P.E. President cc: Mr. Jack Willing, Lyle Homes E\engr\esm jobs\792\O1\document\79201.doc EXHIBIT' Job No. 792-01-980-001 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 4 King County Short Plat No. 680004 R recorded under Records No. 8102240657, being a portion of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 7, Township 21 North, Range 4 East of the Willamette Meridian, King County, Washington; and containing 10.877 acres 9 (473,800 sq. ft.), more or less. 4J5:"e C 77? 13 _' 1 _04 goo14 188.74 az 8 .se 64.1 ' 17 133 . d 0 N L N Q M 11. g0 1 70 1 zlo,�j --1 60 '- `_ 3 so J .r 3 10619 d 60 qp'�° • � � o n 55 ° 1 j L i .,'l! F Iso t.t. 4— ONE WAY 373 5 42 i30 1- E° X I v 11 � E � LizY I �A �q O nA ' 1 G A R---- q 4 u rico[ 72.73 83 90 60 31?U_P2 �0 0 z �+ 2 I° 3 "' 31 23 SW 31 a / 2 � 142.54 30fS y l W � 7� ��IV. 66� �. ti 1� � 0 z9.18 00 morl-W-11, n - 1I Federal Wayr�chool District No 210 I— __I --- 152.90 ----- 10 -- -- �1 i m i i � � (3) I 1-----n I ------- _ _ r __ / 9.43 Ac. J - ---- -.I r o ri Bethel Pentecostal Temple Inc Temple Inc �' � I 1 - I I I 1 �✓ S.P. 68004 R - - - i % ✓'� �r 5.82 Ac. 01 \ =----- - -- - loo 1so----35�oZzo---- ---- I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 i 80 0.92 Ac. �I; W G Downs rzr ! 1.65Ac. (4) 18.11 Ac. I I I l II rZq II 0.69 Ac 40 1.51 Ac. 6 O 041 Ac rl N 1 ;f/ W G Downs rN 190_ / { Sn �c3 III r''O�l j�j�,ATFO a. S T. all q 4 u rico[ 72.73 83 90 60 31?U_P2 �0 0 z �+ 2 I° 3 "' 31 23 SW 31 a / 2 � 142.54 30fS y l W � 7� ��IV. 66� �. ti 1� � 0 z9.18 00 morl-W-11, 'OLAKE GRO VE rk kk EL EM. . .......... ....... M. - ===a . . ....... .. ..... ..... .. . ............ > . . ......... . ..... .. . ....... .... ... ... f mV k 'OLAKE GRO VE rk kk EL EM. . .......... ....... M. - ===a . . ....... .. ..... ..... .. . ............ > . . ......... . ..... .. . ....... .... ... ... V`K .... . .. . ..... .. . 0 V V 0 1 4 LI 1 0 LI t=L Vicinity Map Zoning Parcel s Impervious Surfaces rx Buildings EM Subject Property Federal Way CityMap SCALE 1.3338 Note: s m %is,Ie,Ied for use asagraphicalregres ental-only. T��y,f 4,alW,Yakeo.,asto"Cc,',Cy Sensitive Areas Code Amendment materials were previously distributed. Copies will be available, if necessary, at the LUTC meeting on Monday, March 2, 1998. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 22 OF THE FEDERAL WAY ZONING CODE, ADOPTING SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS AND ADDING NEW REGULATIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS. A. WHEREAS amendments to the Federal Way City Code (FWCC) text are authorized pursuant to FWCC Section 22-216 pursuant to Process VI review; and B. WHEREAS the Federal Way City Council has considered proposed changes to the FWCC regarding specific environmentally sensitive areas regulations; and C. WHEREAS the Federal Way City Council, pursuant to FWCC 22-517, having determined the Proposal to be worthy of legislative consideration, referred the Proposal to the Federal Way Planning Commission as a priority item for its review and recommendation; and D. WHEREAS the Federal Way Planning Commission, having considered the Proposal at public hearings during 1997 on September 3, October 1, November 19, and December 5 pursuant to FWCC Section 22-523, and all public notices having been duly given pursuant to FWCC Section 22-528; and E. WHEREAS the public was given opportunities to comment on the Proposal during the Planning Commission review; and F. WHEREAS the City of Federal Way SEPA responsible official has issued a ORD # , PAGE 1 Declaration of Nonsignificance on May 18, 1997; and G. WHEREAS following the public hearings, the Planning Commission submitted to the Land Use and Transportation Committee of the City Council its recommendation in favor of proposed zoning text amendments adding sections to the FWCC as noted previously; and H. WHEREAS the Federal Way Land Use and Transportation City Council Committee met on , 1997 to consider the recommendation of the Planning Commission and has moved to forward the Proposal, with amendments, to the full City Council; and WHEREAS there was sufficient opportunity for the public to comment on the Proposal; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. After full and careful consideration, the City Council of the City of Federal Way makes the following findings with respect to the Proposal and the proposed amendments to the Federal Way City Code ("FWCC"): 1. The Federal Way City Council adopted the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan in order to comply with the state's Growth Management Act; and 2. The Federal Way Comprehensive Plan contains policies that call for the amending of certain environmentally sensitive areas regulations, in particular wetlands; and ORD # , PAGE 2 3. The Federal Way SEPA responsible official has issued a Declaration of Nonsignificance on May 5, 1997; and 4. The proposed code amendments would not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare; and 5. The Planning Commission, following notice thereof as required by RCW 35A.63.070, held public hearings on the proposed regulatory amendments and has considered the testimony, written comments, and material from the public by and through said hearings. Section 2. Conclusions. Pursuant to FWCC Section 22-216 and based upon the Findings set forth in Section 1, the Federal Way City Council makes the following Conclusions of Law with respect to the decisional criteria necessary for the adoption of the Proposal: 1. The Proposal is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies contained in the Natural Environment chapter: NEP3 To the maximum extent possible, the City's future actions will be consistent with the goals and policies of this chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. NEP25 The City should adopt stream definitions that are reflective of stream function and habitat. The definitions should make a distinction between manmade conveyance systems and natural streams. NEP32 The City will protect its wetlands with an objective of no overall net -loss of functions or values. ORD # , PAGE 3 NEP36 The City should consider implementing a tiered wetland classification system based on wetland functions and values. the wetland classification system would set forth the appropriate wetland buffer widths. Furthermore, any new wetland classification system should also contain provision for allowing buffer width averaging. As a reference point, the City should consider the classification system and protection measures contained in the Department of Ecology's Model Wetlands Ordinance. NEP37 Required wetland buffers shall be comprised of native vegetation typically associated with the type of wetland in question. Intrusion into the wetland buffer may be restricted, except for the location of essential public facilities and utilities where no other feasible alternative exists. NEP42 The City will protect wetlands by maximizing infiltration opportunities and promoting the conservation of forest cover and native vegetation. NEP43 Wetlands created as a result of a surface' or stormwater detention facility should not be considered wetlands for regulatory purposes. Special regulations concerning these facilities should be developed. 2. The Proposal bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety and welfare because it implements policies aimed at protecting the City's natural environment and promotes site sensitive development. Section 3. Amendment. The Federal Way Zoning Code, Chapter 22, is amended to provide as set forth in Attachment A and by this reference is incorporated herein. Section 4. The provisions of this ordinance are declared separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or portion of this ordinance or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the ordinance, or the validity of its application ORD # , PAGE 4 to other persons or circumstances. Section 5. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from the time of its final passage, as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Federal Way this day of . 1995. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MAYOR, RONALD L. GINTZ ATTEST: CITY CLERK, N. CHRISTINE GREEN, CMC APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY, LONDI K. LINDELL FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: ORD # , PAGE 5 EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. ORD # , PAGE 6 ATTACHMENT A CHAPTER 22 ARTICLE I. GENERALLY Sec. 22-1. Definitions Regulated wetlands shall mean those areas greater than 2,500 square feet in area 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 to for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas, with the exception of the following areas shown in the King County Wetlands Inventory Notebook, Volume 3 South: (1) Lower Puget Sound Beach; (2) Lower Puget Sound 1 and 51; and (3) Areas defined as a regulated lake. Methodology in the ;NAflAnds And subsequent United States March 1997 Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Department of Ecology publication #96-94) as stipulated in WAC 173-22-080 will be used for regulatory delineations of wetlands within the City. Although a site specific wetland may not meet the criteria described above, it will be considered a regulated wetland if it is functionally related to another wetland that meets the criteria. Stream shall mean a course or route, formed by nature, including those which have been modified by man, and generally consisting of a channel with a bed, banks or sides throughout substantially all its length, along which surface waters naturally and normally flow in draining from higher to lower elevations. A stream need not contain water year round. In a developingsetting etting streams may run in culverts or are channeled in a concrete, rock or other artificial conveyance systems. This definition is not meant to include irrigation ditches, canals, surface water runoff facilities or other artificial watercourses unless used by a local or mi rg_ atory fish population or was constructed to convey streams which existed prior to construction of the watercourse. Major stream shall mean any stream, and the tributaries to any stream, which contains or supports, or under normal circumstances contains or supports local or migratory fish population. If there exists a natural permanent blockage on the stream course which precludes the upstream movement of anadromous fish, then that portion of the stream which is downstream of the natural permanent blockage shall be regulated as a major stream. Minor stream shall mean any stream that does not meet the definition of Major Stream. ARTICLE XIV. ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS* *Cross reference(s)—Environmental policy of the city, § 18-26 et seq.; in every case where the city requires an applicant to provide a public walkway, public use area, or other area, facility or structure that is open to the public under the zoning regulations, the applicant may execute an easement or similar document in a form approved by the city attorney, § 22-10; rezoning of this district to be conducted under the quasi-judicial rezoning procedure, § 22-296 et seq.; the provisions regarding project -related quasijudicial rezoning are applicable to the rezoning of this district, § 22-298(b); erosion and sedimentation supplementary district regulations, § 22-948; land modification restrictions and requirements, § 22-1091 et seq.; water quality requirements and surface water, stormwater and other waterways, § 22-1196 et seq. DIVISION 1. GENERALLY Sec. 22-1221. Purpose. The purpose of this article is to protect the environment, human life and property from harm and degradation. This is to be achieved by precluding or limiting development in areas where development poses serious or special hazards; by preserving and protecting the quality of drinking water; and by preserving important ecological areas such as steep slopes, streams, lakes and wetlands. The public purposes to be achieved by this article include protection of water quality, ground- water recharge, shoreline stabilization, stream flow maintenance, stability of slope areas, wildlife and fisheries habitat maintenance, protection of human life and property and maintenance of natural stormwater storage systems. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(80.10),2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-105, § 4(80.10),8-20-91, Ord. No. 91-123, § 3(80.10),12-17-91) Sec. 22-1222. Applicable provisions. The provisions of this article apply throughout the city and must be complied with regardless of any other conflicting provisions of this chapter. The provisions of this chapter that do not conflict with the provisions of this article apply to the subject property. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(80.15), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-105, § 4(80.15), 8-20-91; Ord. No. 91-123, § 3(80.15), 12-17-91) Sec. 22-1223. Jurisdiction. This article applies to the subject property if it: (1) Contains or is within 25 feet of a regulated slope; (2) Contains or is within 100 feet of a well head; (3) Contains or is within 100 feet of the top of any bank of a major stream; (4) Contains or is within 50 feet of the top of any bank of a minor stream; (5) Contains or is within 25 feet of any regulated lake; or (6) Contains or is within 100 feet of the edge of any wetland. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(80.20), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-105, § 4(80.20), 8-20-91; Ord. No. 91-123, § 3(80.20), 12-17-91) Federal Way City Code Article XIV. Environmentally Sensitive Areas Sec. 22-1224. Other authority and jurisdiction. Nothing in this article in any way limits, or may be construed to limit, the authority of the city under any other applicable law, nor in any way decreases the responsibility of the applicant to comply with all other applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(80.25), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-105, § 4(80.25), 8-20-91; Ord. No. 91-123, § 3(80.25), 12-17-91) Sec. 22-1225. Liability. (a) Prior to issuance of any building permit or other permit by the building official, the applicant may be required to enter into an agreement with the city, in a form acceptable to the city attorney, releasing and indemnifying the city from and for any damage or liability resulting from any development activity on the subject property which is related to the physical condition of the steep slope, stream, regulated lake or regulated wetland. This agreement shall be recorded in the county, at the applicant's expense, and shall run with the property. (b) The city may also require the applicant to obtain insurance coverage for damage to city or private property and/or city liability related to any such development activity. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(80.55),2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-105, § 4(80.55),8-20-91; Ord. No. 91-123, § 3(80.55),12-17-91) Secs. 22-1226--22-1240. Reserved. DIVISION 2. ADMINISTRATION* *Cross reference(s)—Administration, ch. 2. Sec. 22-1241. Administration. Except as otherwise established in this article, this article will be implemented and enforced as part of the city's review of any development activity on the subject property. If the development activity requires approval through process I,11 or III, the provisions of this article will be implemented as part of these processes. If the development activity does not require approval through process I, II or III, the provisions of this article will be implemented through site plan review under section 22-361 et seq. (Ord. No. 9043, § 2(80.30(1)), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-105, § 4(80.30(1)), 8-20-91; Ord. No. 91-123, § 3(80.30(1)), 12-17- 91) Sec. 22-1242. Maps adopted. The city hereby adopts the King County Wetlands Inventory Notebook, Volume 3 South, to show the locations of regulated lakes and certain regulated wetlands in the city. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(80.30(2)),2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-105, § 4(80.30(2)),8-20-91; Ord. No. 91-123, § 3(80.30(2)),12-17- 91) — 2 — Federal Way City Code Article MV Environmentally Sensitive Areas Sec. 22-1243. Basis for determination. The determinations regarding whether the subject property is regulated under this article, as well as the extent and nature of the regulations that will apply to the subject property, will be determined based on environmental information and mapping possessed by the city as well as other information and mapping provided by or through the applicant. The city may require the applicant, at the applicant's expense, to provide any information, mapping, studies, materials, inspections or reviews that are reasonably necessary to implement this article and to require that such information, studies, mapping, materials, inspections and reviews be provided or performed by a qualified professional acceptable to the city. Other provisions of this article detail other information and inspections that may be required in some instances. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(80.30(3)), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-105, § 4(80.30(3)), 8-20-91; Ord. No. 91-123, § 3(80.30(3)), 12-17- 91) Sec. 22-1244. Reasonable use of the subject property. (a) The provisions of this section establish a mechanism whereby the provisions of this article may be modified or waived on a case by case basis if their implementation would result in the applicant being unable to use any of the subject property for any reasonable use. (b) An applicant may apply for a modification or waiver of the provisions of this article using process III; except that applications for projects on singe family residential lots platted prior to the incorporation of the city may use process I. (c) The city may approve a modification or waiver of the requirements of this article on a case by case basis based on the following criteria: (1) The application of the provisions of this article eliminates any profitable use of the subject property. (2) It is solely the implementation of this article, and not other factors, which precludes profitable use of the subject property. (3) The applicant has in no way created or exacerbated the condition which forms the limitation on the use of the subject property, nor in any way contributed to such limitation. (4) The knowledge of the applicant of limitations on the subject property when he or she acquired the subject property. (5) The waiver or modification will not lead to, create nor significantly increase the risk of injury or death to any person or damage to improvements on or off the subject property. (d) If the city grants a request under this section, it shall grant the minimum necessary to - 3 - Federal Way City Code Article XIV. Environmentally Sensitive Areas provide the applicant with some reasonable, profitable use of the subject property, considering the factors described in subsection (c)(1) of this section. The city may impose any limitations, conditions and restrictions it considers appropriate to reduce or eliminate any undesirable effects or adverse impacts of granting a request under this section. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(80.35), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-105, § 4(80.35), 8-20-91; Ord. No. 91-123, § 3(80.35), 12-17-91) Sec. 22-1245. Appeals of determination made under article. Any determination made by the director of community development services under this article may be appealed using the procedures established for appeals of interpretations under section 22-5. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(80.40), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-105, § 4(80.40), 8-20-91; Ord. No. 91-123, § 3(80.40), 12-17-91) Sec. 22-1246. Bonds. The city may require a bond under section 22-146 et seq. to insure compliance with any aspect of this article. (Ord. No. 9043, § 2(80.45), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-105, § 4(80.45), 8-20-91; Ord. No. 91-123, § 3(80.45), 12-17-91) Sec. 22-1247. Dedication. The city may require the applicant to dedicate development rights or an open space easement to the city to insure protection of steep slopes, wells, streams, regulated lakes and regulated wetlands and other areas within the jurisdiction of this article. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(80.50), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-105, § 4(80.50), 8-20-91; Ord. No. 91-123, § 3(80.50), 12-17-91) Sec. 22-1248. Exemptions. The following activities are exempt from the provisions of this article: (1) Emergencies, that in the opinion of the director of community development services, threaten the public health, safety and welfare; (2) Normal and routine maintenance and repair of the following facilities, for which a maintenance plan has been approved by the public works director: a. Existing drainage ditches provided, however, that this exception shall not apply to any ditches used by salmonids other than to permit free migration of salmonid to their spawning grounds; b. Surface water facilities, provided that such activities shall not involve conversion of any regulated wetland not currently being used for such activity; c. Existing public facilities and utility structures or right -or -way. -4- Federal Way City Code Article XIV. Environmentally Sensitive Areas The maintenance plan may be designed to address individual facilities or facility components, area -wide facilities or city-wide systems. The maintenance plan shall identify the nature of the potential maintenance or repair activities, specifications for work which may occur within potential sensitive areas, specifications for restoring and/or mitigating impacts, specifications for timing of maintenance or repair activities, and process for contacting or notifying the city of pending maintenance or repair activities to ensure compliance with the approved plan. The public works director may require that an appropriate bond or security be maintained with the city to ensure restoration of disturbed areas. (Ord. No. 91-105, § 4(80.37),8-20-91) Secs. 22-1249--22-1265. Reserved. DIVISION 3. GENERAL SITE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS* "Cross reference(s)—Building and building regulations, ch. 5; environmental protection, ch. 18; environmental policy, § 18-26 et seq.; development, § 19-26 et seq.; subdivisions, ch. 20; design criteria for subdivision improvements, § 20-151 et seq.; drainage program, § 21-26 et seq.; site plan review, § 22-361 et seq.; district regulations, § 22-571 et seq.; supplementary district regulations, § 22-946 et seq.; landscaping, § 22-1561 et seq. Sec. 22-1266. Responsibility of applicant. The applicant shall locate all improvements on subject property to minimize adverse impacts in steep slopes, wells, streams, regulated lakes and regulated wetlands. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(80.60(1)), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-105, § 4(80.60(1)), 8-20-91; Ord. No. 91-123, § 3(80.60(1)), 12-17- 91) Sec. 22-1267. Physical barriers. The applicant shall install a berm, curb or other physical barrier during construction and, if necessary, following completion of development of the subject property, to prevent direct runoff and erosion from any disturbed area onto or into a steep slope, any area within 100 feet of a well head, a stream, a regulated lake or a regulated wetland. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(80.60(2)), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-105, § 4(80.60(2)), 8-20-91; Ord. No. 91-123, § 3(80.60(2)), 12-17- 91) Sec. 22-1268. Vehicle circulation areas. The applicant shall locate all parking and vehicle circulation areas as far as possible from any steep slope, well head, stream, regulated lake and regulated wetland. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(80.60(3)),2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-105, § 4(80.60(3)),8-20-91; Ord. No. 91-123, § 3(80.60(3)),12-17- 91) --5— Federal Way City Code Article XIV. Environmentally Sensitive Areas Sec. 22-1269. Time limitation. The city may limit development activities which involve any land surface modification to specific months of the year and to a maximum number of continuous days or hours in order to minimize adverse impacts. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(80.60(4)), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-105, § 4(80.60(4)), 8-20-91; Ord. No. 91-123, § 3(80.60(4)), 12-17- 91) Sec. 22-1270. Other requirements. The city may require other construction techniques, conditions and restrictions on development in order to minimize adverse impacts on steep slopes, wells, streams, regulated lakes or regulated wetlands. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(80.60(5)), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-105, § 4(80.60(5)), 8-20-91; Ord. No. 91-123, § 3(80.60(5)), 12-17- 91) Secs. 22-1271--22-1285. Reserved. DIVISION 4. GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS DEVELOPMENT Sec. 22-1286. Limitations. (a) This section regulates development activities and land surface modifications on or within 25 feet of a geologically hazardous area. (b) Development activities, land surface modifications or the installation and maintenance of landscaping normally associated with residential, commercial or park use may not occur on or within 25 feet of a geologically hazardous area unless no reasonable alternative exists and then only if the development activity or land surface modification will not lead to or create any increased slide, seismic or erosion hazard. (c) Before approving any development activity or land surface modification under this section, the city may require the applicant to submit the following information: (1) A soils report prepared by a qualified professional engineer licensed in the state which describes how the proposed development will impact each of the following on the subject property and nearby properties: a. Slope stability, landslide hazard and sloughing. b. Seismic hazards. c. Groundwater. Federal Way City Code Article XIV. Environmentally Sensitive Areas d. Seeps, springs and other surface waters. e. Existing vegetation. (2) Recommended foundation design and optimal location for roadways improvements. (3) Recommended methods for mitigating identified impacts and a description of how these mitigating measures may impact adjacent properties. (4) Any other information the city determines is reasonably necessary to evaluate the proposal. (d) If the city approves any development activity or land surface modification under this section, it may, among other appropriate conditions, impose the following conditions of approval: (1) That the recommendations of the soils report be followed. (2) That the applicant pay for the services of a qualified professional engineer selected and retained by the city to review the soils report and other relevant information. (3) That a qualified professional engineer be present on site during all land surface modification activities. (4) That trees, shrubs and ground cover be retained except where necessary for approved development activities on the subject property. (5) That additional vegetation be planted in disturbed areas. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(80.65),2-27-90-, Ord. No. 90-79, § 3,12-18-90; Ord. No. 91-105, § 4(80.65),8-20-91; Ord. No. 91- 123, § 3(80.65),12-17-91) Cross reference(s)—Land surface modifications, § 22-1091 et seq.; landscaping, § 22-1561 et seq. Secs. 22-1287--22-1305. Reserved. DIVISION 5. STREAMS Sec. 22-1306. Setbacks. (a) No land surface modification or improvements, may take place or be located in a stream or within the following setback areas except as allowed within this article: (1) The setback area for a major stream includes all areas within 100 feet outward from the top of each bank of a major stream. — 7 — Federal Way City Code Article XIV. Environmentally Sensitive Areas (2) The setback area for a minor stream includes all areas within 50 feet outward from the top of each bank of a minor stream. (b) The setback areas established by this section do not apply to any segment of a stream that is presently within a culvert, unless that stream will be taken out of the culvert as part of development of the subject property. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(80.75), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 90-79, § 4, 12-18-90; Ord. No. 91-105, § 4(80.75), 8-20-91; Ord. No. 91- 123, § 3(80.75),12-17-91) Cross reference(s)—Land surface modifications, § 22-1091 et seq.; water quality, § 22-1196 et seq.; landscaping, § 22-1561 et seq. Sec. 22-1307. Relocation. (a) Relocation of a stream on the subject property is permitted subject to all of the conditions and restrictions of this section. (b) A proposal to relocate a stream will be reviewed and decided upon using process V in section 22-476 et seq. (c) As part of any request under this section, the applicant must submit a stream relocation plan, prepared by a qualified professional approved by the city, that shows the following: (1) The creation of a natural meander pattern. (2) The formation of gentle side slopes, at least two feet horizontally to one foot vertically, and the installation of erosion control features for stream side slopes. (3) The creation of a narrow subchannel, where feasible, against the south or west bank. (4) The utilization of natural materials, wherever possible. (5) The use of vegetation normally associated with streams, including primarily native riparian vegetation. (6) The creation of spawning and nesting areas, wherever appropriate. (7) The reestablishment of the fish population, wherever feasible. (8) The restoration of water flow characteristics compatible with fish habitat areas, wherever feasible. (9) The filling and revegetation of the prior channel. (10) A proposed phasing plan specifying time of year for all project phases. — 8 — Federal Way City Code Article XIV. Environmentally Sensitive Areas (d) The city will allow a stream to be relocated only if water quality, habitat and stormwater retention capability of the streams will be significantly improved by the relocation. Convenience to the applicant in order to facilitate general site design may not be considered. (e) Prior to diverting water into the new channel, a qualified professional approved by the city shall inspect the new channel following its completion and issue a written report to the director of community development services stating that the channel complies with the requirements of this section. (f) The amount of flow and velocity of the stream may not be increased or decreased as the stream enters or leaves the subject property. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(80.80),2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-105, § 4(80.80),8-20-91; Ord. No. 91-123, § 3(80.80),12-17-91) Sec. 22-1308. Bulkheads. (a) A bulkhead may not be located in or along a stream except as established in this section. (b) A request for a bulkhead in or along the stream will be reviewed and decided upon using process III in section 22-386 et seq. (c) A request to locate a bulkhead in or along the stream will only be granted if the bulkhead is needed to prevent significant erosion and the use of vegetation will not sufficiently stabilize the bank to prevent this erosion. (d) The bulkhead, if permitted, must be designed to minimize the transmittal of water current to other properties. Changes in the horizontal or vertical configuration of the land in or around the stream must be kept to a minimum. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(80.85), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-105, § 4(80.85), 8-20-91; Ord. No. 91-123, § 3(80.85), 12-17-91; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Cross reference(s)—Process III review procedure, § 22-386 et seq.; environmental policy, § 18-26 et seq. Sec. 22-1309. Culverts. (a) Culverts are permitted in streams only if approved under this section. (b) The city will review and decide upon applications under this chapter using process III in section 22-386 et seq. (c) The city will allow a stream to be put in a culvert only if: (1) No significant habitat area will be destroyed; and (2) It is necessary for some reasonable use of the subject property. Convenience to the applicant in order to facilitate general site design will not be considered. The applicant -9- Federal Way City Code Article XIV. Environmentally Sensitive Areas must demonstrate, by submitting alternative site plans showing the stream in an open condition, that no other reasonable site design exists. (d) The culvert must be designed and installed to allow passage of fish inhabiting or using the stream. The culvert must be large enough to accommodate a 100 -year storm. (e) The applicant shall, at all times, keep all culverts on the subject property free of debris and sediment so as to allow free passage of water and, if applicable, fish. The city shall require a bond under section 22-146 et seq. to ensure maintenance of the culvert approved under this section. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(80.90), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-105, § 4(80.90), 8-20-91; Ord. No. 91-123, § 3(80.90), 12-17-91, Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97) Cross reference(s)—Bond procedure, § 22-146 et seq.; process III review procedure, § 22-386 et seq. Sec. 22-1310. Removal of streams from culverts. If development of the subject property requires approval through process I, II or III of this chapter, the city may require the stream to be taken out of the culvert and restored to a natural - like configuration as part of the city's approval of development of the subject property. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(80.95),2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-105, § 4(80.95),8-20-91; Ord. No. 91-123, § 3(80.95),12-17-91) Sec. 22-1311. Rehabilitation. The director of community development services may permit or require the an applicant to rehabilitate or maintain a stream by requiring the removal of detrimental materials such as debris, sentiment sediment and inappropriate vegetation and by requiring the planting of native vegetation. Ainroval of stream rehabilitation shall be based on a review of a plan containing, at a minimum, an analysis of existing conditions identification of the source of the degradation of the stream or riparian zone,- proposed corrective actions, performance standards monitoring schedule, planting plans, andrgrading plans as necessary. The director may require an applicant to retain the services of a qualified fled professional in preparing the restoration plan. These actions may be permitted or required at any time that a condition detrimental to water qualitystabilitV of stream banks_ or habitat exists. Intrusions into regulated steep slopes and associated setbacks will be allowed for purposes of approved stream rehabilitation pr!Qiects. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(80.100),2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-105, § 4(80.100),8-20-91; Ord. No. 91-123, § 3(80.100),12-17-91) Sec. 22-1312. Intrusion into setbacks. (a) Essential public facilities and utilities. The director of community development ,ery ces may permit the placement of an essential public facility or utility 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. - 10 - Federal Way City Code Article XIV. Environmentally Sensitive Areas (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 I based on the following criteria: (1) It will not adversely affect water quality. (2) It will not destroy nor damage a significant habitat area. (3) It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities. (4) It will not lend 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, including the loss of significant open space or scenic vista. (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 land surface modification within stream setback areas only through process H, based on the following criteria: (1) It will not adversely affect water quality. (2) It will not destroy nor damage a significant habitat area. (3) It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities. (4) It will not lend 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 or scenic vista. (6) It is necessary for reasonable development of the subject property. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(80.105),2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-105, § 4(80.105),8-20-91; Ord. No. 91-123, § 3(80.105),12-17-91) Sec. 22-1313. Additional requirements for land surface modification. If any land surface modification is permitted within the stream or stream setback area, the applicant shall comply with the following additional requirements: - 11 - Federal Way City Code Article XIV. Environmentally Sensitive Areas (1) All fill material used must be nondissolving and nondecomposing. The fill material must not contain organic or inorganic material that would be detrimental to water quality or the existing habitat. (2) The applicant may deposit dredge spoils on the subject property only if part of an approved development on the subject property. (3) The applicant shall stabilize all areas left exposed after land surface modification with native vegetation normally associated with the stream or setback area. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(80.110), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-105, § 4(80.110), 8-20-91; Ord. No. 91-123, § 3(80.110), 12-17-91) Secs. 22-1314--22-1330. Reserved. DIVISION 6. REGULATED LAKES Sec. 22-1331. Conformance with division. No structure, improvement nor land surface modification may be constructed or take place within regulated lakes or within setback areas from regulated lakes except as allowed in this article. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(80.115),2-27-90-, Ord. No. 91-105, § 4(80.115),8-20-91; Ord. No. 91-123, § 3(80.115),12-17-91) Sec. 22-1332. Setback areas. All areas landward 25 feet in every direction from the ordinary high-water mark of a regulated lake is within the setback area from a regulated lake. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(80.120), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-105, § 4(80.120), 8-20-91; Ord. No. 91-123, § 3(80.120), 12-17-91) Sec. 22-1333. Activities and improvements waterward of the ordinary high-water mark. This section regulates structures, improvements and activities waterward of the ordinary high-water mark of regulated lakes. (1) Dredging and filling. Except as permitted in conjunction with activities regulated under process III and IV, sections 22-476 et seq. and 22-516 et seq., dredging and filling waterward of the ordinary high-water mark of a regulated lake is prohibited. (2) Structures and improvements. Except as permitted in conjunction with activities regulated under process III and IV, sections 22-476 et seq. and 22-516 et seq., the only structures or improvements that may be located waterward of the ordinary high-water mark of a regulated lake are moorage structures. The city will review and decide upon any proposal for a moorage structure waterward of the ordinary high-water mark using process I. The city may grant a request under this section if the moorage structure is accessory to a dwelling unit or public park on the subject property and no significant —12— Federal Way City Code Article MV Environmentally Sensitive Areas habitat area will be damaged by its construction or use. A moorage structure, if permitted, may not extend waterward further than is reasonably necessary to function properly, but in no event more than 200 feet waterward of the ordinary high-water mark. Moorage structures may not be treated with creosote, oil base or other toxic substances. The top of the moorage structure may not be more than two feet above the ordinary high-water mark. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(80.125), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-105, § 4(80.125), 8-20-91; Ord. No. 91-123, § 3(80.125), 12-17-91) Sec. 22-1334. Activities and improvements within the required setback areas from regulated lakes. No structure, improvement nor land surface modification may be located or take place within the setback area from a regulated lake except as allowed in this section. (1) Landscaping and land surface modification. Except as otherwise specifically permitted in this section, the setback area from a regulated lake may not be covered with an impervious surface. Installation and maintenance of normal residential or park -like landscaping may take place within the required setback area, provided that no fertilizers, pesticides or other chemicals or substances are applied within the setback area that will degrade water quality or hasten eutrophication of the lake. Land surface modification beyond installation and maintenance of normal residential or park -like landscaping may only be permitted within the setback area if approved through process I based on the following criteria: a. The proposed land surface modification is necessary for the reasonable use of the subject property. b. The land surface modification will not increase or decrease the size of the regulated lake. c. The land surface modification will not change the points where any water enters or leaves the subject property nor in any way change drainage patterns to or from adjacent properties. d. The proposed land surface modification will not be detrimental to water quality or habitats in or around the lake. (2) Minor structures and improvements. Minor improvements such as walkways, benches, platforms for storage of small boats and small storage lockers for paddles, oars, life preservers and similar boating equipment may be located within the setback area if approved by the director of community de-velopmcirt development services based on the following criteria: a. The minor improvement will not adversely affect water quality. - 13 - Federal Way City Code Article XIV. Environmentally Sensitive Areas b. The minor improvement will not destroy nor damage a significant habitat area. The minor improvement will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities. d. The minor improvement will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor to the city as a whole, including the loss of significant open space or scenic vistas. (3) Essential public facilities and utilities. The director of community development services may permit the placement of an essential public facility or utility in the setback area 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. (4) Other intrusions: a. Where the properties immediately abutting the subject property have dwelling units which extend into the setback area, the applicant may construct a dwelling unit on the subject property that extends into this setback area to the extent permitted in subsection b. of this section. b. Where subsection a. of this section applies, the dwelling unit on the subject property may be no closer to the ordinary high-water mark of the regulated lake than the average of the distance of the two dwelling units on the properties immediately abutting the subject property. If one of the properties immediately abutting the subject property does not contain a dwelling unit or the dwelling unit on that abutting property is more than 25 feet from the ordinary high-water mark of the regulated lake, the setback of the dwelling unit on that lot will be presumed to be 25 feet for the purposes of calculating the permissible location for the dwelling unit on the subject property under this section. (5) Revegetation. The applicant shall stabilize all areas left exposed after land surface modification with appropriate vegetation. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(80.130),2-27-90; Ord. No. 90-79, § 5,12-18-90; Ord. No. 91-105, § 4(80.130),8-20-91; Ord. No. 91-123, § 3(80.130),12-17-91) Sec. 22-1335. Rehabilitation. The director of community development services may permit or require the applicant to rehabilitate or maintain a regulated lake by requiring the removal of detrimental materials such as debris, sediment and inappropriate vegetation and by requiring the planting of native vegetation. - 14 - Federal Way City Code Article XIV. Environmentally Sensitive Areas These actions may be permitted or required at any time that a condition detrimental to water quality or habitat exists. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(80,135),2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-105, § 4(80.135),8-20-91; Ord. No. 91-123, § 3(80.135),12-17-91) Sec. 22-1336. Bulkheads. (a) General. A bulkhead is permitted within or adjacent to a regulated lake subject to the provisions of this section. (b) Required permit. The city will review and decide upon an application under this section using process I. (c) Criteria. The city may permit a bulkhead to be constructed only if. (1) The bulkhead is needed to prevent significant erosion. (2) The use of vegetation will not sufficiently stabilize the shoreline to prevent the significant erosion. (d) Design features. A bulkhead may not be located between a regulated lake and a wetland. Changes in the horizontal or vertical configuration of the land must be kept to a minimum. The bulkhead must be designed to minimize the transmittal of wave energy to other properties. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(80.140),2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-105, § 4(80.140),8-20-91; Ord. No. 91-123, § 3(80.140),12-17-91) Cross reference(s)—Process I review criteria, § 22-386 et seq. Secs. 22-1337--22-1355. Reserved. DIVISION 7. REGULATED WETLANDS Sec. 22-1356. Determination of wetland and regulated wetland. (a) Generally. This section contains procedures and criteria for determining whether an area is defined as a regulated wetland under this chapter. (b) Evaluation. If the city determines that a wetland may exist on or within 100 feet the subject property, the director of community development ,services shall require the applicant to submit a wetland report prepared by a qualified professional approved by the city, that includes the following information. The director of community development services shall use this information to determine if the area is a regulated wetland and, if so, the precise boundaries of that regulated wetland. (1) An evaluation of the area in question based on the definitions in this chapter of "regulated wetland." - 15 - Federal Way City Code Article XIV. Environmentally Sensitive Areas (2) An overview of the methodology used to conduct the study. (3) A description of the wetland, including a map identifying the edge of the wetland and plant communities and detailed description of the method used to identify the wetland edge. (4) The wetland classification (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service "Classification of Wetlands and Deep Water Habitats in the U.S."). (5) A list of observed plant and wildlife species, using both scientific and common names, and a description of their relative abundance. (6) A list of potential plant or animal species based on signs or other observation. (7) An evaluation and assessment of the existing or potential functions and values of the wetland based on the following factors: surface water control; wildlife habitat; pollution and erosion control; groundwater exchange; open space and aesthetic contrast; and recreational, educational and cultural opportunities. 1 �. - - ! - 1 • !! 1 • - . - e !. • 1 1 - ! • ! - • - It - • 1- M. • • !! - ! 110, ! - 1 , !t' - • -1 ♦/ ! ! ' 1 - 1 -� 1 !_! - -1 • • 1- 11 1 . 1 1 • 1 1 / 1 • - Il t 1 • ! 1 ' 1 ' •{ Me ♦ - ._1 1 1 1 " 1I I V Z, 4 tel i 1 �. 1 • 1 • 1 . 1 • - 1 . / ' 1 1 ' • !. 1 !. • ! e. •! ri. - • 1 . ! . • - •• MM.11 _1 ! !� :1.11'1 11 •- •! 1' 1... 1 ST -M. 50 MoMeNTF.TiMaKTUT M-ein, !' 1 !.. • ♦ 1 • � - • 1 - 1 • • ! 1. - 1 / - 11 � 1 • !L • . •MINEM.! 1 — 16 — 1 0216-111911 ••.11 • •! .� • ! !41 • ._••• !• •! • 1 �. - - ! - 1 • !! 1 • - . - e !. • 1 1 - ! • ! - • - It - • 1- M. • • !! - ! 110, ! - 1 , !t' - • -1 ♦/ ! ! ' 1 - 1 -� 1 !_! - -1 • • 1- 11 1 . 1 1 • 1 1 / 1 • - Il t 1 • ! 1 ' 1 ' •{ Me ♦ - ._1 1 1 1 " 1I I V Z, 4 tel i 1 �. 1 • 1 • 1 . 1 • - 1 . / ' 1 1 ' • !. 1 !. • ! e. •! ri. - • 1 . ! . • - •• MM.11 _1 ! !� :1.11'1 11 •- •! 1' 1... 1 ST -M. 50 MoMeNTF.TiMaKTUT M-ein, !' 1 !.. • ♦ 1 • � - • 1 - 1 • • ! 1. - 1 / - 11 � 1 • !L • . •MINEM.! 1 — 16 — Federal Way City Code Article XIV. Environmentally Sensitive Areas The director finds that limited ecological functions and values do not warrant application of the city's wetland regulations. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(80.145),2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-105, § 4(80.145),8-20-91; Ord. No. 91-123, § 3(80.145),12-17-91) Environmental policy, § 18-26 et seq. Sec. 22-1357. Setback are Wetland classifications and standard buffers. Q ! •�r !1[!.. ,. - � •, - 1, 1 /1 � - l�.y! 1 ;. •. ; 1• 11 -- • 1 - • �1 - • • • • •1- • •1. 1 •1- .e Are conthwous•/ 1 water bodies or R 1 •..R." to water bodif,% • 1 1 unde 1• R11 1! 1. 1 1• 1 1• R 1 1 •• 1 • 1 includineatreams where flow is intermittent; 1 �_ • i, i• UM 1" 1 m war, • 1♦ 1 ••11_ 1• 1.1 1• 1 1 i • I ! r 1, 1 11 I 1 ! , , 11 1 • 1• MR1_ • • 1 , _ • _ - • • ,IRTIM 1 17 - To M • 1_ 11 �- • . IV TT • • • • •1- • •1. 1 •1- .e Are conthwous•/ 1 water bodies or R 1 •..R." to water bodif,% • 1 1 unde 1• R11 1! 1. 1 1• 1 1• R 1 1 •• 1 • 1 includineatreams where flow is intermittent; 1 �_ • i, i• UM 1" 1 m war, • 1♦ 1 ••11_ 1• 1.1 1• 1 1 i • I ! r 1, 1 11 I 1 ! , , 11 1 • 1• MR1_ • • 1 , _ • _ - • • ,IRTIM 1 17 - Federal Way City Code Article XIV. Environmentally Sensitive Areas !!. • MMM.ToreFroroMrs!e. • �' !" • !! ! �•• 1.1 •!.- !.• (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 c4 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. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(80.150),2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-105, § 4(80.150),8-20-91; Ord. No. 91-123, § 3(80.150),12-17-91) Sec. 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. (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 services may permit or require the applicant to rehabilitate and maintain a regulated wetland by removing detrimental material - 19 - Federal Way City Code Article XIV. Environmentally Sensitive Areas 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 council may approve any request to locate an improvement or engage in land surface modification within a regulated wetland using process III. 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 III shall be based on the following criteria: (1) It will not adversely affect water quality. (2) It will not destroy nor damage a significant habitat 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 or scenic vista. (6) 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 make 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. -20- Federal Way City Code Article XIV. Environmentally Sensitive Areas d. Timing. e. Monitoring program for a minimum of five years. f. Contingency plan. g. Performance bonding in an amount of 120 percent of the costs of implementing each of the above elements. (2) Mitigation. Mitigation of wetland impacts shall be restricted to on-site restoration, creation or enhancement of in-kind wetland type which 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 replacement ratio. The following are minimum restoration, creation or enhancement ratios for various impacted wetland areas. The first number of the ratio specifies the acreage of wetland requiring replacement and the second specifies the acreage of wetlands impacted. a. For areas with documented habitat for endangered or threatened plant, fish, or animal species; natural heritage wetland sites; regionally rare wetland communities with irreplaceable ecological functions; or wetlands of exceptional local significance the replacement ratio shall be a minimum of 6:1. b. For forested wetlands with at least 20 percent of the surface area covered by woody vegetation greater than 20 feet in height the replacement ratio shall be a minimum of 3:1. For scrub -shrub wetlands with at least 30 percent of its surface covered by woody vegetation less than 20 feet in height as the uppermost strata the replacement ratio shall be 2:1. d. For emergent wetlands with at least 30 percent of the surface area covered by erect, rooted, herbaceous vegetation as the uppermost vegetative strata the replacement ratio shall be 1.5:1. e. The replacement ratio for all other wetlands shall be 1.25:1. The above replacement ratios may be increased or decreased based on the following criteria: a. Probable success of the proposed mitigation. b. Projected losses in function or value. -21- Federal Way City Code Article XIV. Environmentally Sensitive Areas 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, except monitoring, shall be completed and accepted by the director of community development services prior to beginning activities that will disturb regulated wetlands, and 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 services stating that the project complies with requirements of the mitigation plan, and to conduct and report to the director on the status of the monitoring program. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(80.155),2-27-90; Ord. No. 90-79, § 6,12-18-90; Ord. No. 91-105, § 4(80.155),8-20-91-, Ord. No. 91-123, § 3(80.155),12-17-91) Sec. 22-1359. Structures, improvements and land surface modification within the setback areas from regulated wetlands. (a) Generally. Except as allowed in this section, no land surface modification may take place and no structure or improvement may be located within the setback area from a regulated wetland. (b) Essential public facilities and utility. The director of community development services may permit the placement of an essential public facility or utility in a setback area from a regulated wetland if he or she determines that the line or improvement must traverse the setback area 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 setback area must constitute the minimum necessary encroachment to meet the requirements of the public facility or utility. (c) Minor improvements. Minor improvements such as footbridges, walkways and benches may be located within the setback area from a regulated wetland if approved through process I based on the following criteria: (1) It will not adversely affect water quality. (2) It will not destroy nor damage a significant habitat 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. - 22 - Federal Way City Code Article XIV Environmentally Sensitive Areas (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 or scenic vista. (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 the setback area from a regulated wetland through process H, based on the following criteria: (1) It will not adversely affect water quality. (2) It will not destroy nor damage a significant habitat 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 or scenic vista. (6) It is necessary for reasonable development of the subject property. (e) Revegetation. The applicant shall stabilize all areas left exposed after land surface modification with native vegetation normally associated with the setback area. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(80.160),2-27-90-, Ord. No. 90-79, § 7,12-18-90; Ord. No. 91-105, § 4(80.160),8-20-91; Ord. No. 91-123, § 3(80.160), 12-17-91) Secs. 22-1360--22-1368. Reserved. DIVISION 8. REGULATED WELL HEADS Sec. 22-1369. Criteria. Any well constructed after March 1, 1990, must comply with the siting criteria of WAC ch. 173-160. Any improvement or use on the subject property erected or engaged in after March 1, 1990, must comply with the requirements in WAC ch. 173-160 regarding separation of wells from sources of pollution. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(80.70), 2-27-90) Secs. 22-1370--22-1375. Reserved. 1ADOCUMENTNZONESAWPD - 23 - CITY OF FEDERAL WAY Planning Commission DATE: December 17, 1997 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROBERT VAUGHAN, CHAIR SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION - ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS I. BACKGROUND The Federal Way Comprehensive Plan contains goals and policies that provide for the protection of environmentally sensitive areas as required under growth management. The sensitive areas regulations under review at this time have to do with wetlands and streams. Currently, the City's wetland regulations provide no distinction between wetland types and their function. All wetlands have a required buffer of 100 feet regardless of size or functional value. The comprehensive plan states that the City shall develop a tiered wetland rating system, with appropriate buffers and mechanisms for buffer width modifications. The existing definitions for streams do not provide enough distinction between naturally occurring water courses and those constructed as surface drainage facilities. The definition of major and minor streams are worded such that nearly every stream regardless of its circumstances would be given major stream status, with a required 100 foot buffer. Staff has identified this situation as potentially over -regulating certain stream segments. City staff has also identified several provisions within the environmentally sensitive areas regulations for review and possible amendments. The intent is to further the City's goal of no net loss of sensitive areas and their environmental functions, while allowing for reasonable development of private property. II. PLANNING COMMISSION PROCESS The Planning Commission held public hearings on September 3, October 1, November 19, and December 5, 1997. Members of the Planning Commission and the City's consultant toured wetland sites on September 14, 1997. The City's consultant and City staff provided the Commission with an overview of issues and draft 1 regulatory provisions. The hearings were attended by several members of the public, four wetland specialists representing private interests, and the City's environmental consultant. Written testimony was provided by the attendees. The hearings were devoted to a section -by -section review of the recommended regulatory language contained in the August 21, 1997 consultant staff report and subsequent amendments. The City's consultant and City staff have prepared draft sensitive areas regulation amendments. The drafts are attached to this document. III. SUMMARY OF AMENDMENTS The following list summarize the major code amendments reviewed by the Commission during this code revision process. 1. A three tiered wetland rating system is proposed with the following major features: a. Wetlands less than 2,500 square feet are not regulated. b. Category I wetlands are given a standard buffer width of 200 feet. C. Category II wetlands are given a standard buffer width of 100 feet. d. Category III wetlands are given a standard buffer width of 50 feet if they are greater than 10,000 square feet in area, and a 25 foot buffer width if they are between 2,500 and 10,000 square feet. 2. Standard wetland buffers may be modified on a case-by-case basis. Buffer widths may be modified by: a. Buffer width reduction under certain criteria; b. Buffer width averaging under certain criteria; and C. Buffer width increases under certain criteria (note: see attachments) 3. Drainage facilities are defined and excluded from wetland regulations. 4. The definition of a regulated wetland has been updated to conform to recent State amendments and the proposed three tiered rating system. 5. The definition of stream has been amended to exclude constructed drainage facilities and a greater distinction has been made between major and minor streams. 2 6. Provisions have been added to allow for intrusion into stream and steep slope setback areas for the purpose of stream rehabilitation. 7. The reasonable use exception provision for previously platted single family lots has been changed from Process III requirements to a Process I, making it less burdensome on homeowners to utilize their properties. IV. PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Commission bases its recommendation of adoption of the proposed amendments to the FWCC relative to environmentally sensitive areas based on the following findings: 1. Whereas, the City's environmentally sensitive areas are an important feature to the City's character and quality of life; and 2. Whereas, selected existing sensitive areas regulations do not provide flexible enough approaches between environmental protection and property development; and 3. Whereas, the proposed amendments are consistent with the provisions of the Natural Environment chapter of the Comprehensive Plan including the following: NEP25- The city should adopt stream definitions that are reflective of stream function and habitat. The definitions should make distinction between manmade conveyance systems and natural streams. NEP26- The City shall consider implementing a tiered wetland classification system based on wetland functions and values. The wetland classification system would set forth the appropriate wetland buffer widths. Furthermore, any new wetland classification system should also contain provision for allowing buffer width averaging. As a reference point, the City should consider the classification system and protection measures contained in the Department of Ecology's Model Wetlands Ordinance. NEP42- The City will protect wetlands by maximizing infiltration opportunities and promoting the conservation of forest cover and native vegetation. NEP43- Wetlands created 3 as a result of surface or stormwater detention facility should not be considered wetlands for regulatory purposes. Special regulations concerning these facilities should be developed; and 4. Whereas, a February 1992 report entitled, "Wetland Buffers: Use and Effectiveness" by Department of Ecology states: * "Buffers of less than 50 feet in width are generally ineffective in protecting wetlands. * In western Washington, wetlands with important wildlife functions should have 200 to 300 foot buffers based on land use. * Buffer widths effective in preventing significant water quality impacts to wetlands are generally 100 feet or greater"; and 5. Whereas, a February 1992 report entitled, "Buffer Needs of Wetland Wildlife" by the Department of Wildlife states that "To retain wetland dependent wildlife in important wildlife areas, buffers need to retain plant structure for a minimum of 200-300 feet beyond the wetland; and 6. Whereas, the Federal Way SEPA responsible official has issued a Declaration of Nonsignificance on May 5, 1997; and 7. Whereas, the proposed code amendments would not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare. Robert Vaughan, Cha' Federal Way Plannin Commission 19 [Orss ON XH/%Zl ZO:ZT Ial L6/ZZ/80 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY DATE APPLICANT PROPOSED ACTION STAFF REPRESENTATIVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION I. INTRODUCTION Planning Commission August 21, 1997 City of Federal Way Code Updates to Chapter 22, Article XIV of Federal Way City Code (Environmentally Sensitive Areas) Don Largen, AICP Planning Consultant McConnell/Burke, Inc. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission use the analysis and recommendations contained in this report as basis upon which to develop a recommendation of proposed amendments and updates to the Environmentally Sensitive Areas portion of the City's code for City Council consideration, Amendments and updates to the Environmentally Sensitive Areas portion of the City code have been identified by the Planning Commission for review during its 1997 work program. Specifically, these items include: * A wetland classification system + A review of techniques for flexible sensitive area buffers + A review of stream definitions relative to artificial watercourses * A general review of existing sensitive area code with respect to the City's code updates relative to regulatory reform, and recent changes in State and Federal regulations and guidelines. II. BACKGROUND In December 1991 the City adopted environmentally sensitive areas regulations pursuant to the requirements of the Growth Management Act. Among other things the -In I Rq : i T i m 4) R -7.7. -gnu [OV29 ON n/%Z] ZO=ZT IHJ L6/ZZ/80 regulations define what the different types of sensitive areas are (e.g. wetlands, steep slopes) and establishes a fixed buffer width for each type. Buffers are the primary tool used to control development activities Involving sensitive areas. City staff identified two sets of code deficiencies for Council consideration in 1993. The first has to do with the use of a single buffer width for all wetlands. This approach does not allow for differences in intensity of development or variations in wetland types. The second deficiency lies in how streams are defined. Currently, some artificial watercourses get regulated based on the definition of stream, which was not the intent of the original regulations. In January 1995 City staff outlined three alternatives for four specific items in the sensitive areas code and identified a preferred alternative for each. This outline is provided as Attachment W for your review at the end of this report. Our current effort builds on the work previously done by City staff. We have provided a discussion of the issues and alternatives prepared by staff. Where appropriate we have added/altered these recommendations. 111111. ISSUE IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS Sensitive areas regulations are intended to protect those elements of the environment that provide important ecological and aesthetic functions or those that if disturbed could pose a threat to public safety and welfare. In a significantly developed urban setting such as Federal Way this can be a challenge. It is important that regulations be flexible enough to recognize the largely built nature of the community while providing meaningful protection of the community's environmental resources. For a sensitive area regulation to be effective for a particular community there needs to be appropriate definitions of what it is that is being protected. A definition that is too broad can have the unintended consequence of regulating projects that do not have a critical environmental component, This appears to be the case with the existing definition of streams, which is discussed later. An effective sensitive area regulation will also anticipate qualitative differences in the specific environmental features to be protected and in the nature of development projects. This is why a majority of environmental regulations utilize classification systems in conjunction with a specific regulatory tool (e.g. buffers) where a higher class of sensitive area will require a higher level of protection. Many such regulatory approaches will include a mechanism that allows for the consideration of different types and intensity of development. Buffers are one of the most commonly used regulatory tools in protecting sensitive areas and are also one of the easiest to administer. A buffer is not just simply a measured setback distance. Buffers necessarily include retention of the vegetation, 2 Qr` . T T T 11 J ) a_77_nnu [Orss ON IH/%Z] ZO=ZT Isd L6/ZZ/80 landforms, and other natural features within the buffer area. In many cases these features may require enhancement in order for the buffer to be effective. The purpose of a buffer is to keep human activities and their impacts out of the protected area to the extent possible. For wetlands the best scientific evidence we have seen suggests that buffer widths of less than 50 feet are generally not particularly effective in mitigating against human activities; although in some limited cases buffer area enhancement measures (e.g. denser plant materials) can allow functional buffer widths of 25 feet. At the other end buffers in excess of 300 feet provide only a marginal increase in effectiveness, since most (90% - 95%) of pollutants, sediment, etc. are removed in the first 100 to 300 feet of buffer area, depending on type and intensity of surrounding land uses, topography, and other factors. Besides removing chemicals and pollutants from the water and soil buffers are also intended to function as a natural barrier to physical disturbances. It is tempting to think that less intense land uses have less of an impact and therefore should be required to have less of a buffer. In fact it is not that straight forward. For example, a single family subdivision is likely to have a greater potential impact on a sensitive area than a similarly sized office development. This is due to activities such as dumping of yard wastes, application of pesticides and fertilizers, trampling of plants and stream banks, and predation by pets. Pets are particularly troublesome for wildlife habitat. Dense buffers can significantly reduce impacts from such physical disturbances. A. WETLAND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM The City's existing wetland regulations define what constitutes a wetland and then sets a standard 100 foot wide buffer requirement for all wetland types. This is a rather blunt tool since there is no real consideration of the qualitative differences between wetlands or types of development. in some cases this can mean burdensome protective measures for minor projects next to marginal wetlands and not enough protection for high quality wetlands in other cases. A wetland classification system provides a means to more effectively match the level of protection to the type and quality of wetland involved. Pages A-1 and A-2 of Attachment 'A' provides three alternative classification systems identified by City staff. Classification systems used in this state typically define three or four classes of wetlands. How each class is defined is important. The definitions should reflect the range of local wetland conditions, have a clear distinction between classes, and be broad enough so that it includes all the wetland types to be regulated. Definitions generally describe particular attributes associated with the wetland class being defined and will often have a size component. However, over -reliance on the size of a wetland (i.e, giving greater protection based predominantly on greater area) can result in inadequate protection for smaller, high quality wetlands. Each class of wetland is then assigned a required protective buffer width. The higher the quality or function of the class of wetland the wider the required buffer. Buffers 3 nn.-jT Tui ie_�7_nnu [Orss ON XU/%Z] ZO=ZT IHJ L6/ZZ/80 used by Washington Counties and Cities range from 25 feet to 300 feet. The Department of Ecology (WSDOE) model utilizes buffer widths that also take into consideration the surrounding development by requiring a different buffer widths adjacent to low and high intensity land uses. We have reviewed the Preferred Alternative 1 suggested by City staff in Attachment A and have compared it to the other two alternatives shown and to other classification systems we are familiar with. All wetlands are afforded some level of protection under Alternative 1 as is the case with the City's existing regulations. Alternative 1 defines three classes of wetlands. The descriptions appear to be consistent with the range of wetland types that may be found in Federal Way, although this is a rough assessment Since there is only a partial inventory of wetlands available for the City. In particular, proposed Category 1 (200 foot buffer) and Category 2 (100 foot buffer) wetlands appear to include the larger and the higher quality wetland areas that are presently known, and afford the same or higher protection as current City regulations, Category 3 (50 foot buffer) wetlands are those that do not meet the definition of the other two. This also appears appropriate since this latter category of wetlands is likely to be isolated wetlands that include a wide range of circumstances relative to previous development activity and localized natural features. However, we suggest two substantive changes to the Alternative 1 recommendations. First, paragraph 'c' for Category 2 wetlands limits this level of protection for wetlands of less than one acre to those exhibiting three or more wetland classes, one of which would be a forested class. We are concerned that this may not capture some smaller, quality wetlands. We are recommending that this portion of the classification be changed to eliminate the forested wetland class requirement and make the number of classes two rather than three. Second, there is no minimum size limit for regulated wetlands, which means that virtually every wetland is regulated regardless of size or functional value. Various agencies that have permitting authority over wetland areas, including the Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Ecology, Department of Natural Resources, all allow the alteration and/or fill of very small, functionally isolated wetlands that are of marginal environmental value. We recommend that Category 3 wetlands have a minimum size established at 2,500 square feet. What this would mean is that: a) all Category 1 wetlands would be regulated regardless of size, b) all Category 2 wetlands would be regulated regardless of size, and c) Category 3 wetlands would be regulated if they are over 2,500 square feet in area. In effect, if a wetland is not a Category 1 or 2, and is less than 2,500 square feet, then it would not be regulated. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the wetland classification system Alternative I proposed by City staff shown In Attachment 'A' of this report, with the following changes: 4 T n. -2T T V J l e_77_I1nU [Orss ON XH/%.i] ZO:ZT Ilu L6/ZZ/80 1) Add the word "or" to the end of paragraph 'a.' in the Category 1 and 2 descriptions. 2) Change paragraph 'b.' In Category 1 from "..., bogs, (Le, peat land) fens, ..," to read " .... peat bogs and fens, ...", 3) Change paragraph 'c.' In Category 2 from "..., and having three or more wetland classes, which have a forested wetland class" to "..., and having two or more wetland classes.' 4) Change Category 3 from "a, do not contain features outlined in categories 1 or 2." to "a. do not exhibit those characteristics outlined in categories 1 and 2; and b. are greater than 2,500 square feet in area." B. FLEXIBLE SENSITIVE AREAS BUFFERS A wetland classification system bases protective measures (i.e. buffer widths) on the class of wetland being protected. However, this approach by itself does not take into consideration differing localized conditions, such as topography or the type of surrounding land uses, The impacts from a particular project may not be evenly distributed, as in the placement of structures on the site, or may have a directional component such as prevailing drainage patterns. In these types of situations it may be appropriate to alter the basic buffer requirement. Two approaches are suggested by City staff. One is buffer averaging and the other is criteria for increasing the basic buffer width. Buffer averaging maintains the same total required buffer area , but allows reductions in buffer width at specific points surrounding the sensitive area in question. The idea is that the buffer may be adjusted to extend protection to that part of the site most sensitive and allow for a reduction where the immediate project impacts are less. This introduces flexibility and can accommodate differences in site specific circumstances. Page A-3 of Attachment 'A' shows three alternatives for buffer averaging. There may be situations where an increased buffer over the basic requirement is necessary to offset the Impacts of development. A number of communities provide a responsible official (e.g. planning director) with the ability to require wider buffers if the project and/or sensitive area meet a set list of criteria. These criteria are generally stated in terms of the inability of a standard buffer to adequately protect some feature of the local environment. Page A-4 of Attachment 'A' shows three alternatives for increasing buffer widths on a case by case basis. Alternative 2 for both buffer averaging and increasing buffers does not supply specific enough review criteria and does not require a demonstration that the standard buffer would be inadequate. Rather, the sole criteria seems to be proximity to a sensitive area. This could be viewed as giving to much discretion to an administrative process. 5 Tn-;T Tina ia_77_nnu W99 ON YU/111 ZO:Zi IIH L6/ZZ/80 Alternative 3 on pages A-3 and A-4 appears to utilize criteria that would be appropriate for less developed communities and counties. It employs references to specific types of habitats and local conditions that may not apply in Federal Way, Alternative 1 on pages A-3 and A-4 have been drafted in terms that appear to be more specific to Federal Way and that provide more specific direction and criteria as to when and how these two provisions are used. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Alternative 1 for sensitive area buffer averaging and Alternative 1 for additional sensitive area buffers as presented on pages A-3 and A-4 of Attachment 'A' of this report. C. STREAM DEFINITION The issue here is that the current definition of stream does not provide a clear distinction between naturally occurring watercourses (including those that may have been altered) and those constructed for purposes of drainage and storm water control. This may have the unintended consequence of requiring buffers for conveyances that are not actually associated with a sensitive area. The existing definition is provided below: Existing Definitions Stream shall mean a course or route, formed by nature, including those modified by man, and generally consisting of a channel with a bed, banks or sides throughout substantially all its length, along which surface waters naturally and normally flow in draining from higher to lower elevations. Major streatn shall mean any stream, and the tributaries to any stream, which contains or supports, or under normal circumstances contains or supports a local or migratory fish population. Setback: 100 feet Minor stream shall mean any stream that does not meet the definition of major stream. Setback: SO feet Pages A-5 and A-6 of Attachment `A' provides four alternative sets of stream definitions. All four alternatives provide a distinction between artificial watercourses used purely for drainage/irrigation and natural watercourses. All four maintain the existing setback distances for major and minor streams. Alternative 3 adds a third category of stream that is specific to artificial watercourses. Alternative 4 provides a rather exhaustive definition of stream that may not be strictly necessary if the issue is simply to distinguish between types of watercourses. Alternatives 2 and 3 include language that seems to provide the ability to define certain drainage courses as 'streams' if at some future date hydrological analysis predicts formation of a permanent channel. However, there is no guidance provided as to who 1.9 ?n ! z r l M a l A-2?.-nnu [Orgy OH %2i/%ZI Zo=ZT Iua L6/ZZ/80 would make this determination or under what circumstances such a determination would be triggered. Alternative 1 appears to be the most straight forward in terms of striking a balance between what constitutes a'stream` versus an 'artificial watercourse'. However, it is still somewhat ambiguous regarding regulated streams that have portions of their channels in culverts. To address this we have provided a modified version of Alternative 1 for our recommendation, RECOMMENDATION: Update the City's definition of stream to read as follows: Stream shall mean a course or route, formed by nature, including those which have been modified by man, and generally consisting of a channel with a bed, banks or sides throughout substantially all its length, along which surface waters naturally and noninalIy flow in draining from higher to Iower elevations. A stream need not contain watet year round. In a devclollin s�, ett!Dg streams may tun in -culverts or are channeled in a concrete rock or oder artificial convtyance systems. This definition is not meant to include irrigation ditches canals. surface water runoff facilities or other Artificial watcrc uo rses unless uwd by a local or miMiory fish ponulatinn Qr was construQjgd to convey streams which eRtisted prior to cgnstruction of S ie watercourse. D. CONSISTENCY REVIEW We have reviewed the City's environmentally sensitive areas regulations for consistency with other City codes and recent State amendments. As a result of this review we suggest the following updates. RECOMMENDATION: Modify the following code sections; 1) Chapter 22, Article I, Definitions - Regulated Wetland. Update the definition as shown below: Regulated wetlands shall mean those areas that are Inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas, with the exception of the following areas shown in the King County Wetlands Inventory Notebook, Volume 3 South: (1) Lower Puget Sound Beach; (2) Lower Puget Sound 1 and 51; and 7 .nn -, 7n , 7 T T }I4 1 R-7Y..-nnu [O1+SS ON XH/%Zl ZO=ZT IHJ L6/ZZ/80 (3) Areas defined as a regulated lake. Methodology in the faf Identifyi ds and March 19$7 Washinaton State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Department of Ecoloav publication #96-941 as sti0ulated in WAC 173-22- 060 will be used for regulatory delineations of wetlands within the City, Although a site specific wetland may not meet the criteria described above, it will be considered a regulated wetland if it is functionally related to another wetland that meets the criteria. 2) The following sections of Chapter 22, Article XIV contain references to the review processes in place prior to the regulatory reform updates recently approved by Council. These sections should be updated to reflect the current review process framework Section 22-1241 Section 22-1244 Section 22-1307 through Section 22-10 Section 22-1312 Section 22-1333 Section 22-1358 V. CONCLUSION The above recommendations should provide a better balance between the protection of the City's environmental resources and the continued development and redevelopment of the City. The addition of a wetland classification system, the ability to use flexible buffer and setback requirements, and updated definitions should result in more effoetive and predictable environmental regulations. Environmental regulatory tools should be reviewed periodically to ensure they are providing effective protective measures and are responsive to changes in the City's development context. 8 Cn-7T TNJJ )a_77_nnu [OtSS ON %2I/%11 ZO=ZT IHJ LO/ZZ/80 ATTACHMENT A 1995 CrrY STAiFF OuTIjNE WETLAND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS A-1 r•n.77t tM_t re » nnu Preferred Alternative 1 (Federal Wa suiff proposal 1995) AIternative 2 (King County sensitive area ordinance) Alternative 3 (WSDOE model wetlands protection ordinance Category 1 a. presence of species or documented a presence of species recognized by a. documented habitat for endangered wednnds habitat recognized by state or federal the federal goverulneviit of Shite of or threatened plant. Gsh, or animal agencies as endangered, threatened or Washington as endangered, or species or for potentially extirpated potentiidly extirpated plant, fish or threatened, or the presence of critical or plant species recognized by state or animal species; outstanding potential habitat for those federal agencies; species; b. presence of plant assuciations of b. high quality native regulated infrequent occurrence, irreplaceable b. forty to sixty percent open water in wcdand cointnunitias, including ecological functions, or exceptional dispersed patches with two or more documcnrcd category t or 11 quality local significance including but not classes of vegetation; Natural Heritage wcrinnd sites and Silts limited to eatuarine systems, hogs, --(Lek which qualify as a category I or II treat --land] ocat bugs _and fens, mature c, equal to or greater than ton acres in quality Natural Heritage wetland; forested wetlands, groundwater size and having three or more wetland exchange areas. significant habitat or classes, one of which is open water, or, C. high quality, roglonally fart unique educational sites; or. regulated wetland communities with d. the presence of plant associations of ir-replamrible ecological functions, c. having three or more wetland classes infrequent occurrence including but not including sphagnum bogs and fens, one of which is open water- limited to estuarine systems and bogs, estuarine wetlands, or mature forested swamps; or, d, exceptional local significance [-NOTE: local agency needs to develop locul significance criteria (i.e. rarity, groundwater recharge areas, significant habitats, unique educational sites, etc.)] .............................................................................................._ bu[1t r 200 feCt ................................................ ...... 115 feet .......................... -.......................................... high intensity 3W feet low intensity 200 feet Category 2 a. contiguous with water bodies or a, greater than one acre in size in its it. documented habitats for sensitive Welland triburnries to water bodies which under entirety,. plant, fish or aninial ►pccicc recognized nonnal circumstances contain or by federal or state agencies; support a fish population, including b. less than or equal to one acre in size sit -cams where flow is intcriniucnt;„pa in its entirety and having three or more b. regionally rare wcdand ewmmunitics wetland classes; with irreplaceable ecological tUnetions, b. greater than one acs: is size in its including sphagnum bogs and fens, entirety: or. c. less than or equal to one acre in size estuarine werlatids, or mature forested in its entirety and having a forested swamps, which are not high quality; c. less than or equal to une acre in size wetland class or, in its entirety and having threelbro or c. signtficant functions which may not more wclliuxl classes-whiels-have it d. have present heron rookeries or be adequately replicated through ft?fe.L I-wekland-class. raptor nesting trees. creation or rewuration, such as significant peat systems, forested swamps (excluding monotypic stands of red alder), and significant spring fed systems; d, significant habitat value based on diversity and size; e. contiguous with fish bearing waters, including streams where flow is intermittent; or, f. significant use by fish acrd wildlife. ............................. btifl'er ...................................................................... 100 feet ............................................................................................................................................... 65 feet high intensity 200 feet low intensity 100 feet A-1 r•n.77t tM_t re » nnu 1092 ON YE/Y11 ZO=ZT Im LUZZ/90 NiTAC:HMENT A 1995 CITY STAFF OUTLINE WETLAND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS (CONT) A-2 4,r1.7t TV -1 10._77_nnu Preferred Alternative 1 (Federal Way staff ro o."I 1995) Alternative 2 (King County sensitive arca ordinance) Alternative 3 (WSDOE model wetlands Protection ordinance) Catcgtrry 3 a. do not ee nnt►n cxhib tush lrttker. a. less than ur equal to one acre in size a. du not contain features vutlincd in wedands lam' 1+ outlined in categories l in its entirety and having two or fewer categories 1, 2 or 4. or 2-_aEKI wetland classes. b. are greater than 2.500 sapare feet in area. .............. ...................................................................................... buCfcl' 50 feet .............. .................. .......... _......... _.......... .... 40 feet ....... ................................................ I............... high intensity 100 Ilea low inteiWty 50 feet Cntcgory 4 None None at isolated werland that is less than or wetlands equal to one acre in size in its entim-ty. have only one wetland class, and have only one dominant plant Species (monotypic vegetation); or, b. isolated wetland that is less than or cqual to two acres in size in its entlnay. have only one wetland class, and a predominance of exotic species. buffer .... ....................................................................a n/a ................................................................,...,..................... ............ 50 fee[ A-2 4,r1.7t TV -1 10._77_nnu IOi;SS ON %2I/%11 ZO=ZT IU L6/ZZ/90 A l l Atrr11Y1JriV l A 1995 CITY STAFF OUTLINE SENSITIVE AREA BUFFER AVERAGING preferred Alternative 1 (Federal Way sensitive Lima intrusion provisions supplemented with WSl)OE ntudel wetlands protection ordinance): Alternative 2 (modified King County sensitive areas ordinnnee): Alternative 3 (modified WSnOE inudel wetlands protection ordinance): Scnshive area buffers may he modified by The dirccior may approve buffer averaging in 1. that avcmging is necessary to avoid an average buff m widths only where the inslances whcrc the existing or enhanced extraordinary hardship to the applicant applicant dcmnn.sintes that the existing or buffer will provide additional resoure caused by circumstances peculiar to the enhanced buffer meets all of the following: protection provided that the total ares propcity; containcd in the buffer remains the same. 1. it will not adversely affect water quality; 2. that the environmentally sensitive arca contnins variations in sensitivity due to 2. it will not destroy nor damage a significant existing physical chan►cieristics; habitat arca: 3. that low intensity land uses would be 3. it will not adversely affect drainage or located adjacent to areas where buffer storm water felentiun capabilities: width is reduced, wid that such low intensity land uses are gunmritecd in 4, it will not )end to unsrable earth conditions perpetuity by covenant, deed restriction. nor create erosion hazards; easement, or other legally binding mechanism,S. it will not be ituterially detrimental to any other property nor to (lie city as a whole, 4. that width averaging will not adversely including the loss of significant open space impact environmentally sensitive arca or scenic vials; functional values, public health, safety and welfare, or create additional hazards: G, the environmentally sensi(ive area and, contains variations insensitivity due to existing physical characteristics; 5. that the total area containcd within the buffer after averaging is no less thvt that 7, it is necessary for reasonable development contained within the required buffer prior of the subject property or constitutes an to averaging. In no instance shall a buffer extraordinary hardship to the applicant width be reduced by more than 50% of caused by circumstances peculiar to the the required buffer. proNrly; H. the total arca contained within the buffer after averaging is no less than that contained within the required buffet prior to averaging: and, 9, in no insu►nee shall a buffer width be reduced by more thin 50 percent of the requirud buffer or rcsul[ in a buffer of leas A-3 7t - r hn-7T T)J.l la_77_nnu W99 ON YU/%Zl Z0:ZT IHI L6/ZZ/80 A IACHMJ;l r A 1995 CITY STAFF OUTLINE ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA BUFFER Preferred Alternative 1 (modified WSDOE model wetlands protection ordinance): Alternative 2 (modified King County sensitive areas ordinance): Alternative 3 (modified WSWE model wetlands protection ordinautce): The director shalt require increataed The director shall require increased buftr Tlie director shall require increased environmentally sensitive area buffer widths widths as necessary to protect environmentally sensitive arta buffer widths on a cacc by case busis when a larger buffer environmentally sensitive areas. Additional on a case by case basis when a larger buffer is necessary to protect environmentally buffer widths shall be determined based on a is necessary to protect environmentally sensitive arca functions. values or hazards environmentally sensitive uresis proximity to sensitive arca functions, values or hazards based on local conditions. Miis determination such features as: critical drainage areas, based on local conditions. This determination shall br supported by appropriate location of hazardous materials, critical fish shall be supported by appropriate doctitncniation showing rhat additional buffer and wildlife habitat, landslide, seismic or docutticritaliun showing that additional buffer width is reasonably related to protection of erosion hazard areas, groundwater exchange width is reasonably related to protection of environmentally sensitive area functions and arcus, and the location of trail or utility environmentally sensitive arm functions and values, or protection of puhlic health, safety corridors. values, or protection of public health, safely and welfare. Stich determination shall be and welfare:. Stich determination shall be attached its permit conditions, The attached as permit conditions and shall determination shall not preclude reasonable demonstrate that at least one of the following use of the property and shall demonstrate that facavm ares met: at least one of the following factors are met; 1. a larger buffer is necessary to maintain 1. a larger buffer is necessary to maintain viable populations of existing plant or viable pupulutions of existing plant or animal species; animal species, or to prevent adverse impacts to significant plant and animal 2. the scnsidve area is used by species habitat areas; proposed to be listed by the fedend government or the state as endangered_ 2. adjacent land uses are susceptible to threatened, rine, sensitive or monitor, severe erosion, landslide or scismle critical or outstanding potential habitat hazardt and the required butter will not for those species or has unusual nesting effectively prevent adverso impacts; or resting sites such as heron rookeries or raptor nesting trees; 3. existing wetland, stream or lake buffers have Minimal vegetative cover or slopes 3. the adjacent land use is susceptible to greater than 15 percent, and cannot be severe erosion and erosion control enhanced to effectively prevent adverse measures will not effectively prevent impac(s: adverse impacts; 4. duo required buffer will not effectively 4. ]and adjacent to wetlands. streams or pro vent adverse impacts to water quality or lakes have minimal vegetative cover or siorntwaler retention capabilities; or, slopes greater than 15 perecnt. 5. the required buffer would not prevent impacts which aro materially detrimental to other properties in the area or the city as a whole, A-4 CT 1 1 cn - 7 i T N a i a-%;7-f)nli [OVSS ON XH/%Z] ZO=ZT Ida L6/ZZ/80 hT 'J qn:?.i m4 1 f-7.7.-�lf1H I 'k �j 24 Y p'I p G S A a T G m M pp F4 Pr� p v 9 a�� $��,��-��.��.-�a��'��s°YOJ{�AOS�CCGiF�1V.•p�i� 7�Gi C ;p � R E �9C�+ lf�t v O N �_ O •� � u as o u V " �3' ��y•� ) P � V �.. � pjC � � •L" T � ' d N � 'J C O v OC L6 ttt i. yy tL'O O V +5bu ?•' i'y � }p �r�p^ �C 'O c� FTii I O 02 �iyJS, y p i v n ?' `�' C` L w •a ew `� " C A uallC eo c$ M2 o DD C a y M n 9 u+ A u 0. 3Nuv 5 w 3 3 o a 3 35 z 4 rn qn:?.i m4 1 f-7.7.-�lf1H [OVSS ON lu/%Z] ZO:ZT INA 16/ZZ/80 0 V z 0 rL r T - I on -7T T V J I R-77-nnW i G J •r U � � � � I � r 0. ,� w C � I i h R' 41 3F C YOCJ w f CJ.� •� a j I L,. 13. O } �pp7 � jtlR� $ 1 J tl� ~ •� O C I n u II^ S i � t O d �41rb w•F1 7 {d i !� i y r4 Q ^a C, � � � � � � V I � • • � � � C lL_ 'wL' r°� i ��k3p `B� j�Q �a 1 1 a fl W � 0 f jy •a � S � Fill �„ wAll 1 s i e S C i a. `r g5g5q5E s p f i3 G u �7 O i OD yV CRO _S i7 w Q rib ; pT�' •i. I _� ; ,,p O Q •w ` w-�S -, rep o 1 1 pa d as i7 a 41 �W T •9 3 A eva 1 1 I i :.Nd i � ! U i {I i 1 1 1 i r 1 1 1 i on -7T T V J I R-77-nnW ADDENDUM to August 21, 1997 Staff Report Environmentally Sensitive Areas A. One of the concerns raised at the previous meeting was that there was no way to take into consideration the level of previous development surrounding a wetland. The example given involved a property where the existing 100' buffer was being applied even though most of the other properties abutting the wetland had lesser buffer widths under previous regulations. Since we have been considering ways to introduce flexibility into buffer requirements (i.e. buffer averaging and increased buffers), it makes sense to include the ability to reduce buffer widths under certain conditions. Below is proposed language to provide for limited buffer reductions. It is modeled after Department of Ecology recommendations. REDUCTION OF STANDARD WETLAND BUFFER WIDTH The director of community development may reduce the standard wetland buffer widths by un to 50%, but in no case less than 25 feet, on a case-by-case basis where it can be demonstrated that: a) a majority of the adjacent surrounding land has been developed under prior regulations such that wetland setbacks and/or buffers are less than that established in this chapter; or b) the adiacent land is extensively vegetated and has less than 15% slopes and that no other direct or indirect, short-term or long-term, adverse impacts to regulated wetlands, as determined by the director, will result from the regulated activity. The director of community development may require long-term monitoring of the project and subsequent corrective actions if adverse impacts to regulated wetlands are discovered; or c) the project includes a buffer enhancement plan, using appropriate native vegetation, which clearly substantiates that an enhanced buffer will improve the functional attributes of the buffer to provide for additional protection of wetland functions and values. B. The Commission requested staff to provide options on how to apply buffer widths to Category 3 wetlands that would be related to wetland area. The concern was that a single 50 foot buffer width may be too blunt a tool. Below are three options: CATEGORY 3 WETLAND BUFFERS Option 1: > 2,500 sq.ft. = 50 foot buffer width (recommended in staff report) Option 2: > 2,500 sq.ft. and < 4,300 sq.ft. = 25 foot buffer width 4,300 sq.ft. and greater = 50 foot buffer width Option 3: 2,500 sq.ft. to 2,800 sq.ft. = 25 foot buffer 2,800 sq.ft. to 3,100 sq.ft. = 30 foot buffer 3,100 sq.ft. to 3,400 sq.ft. = 35 foot buffer 3,400 sq.ft. to 3,700 sq.ft. = 40 foot buffer 3,700 sq.ft. to 4,000 sq.ft. = 45 foot buffer 4,000 sq.ft. and greater = 50 foot buffer McConnelUBurke, Inc. ADDENDUM to August 21, 1997 Staff Report Environmentally Sensitive Areas C. Finally, it appears that existing stream protection regulations do not provide for activities within stream setbacks that would allow a property owner to correct or mitigate conditions that were the result of past development and which are now having adverse impacts to the stream environment. The example provided involved a culverted stream/drainage course with an outfall that has been severely accelerating the erosion of the stream bed and banks. It appears reasonable to allow such corrective activities in order to maintain the quality and function of the City's streams. Below we have suggested amendments to the sections in the code relative to stream rehabilitation and setback intrusions. Division 5. Streams Sec. 22-1311. Rehabilitation. The director of community development may permit or require the applicant to rehabilitate or maintain a stream by requiring the removal of detrimental materials such as debris, sow sediment and inappropriate vegetation and by requiring the planting of native vegetation. These actions may be permitted or required at any time that a condition detrimental to water quality, stability of stream banks or habitat exists. Sec. 22-1312. Intrusions into setbacks. (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 land surface modification within stream setback areas only through process H, based on the following criteria: 1) It will not adversely affect water quality. 2) It will not destroy nor damage a significant habitat area. 3) It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities. 4) It will not lend 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 or scenic vista. 6) It is necessary for reasonable development of the subject property. 7) It is necessary to correct any one of the adverse conditions specified in subsections (1) through (5) of this section. McConnell/Burke, Inc. 2 MEMO TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Kathy McClung, Deputy CDS Director DATE: November 10, 1997 RE: Sensitive Area Amendments Attached are the proposed changes to the original staff report as proposed by Don Largen, Consultant Planner. He has incorporated comments from Dyanne Sheldon, Wetland Biologist. The hearing for this item has been continued to November 19, at 7:00 pm. Copies of this proposal have been sent to all parties of record. Also that night you will be conducting elections for the Chairperson and Vice -chairperson. c. parties of record [99x9 ON n/%Zl ZZ=£T NOR L6/OT/TT Planning and Hearing Examiner Services McConnell/Burke, Incorporated 10604 N.E. 38th Place Suite 227 Kirkland. Washington 98033 (206) 827-6550 FAX; 889-0730 MEMORANDUM November 10, 1997 To: Federal Way Planning Commission From: Don Largen, Planning Consultant Subject:Summary of Proposed Sensitive Area Regulation Amendments As you know we have received excellent testimony at the public hearings regarding specific Aspects of the City's sensitive area regulations. In particular, we have been fortunate to have had the participation of two highly qualified and experienced wetland professionals in reviewing proposed regulatory amendments. We have reviewed all comments received at the hearings and those that have been submitted to date in writing. Below is a summary of recommended amendments to the City's sensitive areas regulations. Note that those entries containing strike th5ou r underlining indicate changes to existing City regulatory language. S'rKflAM DE iNrriON Scream A coursc or route, formed by nature, including those whl . have �i,modified by man, and generally consisting of a channel with a bed, banks or sides € throughout substantially all its length, along which surface waters naturally and normally flow in draining from higher to lower elevations. �re�m ,need nc� contain water ycar round. In a develop'ra setting Streams may run in culvert,~ or are channeled in a concrete, rock or other artificialygy_a_nce systcn i This definition is not meant to include,;priyarion ditches. canals, surface watcr t runoff faei�tiejpz,Z r artificial watercourses unless used by a local or '_. migratory fish populations waGpltStntcted to convey streams which existed prior to construction of the watercourse. ................ ............................. t................ __............ __•--... _...... ..... .... ....... _ ........ _..... _..... _... _....... ..................................... ............. ........ .... Major Stream a. any stream, and the tributaries to any stream, which contains or supports, or under 100 foot buffer ' normal circumstances contains or supports local or migratory fish population. b. if the%_g7;jgtts_a garural permanent blockarc on the stream course which prceludes the ppjrrearn movement of anadrnmous fish, then that portion of the strcarn which is downstream of the natural permanent blockage shall be relate asa,�gjq� �trea�s .......................................................••--.............. ................................. .............................. .................. ............................................ Minor Stream Any stream that does not meet the definition of Major Stream. 50 foot buffer -7^ - I u: p 1 mnLi 1 F -n T -nnN [99V9 ON %2i/W ZZ=ET NOR L6/OT/TT WETLAND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Category 1 wetland a. presence of species or documented habitat recognized by state or federal agencies as ► endangered, threatened or potentially extirpated plant, fish or animal species; or 200 foot buffer t b. presence of plant associations of infrequent occurrence, irreplaceable ecological functions, or exccptiunal 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. having three or more wetland classes one of which is open water. d. are greater than 2,500 square feet in area. Category 2 wetland I a. do not exhibit the characteristics of Category 1 wetlands; 100 foot buffer b. 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 c, greater than one acre is size in its entirety; or, d. less than or equal to one acre in size in ki entirety and having two or more wetland classes, neither class dominated by non-native invasive species; e. are greater than 2,500 square feet in area. Category 3 wetland a. do not exhibit those characteristics outlined in Categories 1 or 2, and ► 50 foot buffer b. are greater than 2,500 square feet in area. FLEXIBLE BUFFERS Buffer Averaging Buffer; may be averaged Drily where the sensitive aram to be buffered contains habitat types which have been so permanently impacted that reduced buffers do not pose a detriment to the existing or expected habitat functions. The applicant must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development that the proposed buffer averaging will meet the following criteria: 1. Reduced buffers will not affect the water quality entering a wetland or stream; 2. Reduced buffers will not adversely affect significant habitat areas within a sensitive area or the buffer; 3. Reduced buffers will not result in unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards; or 4. Reduced buffers will not be detrimental to any other public or private properties, including the loss of open space or scenic vistas. 2 f,^ ,, n7 , p i Un1.1 )A—n1—AMI [981=9 ON %2i/111 ZZ=CT NOR LVOT/TT in no instances shall the buffer width be reduced to less than 50% of the required standard buffer width. The total area contained within the buffer after averaging shall be equal to the area required fur standard buffer dimensions. Buffer Increases The director shall require increased environmentally sensitive area buffer widths on a case by case basis when the director detennines that a larger buffer is necessary to protect environmentally sensitive arca functions, values or hazards based on site specific conditions. This 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 wclfaro. Such determination shall be attached as permit conditions. The determination shall demonstrate that at least one of the following factors are mct: I . There is habitat for state or federal listed species present within the sensitive arca and/or its buffer, and additional buffer is necessary to maintain viable functional habitat; 2. Thcre arc: conditions or features adjacent to trite buffer, such as steep slopes or erosion hazard area~, 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. Reduction of Standard Wetland Buffer Width The director of community development may reduce the standard wetland buffer widths by up to 50%, but in no case less than 25 feet, on a case -by -rase basis where it can be demonstrated that: 1. If existing conditions are such that the required standard buffer exists in a permanently altered sante (e.g. roadways, paved parking lots, permanent structures, etc.) which docs not provide any buffer function, then the buffer can be reduced for that portion where the intrusions are existing. The director shall have the authority to determine if buffer averaging is warranted on the subject property to obtain additional buffer area on other portions of the perimeter of the sensitive area. ...........I .................. I ............................................. ................................................... ,...................................................... I...................... CONSISTENCY REVIEW Chapter 22, Article I, Definitions - Regulated Wetland. Update the definition as shown below: Regulated wellan l9 $hall mean these a im greater than 2.500,tguare_feet in area 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 to for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas, with the exception of the following areas shown In the King County Wetlands Inventory Notebook, Volume 3 South: (1) Lower Puget Sound Beach; (2) Lower Puget Sound 1 and 51; and (3) Areas defined as a regulated lake. Methodology in the danuefy 1989 Federal tifying-and Belineatimg-d e + wetlands -and 3 4.,n , i 1�,.: S^ i mnu 1 R—fl l —Ann [9819 ON %21/111 ZZ:CT NOR L6/OT/TT rgh 1997 Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (DeoAflm nt of Eolmysublication #96-94)_a itioulated in WAC 173-22.080 will be used for regulatory delineations of wetlands within the City, Although a site specific wetland may not meet the criteria described above, it will be considered a regulated wetland if it is functionally related to another wetland that meets the criteria. The following sections of Chapter 22, Article XIV contain references to the review processes In place prior to the regulatory reform updates recently approved by Council. These sections should be updated to reflect the current review process framework. Section 22-1241, Soction 22-1244, Section 22-1307 through Section 22-10, Section 22-1312, Section 22-1333, Section 22-1358. ............ .... ......... -................................ ................. ......................................... I............................................................................................................. MISCELLANEOUS Division 5, Streams Sec. 22-1311. Rehabilitation. The director of community development may permit or require diet an applicant to rehabilitate or maintain a Maior ..,treats by requiring the removal of detrimental materials such as debris, ;entimen� se jin= and inappropriate vegetation nfid,hy•reqs+ring-tate-14anting uf-f i'e-yegetutior►. Approval of stream rehahilitation shall he based on a review ofjgplan containing. 4t a minimum, an qua sis of cxistins conditions identification of the source of die dgZradation of the sn 79ge prc)uced corrective actions performance standards monitoring schedule, planting plans and dins plans as necessary. The director mavieauire an gDplicant to retain the . eryiF&S of a qualified p-roressional in nrenarjng the restoration pan. fhcse actions may be permitted or required at any time that a condition detrimental to water quality, stability of steam banks or habitat exists. Sec. 22-1312. Intrusions into setbacks. (c) Other infrusiuns. 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 land surface modification within stream setback arons only through process 11, based on the following criteria: I. It will not adversely affect water quality- 2. It will not destroy nor damage a significant habitat arca. 3. It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities. 4. It will not lend 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 or scenic vista. �. IF is noces*arj-IHFfeRSAnable deve!&Fm �1i�t3i ii1Q.tt}3}�@Fi3PE►tlbf�y- 6. It is necgssary to correct any one of the adverse eonditiQns specified in subsections (1) through (5) of this section, 0 cn,.j iZ;£i NOW L6-01-AON 18699 ON XH/%Zl TZ:ZT 317.E L6/SZ/TT November 25, 1997 To: Federal Way Planning Commission From: Donald B. Largen, AICP Planning Consultant Subject: Sensitive Areas Regulations Amendments The Planning Commission requested at the last meeting that we address several specific issues relative to the proposed sensitive area regulation amendments. Modifications have been made to respond to the commission's request. The effected sections of the City code are presented below by subject in an underline (new items in the code) and strike through (deleted items) format to show how they would appear in the code. We have attached the existing wetland regulations in Appendix A so the commission may see how those regulatory items fit together. The modifications are summarized as follows: • A new clause (c) defining and excluding active drainage facilities from the wetland regulations has been added to Sec. 22-1356 Determination of wetland and regulated wetland. This has been based on a staff interpretation issued in 1996. Note that Sec. 22-1356 is the section of the City's code that specifies the information required for review of a wetland site. The proposed wetland definition remains the same as in our previous discussions. • Two clauses have been added to the proposed reduced buffer provisions with criteria to allow for buffer reductions in cases of significantly altered wetlands and for single residential lots platted prior to the City's incorporation. • We have split the buffer size requirements for Category III wetlands, such that those greater than 10,000 square feet will have a 50' buffer, and those less than 10,000 square feet would receive a 25' buffer. • A modification has been made to the existing reasonable use provisions to allow for a Process I review for single residential lots platted prior to the City's incorporation. • A modification has been made to the stream rehabilitation provisions to allow for intrusions into steep slopes and associated setbacks. ................................ -............................................... _..... _........... ..._.... _..................................................... WETLANDS CHAPTER 22 AR-ricLE I. GENERALLY Scc. 22.1. Definitions Regulated wettands shall mean those areas grater than 2,500 squaM feet in arca that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that Rt -71 ant 1R-q7.-nnw [8699 011 %2i/%1l TZ:ZT 3IIZ L6/SZ/TT under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas, with the exception of the following areas shown in the King County Wetlands Inventory Notebook, Volume 3 South: (1) Lower Puget Sound Beach; (2) Lower Puget Sound 1 and 51; and (3) Areas defined as a regulated lake. Mcihodology in the wetlands and ubs"uen March 1997 Washington $tate Wetlands Identification And Delineation Manual (Deuartment of Ecology, publication #96-94) ��stipulated in WAC 173-22-080 will be used for regulatory delineations of wetlands within the City. Although a site specific wetland may not meet the criteria described above, it will be considered a regulated wetland if it is functionally related to another wetland that meets the criteria. ARTICLE XIV ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSTTTVE AREAS DIVISION 7. REGULATED WETLANDS Sec. 22-1356. Determination of wetland and regulated wetland. M Arurnrtge Facilities. Surface w;ttor ponds, drainage ditches. And other such facilities which were desiuned to imnoundr convey water for an gRgaaeered purpose are not considered regulated Milands q_n_L1kr this article arovided lj)Ov meet all of the foljnyringcriteria: ()Thp drainage facility rpugt have been intentionally juman created. This' tq differentiate Ihn-in llt},w wetland sites that are accidental consequetrces of dcvclo,pnent etZot�s_su�h as nm u)n�strgcdon or culvert al.3Gq tent. Such sites mJzy_be Considered rcgm1-jW 3yetlands by thr, JircctUr upon a review of the ecological functiQutc and valises of thei(g+ (2) 14e.,drainage facility must have been originally constructed on urlancls (non-wetlandtare, s . 11' facility is located within a straig_ renrd channeli7.ed, or otherwise disturhed natural watcrcogric, it may be eonsidcred a regulated wrtjAnd by the direcigr i Mn review of the ccologiegi unctions and valu of the site. () 11c facility mu,,l be actively or£rgted as for use as a „tt#acewater drainagefitoili- . 6.baadoned drainagg L6c1litics may he considered regulated wellands by the directgy upon a rgview of the ecological functions and values of the site. 4 We( I;Iriq.conditions havgorL t,oxxpandcd beyond the ori iginxlly constructed drainage F.pc lily huun f:t in such a case the expanded arca m y be considered a regulated-wglland by tho director upon Nyiew of the ecological functions and x&tues of the site. (5) The drainage facility wAA not desig_rrcd or constructed as a require rnt to mitigate Qrgvious wctlasl impacts. (6) Thp, director finds thatlimited ecological functions and valuCA do not wan-antapylication o� the City's wetland regulations. Sec. 22-1357, Stttmek-areas- Wetland classificadoms and stattdard buffers. fstl_ Wwlnnds mwing_the deFiniti2a i,n Article I. Gaal?ler 22 are classi figditto the foltoyyjgg cale�aries: 60 'd R1:;7.1 ani I R-q;?.-nnm (9699 ON XH/111 TZ:ZT aU L6/SZ/TT (1) Curcxory / verlands are greater than 2.5005auare feet in arca and meet one of the following criteria: itr_„ contain the presence of species or dagginented habitat rccognized by state gL f&! oral agencies SF endangered, threatcnod or potentially Wimated plant, fish or animal snccies�= h. contain the presence of plant mocietions_of infrequent occumice. irrc I,P seeable ecoloQicAl functions. or exec-ntional local signifrance including but not limited to cstu:lrjRq systetns. pc:n kgs and_kens, mature forested wetlands. grolindwaver exchange areas, signi, ficanl bal)itl t or unique educational sites: or c. have three or more wetland classes one of which is oven water. �2) Care-gyry Ii wrilands are motor than 2.500 sguare feet in area, do not exhibit the characteriQc,sof Qgrt goo I wetlands, and meet one of the following criteria: u. urc contiguous with water bodies or tributaries to warer_bodies which under normal c"Zinititances contain or support a fish Wpulation. including strcams where flow is intermittent: or b. arc greater than one acre is size in its entirety: or c. arc: less than or enu11q one acre in size in ilre entirety i'll( Kaye two or more wetland cliDges, with neither class dominated by non-native invasive species C-dre-eery ill wetland are greater than 2,500 square &&tin area and do not exhibit those characteristics of Category I or 2 wetlands. U)J..SLnndar¢ buffer widths for regulated weslands are established as follows: (I ) Category i wetignds shall have a standard buffer width )f 200 feet. (2) Catcgory Il wetlands [shall have a standard huffrrr width of 100 feet. (3) Category III wetlands shall have a standard buffer width of 50 feet for wetlands hat tut; greater than 10.000 square feet in areg, and shall have a standard bier width of 25 feet for wStlands that arc botwcen 2.500 to I O.OQQ Iguare feet in area. Sec. Modification of standard wetland buffer. a Ba rr A vrmg-irre Buffers may be averaged only when [he sensitive arca to he buffers d contains habitat Lyix;s which It•-jyg, bccn so permanently impacted that reduced buffers do not nose a detriment to the existing or ohocied liabiutl functions The applicant must ¢gnlonstratc to the satisfaction of the Dircetor of CQjj) unity 12gyqlpputcnt that the proposed buffer averaging will mow the following criteria: 1. Reduced hhffers will not affect the water quality entering a wetland or strcant 2. Reduced bU&rs will not adversely a fet t significant habitat arras within a sensitive arca or h f er• 3. Reduced buffers will not result in -unstable earth conditions not create erosion hazards: and 4. gltduced buffers will not be detrimental in any other public or priyLtAc 2ru rrx ties• it)cluding the Ios. Of ggeA space or scenic Was. It no instances sh111 the buffer width dig reduced to Icss [Ilan j,0% of Qic rca ii red attkgdaid bulTcr width. Ih,,;,•WLal arca contained within the buffer after averaging shall bg QUal to the area req ire „fir ,t mclal b iffer dimensions. (h) Redw:(.urr ufSrcurdurd Werland Butter Width, '1•hc director of community developmCnx may reduce 11>c standard wetland buffer widths by Sp to 50%•on a case-by-case basic mere one of the -fallowing sZttllditions can be demonstrated: [9699 ON XH/XZl TZ:ZT MU L6/SZ/TT .l.ashajite conditions = such that the reggired standard btlffor exists in a permanently altered state (e.g. roadways RaMd Parking lots permanent structuros M). which docs ugL prgvide any buffer function. than the buffgrpgn be reduced for that portion whcrg }he intl:usions are existing. 2. except for CaIggoa I wedands. existing conditions are such „thy the wetland has heat permanently impacted by adiacent.development activities. as evidenced by such things. as persistent human altgations or the dominance of nonnative invasive_soecies. 3. a project on an exig-cria sia o family lot platted prior to the incornq,Igtpn of the City. where imposition of thg standard buffer would preclude reasonable usa_pf the lot. and the oroiect includes a buffer enhancement plan, using appmpriate native vtlgelation. which clenrly substantiates that n enhanced buffer will improve the,�actional Attributes of the buffer to proviag for additionAl protection of wetland fungi• gas and values The director shull have the authority to- determine if buffer averaai .is wauranted on the subi gl p-rplifrty to obtain additional buffer area on other portions of the perimetgt of the sensitive arca Iyj iyffi-r brrruuses. The dirgctor sha11 require increased erivironrgcntaffy sensitive area buffer widths on a CAM; by case basis when the dirccLoE d$Lteawnent that a larger buffer is necrssm Lqprotect cnyirunmenlully_sct). ' fvc a ggs. values or haxnrds based on site specific conditions. This determtn ti n shall be supported by tVnroprittte documcnra 1 n showing that additional buffer width is reasonably related Its protection of cltyironmunlally sensitive area functions andyalueti orrn otecdgn of Public health safcty_nnd wg!fare. Such determination shall be attached as permit con Mons. The determination shall demonstrate that at hast one of kh-,,, j,01owinr factors ate met: llttbitat for state or fedcr i b6ted snerles present within the scnsiliYr Area and/or its bu[ r. awl additional buffer is nccessnry_IQ maintain viable functional hahiIC 2. '1]tcrc arc conditions or, features adjacent U) the 1ltlfPer. such as slop slope or erosion I)A7.ard areas which over time may nose an additional threat to thf alae buflcr and/or the ,engittvc Atha. In such circumstance the City may choose to impgsg Llhose buffers. if any. a.mmciated with the condition or featurcn9s' 111c throat in addition to, oCJA InAximum. beyond the bliE& E2guired for the subject sp04ilive area .......... ....................... _................................. .................................................... ...................... _..... _... .._...... _........................................................................... STRiAM.. CHAPTER 22 ARTICLE I. GENERALLY Sec. 22-1. Definitions S'rrram Shull mean a course or route, formed by nature, including those which have been modified by man, and generally consisting of a channel with a bed, banks or sides throughout substantially all its Iongth, along which surface waters naturally and normally flow in draining from higher to lower cicvations. A stream need not contain water year mond. In it developing Schott streams may. run in culMf Qr arc channeled in a concrete, fss'-kQr other artificial conve ince systema This definition is not meant to include Dation ditches g anals,, surface water rutlq f facilities or other atvfacial watercourses unless used by a local or migratory fl. -;h population or wig„gonstructed to convey streams which existed prior to construction of the watercourse, Major strewn ,hail mean any stream, and the tributaries to any stream, which contains or supports, or under nurtttal circumstances contains or supports local or migratory fish population. If there exists it natural permancul b1cgAnkc on the stream course which nrocludrs the upstream movement of anadromous fish thin thatpordan of tt • s 'tin which is downstream of the natural MEManent blockage shall brz regulated as a mgior s eem. qn'� n7.7t Int 10_c7 Anil 19699 ON %2i/%11 TZ:ZT alU L6/SZ/TT Mucor stream shall mean any stream that does not meet the definition of Major Stream. ARTICLE XIV. ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS DIVISION 5. STREAMS See. 22-1311. Rehabilitation. The director of community development may permit or require die an applicant to rehabilitate or maintain a Major Sstreatn by requiring the removal of detrimental materials such ac debris, seeti•fflent ticdimcnt and inappropriate vegetation mid 1* ;equi io l ttti of nadvevenetett an. Approyal of stream rehabilitation shall bg based on a Wiew of ap onra ai�i at a minim.�m an analysis of axi,,rjn. ,conditions. identification of the source of the degradation of the, ctreattjorAparian zms; plod corce-WY-@ actions, performance standards. monitoring schedule. plantingplMs. and ailing plans as necessary. 'Phe director may require an annlicant to retain the saylco.4 of a qualifiQd professional in nr wina the restoration plan Thcsc actions may be permitted or required at any time that a condition detrimental to water quality, stability of stream banks or habitat exists. Intrusions into rer►ulated steep slopes and associated setbaQU will be allowed for oumoses of aaaroved stream rchabili atign projects Sec. 22-1312. Intrusions into setbacks. (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 land surface modification within stream sethack areas only through process II, based on the folIowing criteria: I. It will not adversely affect water quality. 2. It will not destroy nor damage a significant habitat area. 3. It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities. 4. It will not lend to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards. S. It will not he materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor to the city its a whole, including the loss of significant open space or scenic vista. tr- Ft is ndeessat ter-teat+c�>ra#►ie desalt tibjeot-proWty, 6. Itis necessary to correct any ono of the adverse conditions specified in subsections fll through (51 of thisggtion. OTHER ISSUES ARTICLE XIV. ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS DIVISION 2. ADMINISTRATION Sec. 22-1244. Reasonable use of the subject property. (b) --An applicant may apply for a modification or waiver of the provisions of this article using process III; Except that ayyjkations for projects on single family residential lots platted prior to the incorogration Of the City may 1142 process I. T? -?T ani )R-Q?-nnm [8699 ON 111/%Zl TZ:ZT 211U L6/SZ/TT AYrhtVULA A EXISTING WETLAND REGULAt'IONS DIVISION 7. REGULATED WETLANDS Sec. 22-1356. Determination of wetland and regulated wetland. (a) Generally. This section contains procedures and criteria for determining whether an area is defined as a regulated wetland under this chapter. (b) Evaluation, if the city determines that a wetland may exist on or within 100 feet the subject property, the director of community development shall require the applicant to submit a wetland report prepared by a qualified professional approved by the city, that includes the following information. The director of community development shall use this information to determine if the area is a regulated wetland and, if so, the precise boundaries of that regulated wetland. (1) An evaluation of the area in question based on the definitions in this chapter of "regulated wetland." (2) An overview of the methodology used to conduct the study. (3) A description of the wetland, including a map identifying the: cdge of the wetland and plant communities and detailed description of the method used to identify the wetland edge. (4) The wetland classification (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service "Classification of Wetlands and Deep Water Habitats in the U.S."). (5) A list of observed plant and wildlife species, using both scientific and common names, and a description of their relative abundance. (6) A list of potential plant or animal species based on signs or other observation. (7) An evaluation and assessment of the existing or potential functions and values of the wetland based on the following factors: surface water control; wildlife habitat. pollution and erosion control: groundwater exchange; open space and aesthetic contrast; and recreational, educational and cultural opportunities. Sec. 22-1357. Setback areas. The setback arca from a regulated wetlands is all land within 100 feet in every direction upland from the edge of the regulated wetland. Sec. 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. (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 die 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 the 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 i n ,� ??,?T 7n i 1 R_C7_Ar)M [9699 09 %2i/Y.L1 TZ:ZT 317.E L6/SZ/TT APPENDIX A EXISTING WETLAND REcuLAT10Ns condition detrimental to water quality or habitat exists. (d) Modif cation. Other than as specified in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, the city council may approve any request to locate an ftnprovemcnt or engage in land surface modification within a regulated wetland using procacss HL The specific location and extent of the intrusion into the regulate] wetland must constitute tlic minitnuin necessary encroachment. Approval of a request for improvements or land surface modification within a regulated wetland through process III shall be based on the following criteria: (1) It will not adversely affect water quality. (2) it will not destroy nor damage a significant habitat area. (3) It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwatcr retention capabilities. (4) It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards. (S) It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor to the city as a whole, including the loss of significant open space or scenic vista. (6) h 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. (3) 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 make corrections if the project fails to meet projected goals. (e) Required inj6rmarion. As part of any request under this section, the applicant shall subinit 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. C. Monitoring program for a minimum of five years. f. Contingency plan. g. Performance bonding in an amount of 120 percent of the costs of implementing each of the above elements. (2) Mitigation. Mitigation of wetland impacts shall he restricted to on-site restoration, creation or enhancement of in-kind wetland type which 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 replacement rarid The following are minimum restoration, creation or 2 -3-3.-2r -ini in r-2 AnU [8699 ON XH/X11 TZ:ZT 311E L6/SZ/TT APPENDIX A .......... ... ................................................._.............EXISTING WETLAND REGIJLAT10N5 .._... __ ...............:. __ _..... ... enhancement ratios for various impacted wetland areas. The first number of the ratio specifies the acreage of wetland requiring replacement and the second specifies the acreage of wetlands impacted. a. For areas with documented habitat for endangcrud or threatened plant, fish, or animal species; natural heritage wetland sites; regionally rare wetland communities with irreplaceable ecological functions; or wetlands of exceptional local significance the replacement ratio shall be a minimum of 6:1. b. For forested wetlands with at least 20 percent of the surface area covered by woody vegetation greater than 20 feet in height the replacement ratio shall be a minimum of 3:1. C. Por scrub -shrub wetlands with at least 30 percent of its surface covered by woody vegetation less than 20 feet in height as the uppermost strata the replacement ratio shall be 2:1. d. For emergent wetlands with at least 30 percent of the surface arca covered by erect, rooted, herbaceous vegetation as the uppermost vegetative strata the replacement ratio shall be 1.5:1. e. The replacement ratio for all other wetlands shall be 1.25:1. The above replacement ratios may 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) Tinting. All required wetland mitigation improvements, except monitoring, shall be completed and accepted by the director of community development prior to beginning activities that will disturb regulated wetlands, and 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 file wetland mitigation report and other relevant information, conduct periodic inspections, issue a written report to the director of community development stating that the project complies with requirements of the mitigation plan, and to conduct and report to the director on the status of the monitoring program. Sec, 22-1359. Structures, improvements and land surface modification within the setback areas from regulated wetlands. (a) Generally. Except as allowed in this section, no land surface modification may take place and no structure or improvement may be located within the setback area from a regulated wetland. (h) Essential public facilities and utility. The director of community development may permit the placement of all essential public facility or utility in a setback area from a regulated wetland if he or she determines that the line or imptovcmcnt must traverse the setback arca because no feasible or alternative location exists based on an analysis of technology and system efficiency. The specific locailon and extent of the intrusion into the setback area must 60 'd e ; Z I mi. 1B-qZ-ASN [9699 ON %2i/111 TZ=ZT HILL L6/SZ/TT eyrrat�UU► n EXISTING WETLAND REGULATIONS constitute the minimum necessary encroachment to meet the requirements of the public facility or utility. (c) Minor improvements. Minor improvements such as fimthridges, walkways and benches may be located within the setback area from a regulated wetland if approved through process I based on the following criteria: (1) It will not adversely affect water quality. (2) It will not destroy nor damage a significant habitat 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 nur to the city as a whole, including the loss of significant open space or scenic vista. (d) Mcxlifccafion. 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 setback area from a regulated wetland through process II, based on the following criteria: (1) It will not adversely affoct water quality. (2) It will not destroy nor damage a significant habitat 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 or scenic vista. (6) It is necessary for reasonable development of the subject property. (c) Revegefation. The applicant shall stabilize all areas left exposed after land surface modification with native vosgetation normally associated with the setback area. 4 n i '.t qp.: 7.l 7m. ) f—q7.—AOM U) O o� Q IL 2 0 V W LCL D m U Cd .0 � U U � bA .� � H Cd O 4-4 p � N v� � 0 0 tA iA N N O O v� O O r- 4 •--� N N O N O O N r% W) O N O O N O W) N O O 4 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O OO O M M W N E-4 d' E-4 M E-4 d' H M E- d' F ++ M [� d' E- d' E� I:t O Q cd E� 0 � a� U o v� w ►� ce O a, w Appendix C x = CURT SKNTC H DirrCl Or +� STATE OF WASHNGTON DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE ` 6Cb Capitol Way North _ • Olyrnpu, WishkWon 98501-7091 • (2M) 753-5700 FINAL DRAFT: FEBRUARY 12, 1992 BUFFER NEEDS OF WETLAND WILDLIFE 49 HABITAT MANAGEMENT DIVISION 137 Appendix C WETLANDS - PROVIDE FOOD, WATER, SHELTER FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE Wetlands and their buffers are essential for wildlife. The complex interface of land and water is used to meet life needs by 85% of terrestrial wildlife species in the State (Brown, 1985; Thomas, 1979). One value provided by wetlands is production and maintenance of the public's fish and wildlife resources. If there is to be no -net -loss of wetland area and function, it is essential that wetland protection measures and buffers be planned to protect fish and wildlife. WETLAND SYSTEMS = WETLANDS + ADJACENT UPLANDS Wetlands and the uplands adjacent to them form a physical, hydrologic, chemical and biologic system. Native fish and wildlife populations have evolved with this system and take advantage of interactions. Large numbers of wetland dependent wildlife need not only the wetland but also the adjacent upland to meet essential life needs: food, water, shelter from climatic extremes and predators, structure and cover for reproduction and rearing of young. For example, waterfowl feed primarily in wetlands but most species nest on dry ground where nests will not be flooded. In the Columbia Basin, heavy grazing next to wetlands removed buffer vegetation and reduced waterfowl production by 50% (Foster et al. 1984). A wetland may be preserved but if the waterfowl nesting habitat in the adjacent upland is lost, a component of the wetland's function is lost. DISTURBANCE AND LOSS OF WILDLIFE FUNCTION A person approaching heron or a flock of waterfowl can agitate and flush them even at distances greater than 200 feet. In 1976-7, Department of Wildlife found migratory bird use increased 30-50 fold on three Columbia Basin wetlands where parking lots and access were relocated to areas 0.25 to 0.5 mile from the wetlands (Foster et al. 1984). Conversion of farm lands to office park along North Creek in King and Snohomish counties, significantly reduced the function of the areas wetlands for migratory waterfowl although the wetlands remain. Many of the wet pasture areas that provide waterfowl feeding are frequently not scored high in wetland rating systems because of low diversity of plant life. If there is to be no -net -loss of wetland wildlife function, even these will need sufficient buffers. HABITAT FOR MOST SPECIES = PLANT STRUCTURE OVER DISTANCE Animals evolved with different plant communities and hydrology in and around wetlands.. They depend upon plant communities and their associated physical structures both inside and outside the -vvetland. To retain full complements of wetland dependent wildlife, the plant structure in adjacent uplands needs to be retained for sizable distances from the wetland edge. 139 Appendix C Wetland dependent wildlife such as salamander, waterfowl, beaver, and mink use the adjacent uplands to meet essential life needs. They are dependent on both the wetland and the adjacent uplands. The buffer zones are areas where animals have needed separation and interspersion to reduce competition and maintain populations. The more narrow the buffer left around a wetland when land use changes, the more susceptible the wetland becomes to loss of habitat function and productivity. Remaining wetland wildlife are more concentrated and more vulnerable to disease and predation. WETLAND BUFFERS - ALSO ESSENTIAL FOR WETLAND -RELATED WILDLIFE Natural vegetation next to wetlands moderates extreme environmental conditions. Plant structures provide microclimates that keep water and surface temperature cooler in summer and warmer in winter than surrounding areas. Lush and divergent vegetation in wetland buffers provides food and cover for many species ranging from large mammals such as deer and elk, to small ones such as voles and shrews. These areas are used for rearing of young. They receive heavy use by animals that concentrate near wetlands but are not necessarily wetland dependent. In Grant County loss of wetland buffers and the cover they provide significantly reduced pheasant populations to 20% previous levels. Wetland buffers provide nutrients and cover for aquatic systems and their organisms. Large organic debris has been shown to be essential for native fish populations. It provides for pool development and fish hiding cover. Also important is small organic debris, the lead' litter from trees and shrVbs. Ninety percent of the biological energy in some aquatic systems comes from leaf litter. Buffers help to maintain existing fish and aquatic invertebrate levels. They also maintain water quality by filtering sediments and pollutants. WETLANDS WITH OPEN WATER COMPONENTS - NEED LARGER BUFFERS Y Brown (1985) reports that 50 vertebrate species use the water -shrub edge for primary breeding or feeding; 46 use the water -forest edge, 98 use the riparian zone of herbaceous wetland, and 85 use ponds. Medin and Clary (1990-1991) found more than 3 times the bird biomass and species richness and mammal density and biomass in beaver ponds wetland complex than in adjacent riparian areas. USFWS reports show that wetland dependent species, dependent in part on open water; needed large buffers. EVEN SMALL WETLANDS NEED BUFFERS Size is not the main determinant wetland value to wildlife and need for protection. A Columbia basin study (Foster et al. 1984) showed that there was an inverse relationship between wetland size and waterfowl production. Highest density of ducklings were observed on wetlands of five acres or less in size and were particularly abundant on wetlands 140 Appendix C from 0.1 to 1.0 acre. In this study 68% of nests were within 100 feet of water and all but six of the rest were within 300' of the water. Many amphibians achieve their highest densities in small wetlands (McAllister and Leonard, pers. observation). Long -toed salamander is one example. It cannot survive in the presence of healthy fish populations. It breeds in small temporary ponds. In small headwater streams of the Pacific Northwest, amphibians are the dominant vertebrates. Their numbers and biomass in these small streams are often greater than that of coldwater fishes in their optimal habitat (Bury et al. 1991). Small wetlands are frequently very sensitive to impacts. For example, when stream gradient is greater than 4%, most beaver pond wetlands are less than 2 acres in size. They are very sensitive to silting and increased stream flows from logging in a watershed. They suffer greater losses from "blowouts" in high flow events. They may lose their soils and all vegetation in such an event. DRY CLIMATES CONCENTRATE WILDLIFE USE Influence of the water table on the landscape and vegetation is often reduced on the eastside of the state with more abrupt wetland -upland edges. Wildlife use tends to be concentrated closer to water in drier climates. Hall (1970) showed more narrow beaver use on streams in eastern California than had been reported in the literature (100' vs. 328'). Mudd (1975) showed minimum riparian area for maximum pheasant and deer use to be 75 feet in one eastern Washington study. SUMMARY T3) retain wetland dependent wildlife in important wil3 life areas, buffers need to retain plant structure for a minimum of 200-300 feet beyond the wetland. This is especially the case where open water is a component of the wetland or where the wetland has heavy use by migratory birds or provides feeding for heron. The size needed would depend upon disturbance from adjacent land use and resources involved. In western Washington wetlands with important wildlife functions should have 300' upland buffers for high impact (urban) land uses and 200' upland buffers for.low impact (rural) land uses. In eastern Washington wetlands with important wildlife functions should have 200' upland buffers for high impact land use and 100' buffers for low impact land uses. Priority species or especially sensitive animals or wetland systems such as bogs/fens or heritage sites may need even larger buffers wetlands to prevent disturbance or isolation of subpopulations or other loss of wetland function or value. See Attachments 1, 2, and 3 for buffer ranges. 141 cit O ct W 4) v/ Appendix C O O N 4--4 3 CCS OR O H N C4 O 3 u a 44 ..d F5 00 Appendix C I F. 0 I• 9 • m Appendix C i 9 at W C �y Y c a Ij G WETLAND BUFFERS: Use and Effectiveness Andrew J. Castelle', Catherine Conolly', Michael Emers', Eric D. Metz', Susan Meyer', Michael Witter', Susan Mauermann', Terrell Erickson', Sarah S. Cooke4 'Adolfson Associates, Inc., Edmonds, WA 'W&H Pacific, Inc., Bellevue, WA 'Washington State Department of Ecology, WA °Pentec Environmental, Edmonds, WA for Washington State Department of Ecology Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program Olympia, Washington February 1992 IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS • Wetland buffers are essential for wetlands protection. No scientific study, no government agency, and no recommendations made during any communications with wetlands specialists nationwide suggested otherwise. • Wetland buffers reduce the adverse impacts of adjacent land uses to wetlands. Wetland buffers also provide important habitat for wildlife which utilize wetlands and buffer areas for essential life needs. Buffers reduce wetland impacts by moderating impacts of stormwater runoff including stabilizing soil to prevent erosion; filtering suspended solids, nutrients, and harmful or toxic substances; and moderating water level fluctuations. They reduce the adverse impacts of human disturbance on wetland habitat including blocking noise and glare; reducing sedimentation and nutrient input; reducing direct human disturbance from dumped debris, cut vegetation, and trampling; and providing visual separation. They also provide essential habitat for wetland -associated species for use in feeding; roosting; breeding and rearing of young; and cover for safety, mobility and thermal protection. - • Buffer effectiveness increases with buffer width. As buffer width increases, the effectiveness of removing sediments, nutrients, bacteria, and other pollutants from surface water runoff increases. However, for incrementally greater sediment removal efficiency (e.g., from 90 to 950), disproportionately larger buffer width increases are required (e.g., from 100 to 200 feet). As buffer width increases, direct human impacts, such as dumped debris, cut or burned vegetation, fill areas, and trampled vegetation, will decrease. As buffer width increases, the numbers and types of wetland -dependent and wetland - related wildlife that can depend on the wetland and buffer for essential life needs increases. • Upropriate buffer widths are based on four variables: (1) existing wetland functions, values and sensitivity to disturbance: (2) buffer characteristics: (3) land use impacts: and (4) desired buffer functions. • Wetlands with important functions and values or wetlands which are sensitive to disturbance will require greater buffers to reduce the risk of disturbance. Wetland functions, values, and sensitivity are attributes that will influence the necessary level of protection for a wetland. Those systems which are extremely sensitive or have important functions will require larger buffers to protect them from disturbances, which may be of lesser threat to a different site. Where wetland systems are rare or irreplaceable (e.g., high quality estuarine wetlands, mature swamps, and bogs) larger buffer widths will ensure a lower risk of disturbance. • The uplands immediately adjacent to the wetland vary in their ability to reduce adverse effects of development most importantly in relationshipto o slope and vegetative cover. Buffers with dense vegetative cover on slopes less than 15 % are most effective for water 47 quality functions. Dense shrub or forested vegetation with steep slopes provide the greatest protection from direct human disturbance. Appropriate vegetation for wildlife habitat depends on wildlife species present in the wetland and buffer. Effectiveness is also influenced by ownership of the buffer. • Land uses associated with significant construction and post -construction impacts need greater buffers. Construction impacts include erosion and sedimentation, debris disposal, vegetation removal and noise. Post -construction impacts are variable depending on the land use, but residential land use, in particular, can have significant impacts. Residential land use is associated with yard maintenance debris, domestic animal predation, removal of vegetation and trampling. Wetland areas and their buffers should not be included in residential lots. • Appropriate buffer widths vary according to the desired buffer function(s). Temperature moderation, for example, will require smaller buffer widths than some wildlife habitat or water quality functions. Buffer widths for wildlife may be generalized, but specific habitat needs of wildlife species depend on individual habitat requirements. • Buffers of less than 50 feet in width areegenerally ineffective in protecting wetlands. Buffers larger than 50 feet are necessary to protect wetlands from an influx of sediment and nutrients, to protect wetlands from direct human disturbance, to" protect sensitive wildlife species from adverse impacts, and to protect wetlands from the adverse effects of changes in quantity of water entering the wetland. • In western Washington. wetlands with important wildlife functions should have 200 to 300 -foot buffers based on land use. In eastern Washington. wetlands with important wildlife functions should have 100 to 200 -foot buffers based on land use. To retain wetland -dependent wildlife in important wildlife areas, buffers need to retain plant structure for a minimum of 200 to 300 feet beyond the wetland. This is especially the case where open water is a component of the wetland or where the wetland has heavy use by migratory birds or provides feeding for heron. The size needed would depend upon disturbance from adjacent land use and resources involved. Priority species may need even larger buffers to prevent their loss due to disturbance or isolation of subpopulations. • Buffer widths effective in preventing significant water quality impacts to wetlands are generally 100 feet or greater. Sensitive wetland systems will require greater distances and degraded systems with low habitat value will require less. The literature indicates effective buffer widths for water quality range from 12 to 860 feet depending on the type of disturbance (e.g., feedlot, silviculture) and the measure of effectiveness utilized by the author. For those studies which measured effectiveness according to removal efficiency, findings ranged from 50 to 92% removal of specific pollutants in ranges of 62 to 288 feet. Studies which measured effectiveness according to environmental indicators, such as levels of benthic invertebrates and salmonid egg development in the receiving water, generally found that 98 -foot buffers adjacent to streams were effective. These latter buffer distances may be conservative for wetlands where lower water velocities and presence of vegetation result in increased sediment deposition and accumulation. 40 48 • Buffers from 50 to 150 feet are necessary to protect a wetland from direct human disturbance in the form of human encroachment (e.g.. trampling. debris). The appropriate width to prevent direct human disturbance depends on the type of vegetation, the slope, and the adjacent land use. Some wetlands are more sensitive to direct disturbance than others. • Some state_ agencies and manv local governments rely upon wetlandraratin"vstems-to establish buffer widths. These rating systems are typically based upon perceived wetland value and upon acceptable levels of risk to the wetland from adjacent land uses. Of 16 states surveyed, ten require wetland buffers and eight incorporate wetlands rating, either adopted or proposed. Of five Washington counties, with adopted wetlands protection ordinances, all five require buffers and four utilize wetlands rating systems (the fifth is currently proposing an amendment which incorporates rating). Of 28 identified cities with wetlands protection ordinances (or interim ordinances), 27 contain specific buffer standards and 20 utilize wetlands rating systems. The city without specific standards has adopted an interim policy statement. • Specific buffer requirements vary widely at the state and local level. This has resulted in differing buffer requirements and levels of wetland protection that are not necessarily effective. For example, the buffer requirements of many agencies are less than those that are reported in the literature to be effective. State buffer requirements range from 0 to 300 feet; Washington county buffer 40 requirements range from 0 to 200 feet; and Washington city buffer requirements range from 0 to 300 feet. 410 49 �e Greater : +Federal Way Chamber of Commerce 34004 16th Ave. South, Suite 101 Federal Way, WA 98003 PO Box 3440 Federal Way, WA 98063 (206) 838-2605 (206) 927-2556 FAX: (206) 661-9050 E-mail: FWCC@nwrain.com Our Vision The Greater Federal Way Chamber of Commerce provides dynamic leadership for the business community in economic, political, educational and social decisions TO: Members of the Planning Commission 11 FROM: Bob Griebenow, Economic Vitality Committee DATE: September 3, 1997 The Greater Federal Way Chamber of Commerce strongly supports a revision to the Environmentally Sensitive Areas ordinances. The lack of definition and flexibility in the existing ordinances has been an obstacle to reasonable development of local commercial sites. The Economic Vitality Committee of the Chamber has reviewed the August 21, 1997 report written by Don Largen. We feel that the report is a big step towards an ordinance that will preserve environmentally sensitive areas yet gives land owners flexibility to develop their property. To support the Planning Commission we would like to make the following recommendations and comments to the draft report. We support the formulation of three classes/categories of wetlands and associated buffer distances. We agreed with the concept of buffer averaging as a method to add flexibility to site design and buffer accommodation. We consider the proposed buffer distances on the high side of an acceptable range. We do not recommend that they be increased. As a guide for understanding the impact on land parcels, the existing inventory of sensitive areas in Federal Way should be classified by category. Only by looking at specific sites can the planning commission and land owners comprehend whether the new ordinance is an improvement. We feel that the revised definition of a stream (alternative 1) is preferred. We feel that the ordinance should include the concept of "mitigation banking". Mitigation banking is supported by the Army Corps of Engineers and is an excellent method to start or expand sensitive areas while providing options for site development. We also want the planning commission to consider "fee in lieu" of sensitive area preservation. Allowed for use in certain cases, typically _ lower category wetlands, this method can create a funding source to restore and enhance higher quality wetlands in the City. Thank you for considering our comments. We hope to monitor your efforts and look for the opportunity to review the planning commission draft proposal. September 30, 1997 L -l. ♦V Gl ♦ G 111G - Planning Commissioners Federal Way City Hall Federal Way, WA RE: Revisions to Environmentally Sensitive Areas Code This letter addresses the revisions proposed to the City of Federal Way Code update as it relates to Environmentally Sensitive Areas. I have been -certified as a Professional Wetland Scientist by the Society of Wetland Scientists and have been a wetland consultant for the past 131/2 years. My firm has completed hundreds of wetland studies in King and Pierce Counties as well as Federal Way, Tacoma, Auburn, Kent, DesMoines, and SeaTac. We also consulted to the City of Normandy Park for the wetland and stream sections of their sensitive areas code. We have had the opportunity to review the August 21, 1997 report to you from Don Largen. This letter addresses the recommendations in Mr. Largen's report as well as issues I have discussed with Mr. Greg Fewins. I would like to begin by thanking you for addressing revisions to the existing code. As a consultant to developers in Federal Way, we have found it extremely difficult to assist our clients due to the inflexibility of the code. As you know, small lots with marginal value wetlands have been inordinately impacted by the unusually large buffer requirements. Our specific comments are: 1. Rating System: We support use of a three-tier wetland rating system. Although the Washington Dept. of Ecology recommends a four -tier classification, this system can be administratively coumbersome.. Conversly, the two tier systems frequently used by smaller cities do not provide adequate levels of distinction between the very small, low value wetlands and the mid-size4uoderate wetlands. 2. Category 2 Definition: We strongly disagree with Mr. Largen's recommendation to modify the Category 2 definition as proposed in the Staff Preferred Alternative 1. Specifically, we disagree 1103 West Meeker Street, Suite C - Kent, WA 98032-5751 - (206) 859-0515 - Fax (206) 852-4732 RE: Sensitive Areas Code B -twelve Associates, Inc. October 1, 1997 Page 2 with, the suggestion that the Paragraph "c" language state that the wetland would be "less than one acre in size in its entirely and having two or more wetland classes; we also disagree with the removeal of "or forested" from the criteria. Staff had recommended that the language, state "having three or more wetland classes, which have a forested class". We believe that lowering the Category 2 threshold to two wetland classes, as Mr. Largen suggests. will be inordinately restrictive to most wetland properties. In addition, it is a more restrictive standard than is used by any other city or county in the immediate vicinity of Federal Way. We have attached copies of the existing category definitions from Kent, Normandy Park, Tacoma, DesMoines, and Pierce and King Counties for your review. Please note that where wetland class is a defining part of the criteria, each of these jurisdictions requires the forested class as a component of defining a higher value wetland. The apparent purpose of this section of the code would be to protect smaller higher value wetlands; we agree with this need. However, our experience is that three wetland classes are what give the smaller wetlands this higher value. To understand the distinction between two or three classes, a definition of wetland vegetation class needs to be addressed. The industry standard for these definitions is taken from "USFWS Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States" Cowardin, et al. This document is most frequently referred to as simply "Cowardin" . Classes (or communities) of vegetation include aquatic, emergent, scrub -shrub, forested, and open water. The wetlands we recognize from brochures and TV documentaries typically include most of these classes. However, in our urbanizing areas, almost all of our wetlands have been impacted by historic and/or current human intrusion. As a result, the picture book wetlands are very infrequent. In Federal Way, the large forested wetland (Hylebos 18) to the south of SE 348`h Street is an example of this extremely high quality of wetland. Most commonly, our urban wetlands have no mature trees (a forested class) and are covered by non-native species like blackberry and reed canary grass (scrub/shrub). However, most do include emergent and scrub/shrub classes. These wetlands frequently less than one acre in size, are very wet only during the winter and early spring and dry out during the summer. Most land owners therefore do not recognize these areas as wetlands. Yet, because they have two wetland classes, they would be up -graded to be regulated as Category 2 wetlands with 100 foot buffers.. If the of Mr. Largen's recommendation to remove the forested class from the upgrade, and to limit the threshold to two wetland classes is approved, wetland blackberry patches with emergent understory less than one acre in size will be protected with a 100 foot buffer. Most commonly this means that small wetlands located in an abandoned field or at the edge of an old fill site will be upgraded to a Category 2 wetland. We do not agree that this kind of wetland should be identified as a higher value wetland. RE: ` Sensitive Areas Code B -twelve Associates, Inc'. October 1, 1997 Page 3 We strongly encourage you to adopt the criteria and language for Wetland Classification System. as noted in Preferred Alternative 1 without the modifications proposed by Mr. Largen. 3.' Buffers: We question the need to apply such extremely broad buffers to the category 2, and 3 wetlands. As with the classification criteria, the buffers proposed will be more restrictive than those of any other surrounding jurisdiction. In reviewing the DoE guidelines for establishment of buffers, it is important to note that DoE uses a 4 -tier system; thus, DoE category 2 wetlands are of significantly higher value than the category 2 wetlands typically identified in a three tier system. When the Largen proposed modification of the Category 2 wetland is combined with ' the large (100 ft) buffer, the impact to the property owner appears to be unusually restrictive. Both the 50 foot buffer for the Category 3 wetlands and the 100 ft buffer for the Category 2 wetland will frequently result in buffer areas that far exceed the physical size of the wetland. With the provisions for both larger buffers and buffer averaging, smaller buffers typically permit flexibility for protection of the wetland while allowing site design flexibility. We therefore encourage you to consider reducing the buffer of Category 2 wetlands to 50 feet, and Category 3 wetlands to 25 feet. 4. In our conversations with Greg Fewins, we were disappointed to learn that two additional issues are not being addressed in this modification process: a. Administrative review of reasonable use applications for a single family residence on a single platted lot We have assisted almost a dozen private lot owners, in a variety of jurisdictions, with gaining permits to build single family homes on already platted lot through the reasonable use process. In cases where a public hearing was required, the average costs for the process has been approximately $12,000 to $15,000! The resultant impact and mitigation plans have been exactly those which had been worked out between the applicant, his consultants and the city prior to the hearing—for about $3000 - $4000! As a second phase of your review process, we urge you to find an administrative review Iprocess for this unique group of land owners. b. Regulated Lakes The existing code recognizes "regulated lakes" as a wetland category. These lakes (typically found in West Campus) are storm water detention ponds which now have the RE: Sensitive Areas Code 13 -twelve Associates, Inc. - October 1, 1997 Page 4: characteristics of open water pond wetlands. In our experience with new development around these areas, the staff has been cooperative is assisting us and the developers in working our way through a very cumbersome regulatory process. Because these_ storm ponds have been included as a special category of wetland, any new discharge of storm water to these areas must be viewed as a potential impact to a wetland. Thus, the project is required to provide sensitive areas mitigation for- storm water impacts to an existing storm water detention pond. In addition, because the lake is considered a wetland, it is also protected by a buffer. Thus, any modifications which must be made to the existing inlet or outlet control structures, must also be mitigated for buffer impacts under the current code. It should also be noted that these regulated lakes would meet the criteria as Category 2 wetlands under both the staff Preferred Alternative 1 and the Largen modification. Thus, regulated lakes (storm ponds) would be protected by 100 foot buffers. Reviewing storm water discharge projects as part of the sensitive areas code compliance adds thousands of dollars to a project which complies with the master storm drainage plans for the city. We urge you to specifically exclude. these storm ponds as regulated wetlands. While we do not support destruction of these areas, we do not feel it is appropriate to protect an area created and maintained as a storm pond as a regulated wetland. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input into this complex process. We are available to answer any questions you may have. Sincerely, B -twelve Associates, Inc. Susan L. Burgemeister President Enc. Page 10 of 28 any uninventoried wetland which meets any one of the following criteria: "(i) Wetlands having flora or fauna species, and/or outstanding potential habitat for those species, listed by the federal government or State of Washington as endangered, threatened, sensitive, special concern, or.monitored; (ii) Wetlands, or collection of wetlands within a stream corridor, greater than or equal to. one (1) acre in size having one - (1) or more wetland classes; or (iii) Wetlands, or.collection of wetlands within a stream corridor,. of any size having three (3)*or more wetland classes. (2) "Important Wetland" is a wetland meeting any of the following criteria: (A) Any wetland either: assigned the 03 rating in the King County Wetland Inventory Notebook; or .(B) Any rated wetland that shows significantly changed conditions since being inventoried or any uninventoried wetland, or collection of wetlands within •the stream corridor, which is less than one (1) acre in size having two (2) or fewer wetland classes. Section 4. General Reouirements (a) Applicability. All development proposals in environmentally ' sensitive areas, _whether public or private, shall comply with the requirements and purposes of this Chapter. The Planning Director is authorized to adopt written procedures for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Chapter. Responsibility for enforcement of the provisions of this Chapter shall rest with the Planning Director or the Director's designee. For the purposes of this Chapter, development proposals include proposals which require any of the following: Building permit; land clearing, grading, or filling permit; shoreline substantial development permit; shoreline variance; shoreline conditional use permit; shoreline environmental redesignation;: conditional use permit; unclassified use permit; variance; zone reclassification; planned unit development; subdivision; short subdivision; any other land use approvals required by the -Des Moines Municipal Code of the Revised Code of Washington. . (b) Special Studies Required. When an applicant submits an application for any development proposal the application shall indicate whether any environmentally sensitive area is located on the site. The Planning Director or the Director's designee shall visit the subject property and review the information submitted by the applicant along with any other available information. If the Planning Director determines that sufficient environmental information to evaluate a proposal is not available, the Planning Director shall notify the applicant that special environmental studies are required. Special environmental studies shall include a comprehensive site inventory and analysis, a discussion of potential impacts from the proposed development, and specific measures designed to mitigate any , potential adverse environmental impacts of the applicant's proposal, on- and off-site. The Planning Director shall develop and maintain a detailed list of required study Page 12 of 28: Section 7. Development Standards (a) Streams and Wetlands -- Buffers. If a stream or a wetland is located on or contiguous to the site of a development proposal, all activities on the site shall be in compliance with the following requirements and restrictions: (1) Streams. The following buffers of undisturbed native vegetation -shall be provided: (A) Significant Streams - one hundred foot (100') buffer. (B) Important Streams - thirty-five foot (35') buffer. (C) Any stream relocated or mitigated because of alterations shall have at least the minimum buffer required for the category of stream _involved. (D) All buffers shall be measured from the top of the upper -bank'of the stream as identified in the field. (2)' Wetlands. The following buffers of native vegetation, shall be provided: (A) Significant Wetlands - one hundred foot (100') buffer. (B) Important Wetlands - thirty-five foot (35') buffer. (C) Any wetland relocated or mitigated because of alterations shall have at least the minimum buffer required for the category of the wetland involved. (D) All buffers shall be measured from the edge of thewetland as identified in the field. (3) Additional Buffers. The Planning Director may require either additional native vegetation to achieve purposes of this Chapter or increased buffer sizes when environmental information indicates the necessity for greater buffers in order to achieve the purposes identified in Section 2: In cases where additional buffers are not:feasible, the Planning Director may require the applicant to undertake alternative on-site or off-site mitigation measures, including but not limited to a financial contribution to 'projects or programs which seek to improve environmental quality within the same watershed. (4) Building Setback Lines. A building setback line of ten feet (10') is required from the edge 'of any wetland buffer or stream buffer. Minor structural intrusions into the area of the building setback line may be allowed if the Planning Director determines that such intrusions will not negatively impact the environmentally sensitive area. (b) Hillsides -- Buffers and Disturbance Limitations. If a hillside is located on or adjacent to a development site, all activities on the site shall be in compliance with the following requirements and restrictions: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Co Rating System for Western Washington developed by -the Washington Depart- ment of Ecology. The Washington Department of Ecology has developed a methodology for rating wetlands under this rating system. That methodol- ogy shall, be used in rating wetlands under this chapter. It is contained in Washington Department of Ecology Publication Number 91-57 (October 1991). ----►1. Type I wetlands are wetlands categorized as meeting one of .the following: a. Documented habitat recognized by federal or state agencies for threatened or endangered species of plant or possibly extinct or extirpated plant, animal or fish; b. Documented high-quality Natural Heritage wetland sites or high-quality native wetland communities which qualify as a Natural Heritage wetland site; c. Documented habitat of regional (Pacific coast) or national significance for migratory birds; d. Regionally rare native wetland communities; or e. Wetlands with irreplaceable ecological functions. 2, Type II wetlands are categorized as meeting one of the following: a. Documented habitat for sensitive species of plant, animal or fish recognized by federal or state agencies; b, Wetlands with documented priority habitats or species recog- nized by state agencies; c, Wetlands with significant functions which may not be ade- quately replicated through creation or restoration; or - 30 - LEG 004111/891 7 5 2 1 r 3 4 . 51 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 )G401/89) d. Wetlands with significant habitat value greater than or equal to 22 points (freshwater wetlands). 3. Type III wetlands are defined as those wetlands that do not contain features outlined in type I, II -or IV. —=--3;w4. Type IV wetlands are defined as those hydrologically isolated wetlands that do not meet'the criteria of a type I or II wetland and are: a. Equal to or less than one acre in size, have only one wetland class and have only one dominant plant species (monotypic vegeta- tion) or b. Equal to or less than two acres in size, have only one wet- land class and a predominance of exotic species. 13.11.150 REVIEW PROCESS. A. Overview: Application for a wetland or stream assessment, delineation or permit by one or more property owners or applicants shall be made to the Public Works Department, Building and Land Use Services Division. The Building and Land Use Services Division may utilize infor- mation from the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, the United States Geological Survey, the Washington Department of Ecology, the Coastal Zone Atlas, the National Wetlands Inventory maps, Tacoma. topography maps, the City's Generalized Wetland and Critical Areas Inventory maps, and Pierce County Assessor's maps to establish general locations and/or verify the location of any wetland or stream site. The Land Use Administrator shall make an initial assessment, which may require plans -as specified in Section 13.11.150.0 and a site inspection, to deter- mine whether a delineation report is required. If a delineation report is 7521r - 31 - t 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 pollutants, enhance wildlife diversity, and support and protect wetland plants and wildlife. A permit may be granted. if it has been demonstrated that no adverse impact to a wetland will occur and a minimum buffer width will -be provided W accordance with this section. The buffer shall be measured from the upland edge of the wetland or stream and shall consist of an area of natural, enhanced or new native. vegetation. B. Minimum Requirement: 1. Wetlands: Wetland buffer widths' shall be established as follows, based on wetland classification: Type I -200 feet Type II 100 feet Type III 50 feet Type IV "25 feet 2. Streams: Streams with riparian wetland habitats shall have - the buffer widths which apply to their wetland classification or following . -the fol n buffer widths whichever is more restrictive. 9 a. Minimum buffer widths based on stream classification and the intensity of use and/or activity are: (1) Type'I streams: As set forth in'Chapter 13.10, Shore- line Management-, of the Official Code of'the,City of Tacoma, or the same as type II and III streams below, whichever .is greater. (2) Type II and III streams: A minimum 100 -foot buffer:` (3) Type IV streams: `1 (a) Low impact uses with minimal human or structural activity such as passive recreation shall have a minimum 50- - 44 - ; 004 (11/891 11 7521r A 10 11 12 '13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20, 21 22 23 24 ■ �v: 25 26 IN foot buffer. (b) Higher impact uses with human or structural activity such as active recreation or residential, commercial and. _industrial uses or buildings shall have a minimum 100 -foot buffer.* (4). Type V streams: A minimum 25 -foot buffer. C. Buffer areas or buffer widths may be modified, on a case -by-• case basis, by averaging, decreasing or increasing widths under the fol- lowing conditions. In making determinations concerning the modification .of buffers, the Land Use Administrator should consider the relationship between the size in area of the buffers on site and the size in area of the wetlands or -streams on site. . 1. Averaging -shall be allowed only where the following is demon- strated: a. Variations in sensitivity exist because of physical charac- teristics; b. The least intense land use will be adjacent to reduced buffer width, c.' Width averaging will not adversely impact wetland function or value; and d. Total area contained within the averaged buffer is equal to the minimum required within the standard buffer zone. However, in no instance shall the buffer be reduced by more than 50 percent for a wetland or stream, or be less than 25 feet for a wetland or ten feet for a stream. 2. The Land -Use Administrator may require increased buffer 7521r - 45 - y I $ KING (o. excluding buffers, which is hydrologically isolated from other wetlands or streams does not have permanent open water, and is determined to be of low function. (Ord. 11621 § 33, 1994: Ord. r 10870 § 322, 1993). > 21A.06.1415 Wetlands. Wetlands: those areas in King County which are inundated or saturated by ground or surface water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas, or other artificial features intentionally created to mitigate conversions of wetlands pursuant to wetlands . mitigation banking. Wetlands do not include artificial features created from non -wetland areas including, but not limited to irrigation and drainage ditches, grass -lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Where the vegetation has been removed or substantially altered, a wetland shall be determined by the presence or evidence of hydric or organic soil, as well as by other documentation, such as aerial photographs, of the previous existence of wetland vegetation. When the areas of any wetlands are hydrologically connected to each other, they shall be added . together to determine which of the following categories of wetlands apply: A. Class 1 wetlands, only including wetlands assigned the Unique/Outstanding #1 rating in the 1983 King County Wetlands Inventory or which meet any of the following criteria: 1. are wetlands which have present species listed by the federal or state government as endangered or threatened or. outstanding actual habitat for those species; 2. are wetlands which have 40% to 60% permanent open water in dispersed patches with two or more classes of vegetation; 3. are wetlands equal to or greater than ten acres in size and have three or more classes of vegetation, one of which is submerged vegetation in permanent open water, or 4. are wetlands which have present plant associations -of infrequent occurrence; B. Class 2 wetlands, only including wetlands assigned the Significant #2 rating in the 1983 King County Wetlands Inventory or which meet any of the following criteria: 1. are wetlands greater than one acre in size; 2. are wetlands equal to or less than one acre in size and have three or more classes of vegetation; 3. are wetlands which: a. are located within an area designated "urban" in the King County Comprehensive Plan; b. are equal to or less than one acre but larger than 2,500 square feet; and c. have three or more classes of vegetation; 4. are forested wetlands equal to or less than one acre but larger than 2500 square feet; or 5. are wetlands which have present heron rookeries or raptor nesting trees; and C. Class 3 wetlands, only including wetlands assigned the Lesser Concern #3 rating in the 1983 King County Wetlands Inventory or which meet any of the following criteria: 1. are wetlands equal to or less than one acre in size and have two or fewer classes of vegetation; or 2. are .wetlands which: a. are located within an area designated "urban" in the King County Comprehensive Plan; b. are equal to or less than one acre but larger than 2,500 square feet; and c. have two or fewer classes of vegetation. (Ord. 12122 § 1, 1996: Ord. 11621 § 34, 1994: Ord. 10870 § 323, 1993). C 06-40 (King County 3-96) - use of hazardous substances, pesticides and fertilizers in steep slope hazard areas and their buffers may be prohibited by King County; D. Alterations to steep slope hazard areas arid buffers may be allowed only as follows: 1. approved surface water conveyances, as specified in the Surface Water Design Manual, may be allowed on'steep slopes if they are installed in a manner to minimize disturbance to the slope and vegetation; 2. public and private trails may be allowed on steep slopes as approved by the county. Under no circumstances shall trails be constructed of concrete, asphalt or other impervious surfaces which will contribute to surface water run-off, unless such construction is necessary for soil stabilization or soil erosion prevention or unless the trail system is specifically designed and intended to be accessible to handicapped persons. Additional requirements for trait construction may be set forth in administrative rules; 3. utility corridors may be allowed on steep slopes if a special study shows that such alteration will not subject the area to the risk of landslide or erosion; 4. limited trimming and pruning of vegetation may be allowed on steep slopes pursuant to an approved vegetation management plan for the creation and maintenance of views if the soils are not disturbed and the activity is subject to administrative rules;, 5. approved mining and quarrying activities may be allowed; and..: 6. stabilization of sites where erosion or landsliding threaten public or. private structures, utilities, roads, driveways or trails, or'where erosion and landsliding threatens any lake, stream, wetland or shoreline. Stabilization work shall be performed in -a manner which causes the least possible disturbance to the slope and its vegetative cover; and 7. reconstruction, remodeling, or replacement of an existing structure upon another portion of an existing impervious surface which was established pursuant to King County laws and regulations may be allowed provided:'- a. if within the buffer, the structure is located no closer to the steep slope than the existing structure.- b. tructure;b. the existing impervious surface within the buffer or steep slope is not expanded as a result of the reconstruction or replacement. E. The following are exempt from the provisions of this section: 1. slopes- which are 40% or steeper with a vertical elevation change of up to 20 feet.if no adverse impact will result from the exemption based on King County's review of and concurrence with a soils report prepared by a geologist or geotechnical engineer, and 2. the approved regrading of any slope which was created through previous legal grading activities. Any slope which remains 40% or steeper following site development shall be subject to all requirements for steep slopes. (Ord. 11621 1177,.1994: Ord. 11273 § 5, 1994; Ord. 10870 § 478, 1993). 21A.24.320 Wetlands: development standards. A development proposal on a site containing a wetland shall meet the following requirements:. A. The following minimum buffers shall be established from the wetland edge: 1. a class -1 wetland shall have a 100 -foot buffer; 2. a class 2 wetland shall have a 50 -foot buffer; 3. a class 3 wetland shall have a 25 -foot buffer; 4. any wetland restored, relocated, replaced or enhanced because of a wetland alteration shall have the minimum buffer required for the highest wetland class involved; and 5. any wetland within 25 feet of the toe of a slope 30% or steeper, but less than 40%, shall have: a. the minimum buffer required for -the wetland class involved or a 25 -foot buffer beyond the top of the slope, whichever is greater, if the horizontal length of the slope including small benches and terraces is within the buffer for that wetland class; or 24-17 (King County 12-94) .1 EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE NO. 91-1289- C� l� 2 P 17.12.210 Appendices A through �. Page 38 of 52 F11 APPENDIX Bfi 41 - WETLAND CATEGORIES 6 Wetland categories shall be designated according to the following criteria:' 7 .A.. Category I: . 8 1.. Documented habitat for endangered or threatened plant, 9 fish or animal species or for potentially extirpated' plant species recognized by state or federal agencies; or 10 2. High quality native wetland communities, including 11 documented Natural Heritage wetland sites and sites which qualify asa Natural Heritage wetland; or 12 3.' High quality, regionally rare wetland communities with 13 irreplaceable ecological functions, including sphagnum bogs and fens, estuarine wetlands, or mature forested 14 swamps; or 15 4. Wetlands of exceptional local significance, as designated by separate Pierce County Ordinance. B. Category II:' 17 1. Regulated wetlands that do not contain features outlined 18 in category I; and 19 2. Documented habitats for sensitive plants or fish species recognized by e e'°' " Mo- .10cstate agencies; or 20 3. Documented priority habitats and species recognized by 21 state agencies; or 221 4. Regionally rare wetland communities which'are not high quality, but which have irreplaceable ecological 23 functions, including sphagnum bogs and fens, estuarine wetlands, or mature forested swamps; or 24 5. Wetland typeswith significant functions which may not be 25 adequately replicated through creation or.restoration. These wetlands may be demonstrated by the following 26 characteristics: 27 a. Significant peat systems; or �R Page 38 of 52 F11 .. ... ...,..-. .. ..-.... .._ _ - ...........,..:..,.ee.r.:: a1.aaaan rsu ....:a ur . v..;..., d.a/r• I .EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE No. 91-128S -2 b. Forested swamps that have three canopy layers, excluding monotypic stands of red alder averaging 3 eight inches diameter or less at breast height; or C. Significant spring'fed systems; or 5 6.' Wetlands with significant habitat value based on diversity and size, including wetlands which are: 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 a. Ten acres or greater in size; and two or more wetland classes together with open water at any time during a normal year; or b. Ten acres or greater in size; and three or more wetland classes; and five or more subclasses of vegetation in a dispersed pattern; or C. Five acres or greater in size; and forty to sixty percent open water at any during a normal year; and two or more subclasses of vegetation in a dispersed pattern; or 7. Regulated wetlands which are contiguous with both year- round and intermittent salmonid fish -bearing waters; or + J 8.' Wetlands with significant use by fish and wildlife. C. Category III: Regulated wetlands that do not contain features outlined in category I, II or IV. 1, D. Category IV: 18 1. Regulated wetlands which do not meet the criteria of a category I or II wetland; and 19 2. Hydrologically isolated wetlands that are less than or 20 equal to one acre in size, and have only one wetland class, and have only one dominant plant species 21 (monotypic vegetation). 'i4YY�f YYr 22 �yµ .r..r ,�� r •.r`Y. w. �.. ,.��. ... �r•.n0>x.P�9Y,• Yg�y.aT.l.he,gtgoryoKwet�lar."'u.x..• ;,�.,.�,��.�„. p0i•�.�. n... .� nyx t -3r'�ecr or.gr.r n. z. e �,,�,err.....wr<,.;,�r..�,�..,..�.r�..�,�.•�r..r��r��r...x�, 1'1.1,?.a..�^x'.".'oa��.,f:�.�cat�:ans•,�to�..the�w�,etXana:.>, 23 ...........,,•c: ac tuxn,�rrr:i,x;�..drocw:M�w` w�cww.a iu 8a.v.�c iraox�,:kau,c c,7,rwr r.: 24 25 26 27 28 Page 39 of 52 • j EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE NO. 91-1285G. eategery !I! wetlands aL-e�-these regulated wetlands whieh ha �� %• 3 4 ilei .`'�eeure."e-va li*e 5 D. Lege -1 !V wetlands are these regulated eanelTlass, laele ef speelal features, and 4:9elat-i-tr --frera ether aqfaatie systeras. 7 fle reT �-Bpae;o des ..t b : sh r J wetland 8 . 9 17.12.070 Establishing Buffers 10 A. Buffers widths shall be determined according to the following 11 table: 121 Wetland Category Buffer Width 13 I 150 feet II 100 feet 14 III 50 feet IV 25 feet 15 " B. Buffer widths maybe modified way -s -.-by averaging, -------------------f 16 RE bT-�t�Q:z:°reducing,;` arµnceas�n . & � 17 1. Buffer width averaging may be allowed only where the applicant demonstrates the following:' 18 a. The wetland contains variations in sensitivity due 19 to existing physical characteristics; and 20 b. Width averaging will not adversely impact the wetland; and 21 C. The total buffer area after averaging is no less 22 than the buffer area prior to -averaging; and 23 d. The minimum buffer width will not be less than fifty percent of the widths established in Subseetien.A. 24a45-e-ve=in.„..?.wla., 'Q.f.O..rA 25 2. Buffer width reduction may be allowed only where the applicant demonstrates the following,- circunst �nces . 'I e 26 reduct`.' ii:7greater':than a -twenty=five pr_rcent,4r6ductio,,, in the bizffer4,.width” 27 `1 C.7,0., es4ab]..�=hEad in 712 n._,,,.r,.... NM•w£.•..........r.,.•..-..•. ,. , 28 Page 12 of 52 :@, El -KENT P!Hu�a,diyN wlr .'r Y "7 M. X , rn1 h T'nl !Tl' L 1► T �i�� 1 �•�' ��M d�u'I n�f{ n.�i�+�'91�1+1:� iw�� '�{I�'r'A".� � h WETLANDS MANAGEMENT : &4f Wetlands and their buffer alas are fntgile and valuable natural resources. Examples of some important ftrnetioas iaeliide~flood storage, -acct qushw mnprovemesnt and wildlife habitat_ cam—Over the years, a eaasiderable wrcagc of wetlands has been permanently JiME' Remaining wetlands am in jeopardy of being log or degraded Therefore, it is noerssary to protection of wellaudarcai is the City by regulating activities: in wetlands and in site adjaccut to wetlands that my adversely affect wetland functions sad values, to encourage restoration and enhancement of already -degraded wetland systems and to encourage creation of new wethmd areas. a+/:rX.{:r _ A*.Wt•4n :aanrarorik pK_r�i �_s..•n-a _ _. rre :_. :q The maoageaneat of wetlands within the City of Kcal is based an a goal of no net leas of wetland acrage, function or value. The purpose of Kent City Code 11.05 (Kant Wetlands ' Wsn*inca Code) 'ii to p'rutect the pubiiteliealh, safest' ind wolf— by p=imviog: prorating sad mdm-iog wetlands through the roguhtwa of developmeat and otter activdiea within ' diem and wetland buf%rs so that auisani=Wor threats to safety aur not crated; and natural wetland functions and values ate not degraded. The Kent Public Works Department has been charged with the administration and enforcement of the new wetland code- 4v•✓a ai ib2bV2 ..,-Y8•:f, v}i/K.. �-...- T-- •S +. _... ,'_`3.. s.:.. =P: _ ._. �Ceaeral'Pioccdnic'for Development Projeets'i . Y +.' :r_. ui - .. :a:. +:• Far now SEPA projects- lrwa r:•= . Submit iha-appropriate application -(ex. grade"dt: fill, building, et4):-deaoting preliminary'wedand status of the site. 2 Preliminary wetland status shall be verified by Public Works. •l ±r: 3_ Wetland delineation report and mitigation plan may be required based on this determitutdon- J';Wr act.:: �.�•�{� _ .t. _.;ii+ .a:^. 'r�- t. rt7 .- _ :•i'K. :. . - - _ For SEPA projects 1. Submit an Faviroomental Checklist (see guidance sheet #14) along with a wetland delineation report and coaccptuai mitigation plan. Aftetth6threshoid SEPA determination, contact Kean Planning to schedule a Development Plan Review meeting (sex guidance sheet 113), as part of normal site development - Submit wetland delineation report and concepnnl mitigation plan for review and approval by Public Works. Submit find mitigation plaWand drawings, as outlined in KCC,.Chapter11.05. for review and approval by Public Works. �. Post a wetland mitigation bond. , See Public Worts for amount'+', -qsx : 4 i. 6. Etnmoe periodic inspection by wetland ecologist(s) of progress toward full impementatioa of approved mitigatioa plan. tfe -t t.'e a 9L-'. , .a 61� - i:3 Sdmmarj of RCC Chapter 11.05 Regnirt meats. 1 : AtrolicalnTity: This chapter it applicable to all activity and development oceuring in a wetland or wetland buffer. - 2 Determination of Wetland Boundary. The exact location of the wetland boundary shall be determined through the performance of field investigation and survey applying •"'" the wcdacd definition and methodology of the 1987 Federal Manual. A delineation -report which has been approved by Public Works, is binding upon the City and the :~ °'.• applicanr-for one year from the date of issuance of the SEPA threshold determinatioa:l The wetland'delineation report shall include the following: general site description, map showing surveyed wetland boundary(s) and planimetercd acreage, anticipated buffer setbacks, methodologies used, detailed descriptions of the soils, vegetation and hydrology, and visual survey of any off-site contiguous wetlands or buffers. 3.: Wetland Cateeories. it. t Category 1: Wetlands greater than 2 acres in size having 40.60 % open water in dispersed patches with 2 or more clyses of vegetation, OR wetlands grater than 10 acres in size and having three wetland classes (one of which is open water), OR wetlands with bogs or fens, OR wetlands with the documented presence of and/or critical habitat for endangered, threatened or priority species. b. Category 2: Wetlands greater than I acre in size, OR wetlands less than 1 acre and having three wetland classes, OR wetlands les than 1 acre and having a fomined wetland class, OR wetlands with heron rookeries or raptor nesting sites. - C. Category 3: Wetlands ess than 1 acre in size that have 2 or fewer wetland classes. 4:• Reeulated Activities. No regulated activity is allowed in a wetland or its buffer without first obtaining approval from Public Works. Regulated activities are any of the following which occur in a wetland of its buffer. a. Earthwork of any kind. b. Disturbance of water level or water table. C. Driving of piles. d. Placing of obstructions. e. Coastruction/dcmolition work of any structure. f. Destruction or alteration of wetland vegetation through clearing, harvesting, shading, burning or planting. g. Construction of essential public infrastructure. h. Activities that introduce pollutants or significant changes to water quality or quantity. r� 4 Vi ... .. tui. - .. '••y' ...:�i syr �•.. -+ _ r.. •` • _ •,. r S. "Allowed Activities: The following activities shall be allowed in a wetlandor wetland buffer without prior approval from Public Works as long as they are not prohibited by other laws and do not convert or subject a wetland or wetland buffer to a use to which it was not previously subjected: a. Co"MItiaa/pte1tvatia4 activities. b. Outdoorreeseatiaa C. Harvesting of wild crops. provided that no thlfmg of soil, planting of crops, or any alteration of the wetland tate place. E d. Existing and on-going agricultural activities.. C. Repair and maintenance (not construction) of ditches. E Education, seieaee or theme of nature trsil L g. Placement of navigation aids or boundary iaitltu •Li �r _V J It. Site investigative wort necessary for land use submittals, as long as disturbed areas are immediately restored. 6. Rewired Nodccs/Tcwpmry Emergency AnorovahMw-Confnrminr Activities. ash:?tri dh ib M.brF ..: tfs up ; unfit a-� . ,;'ssrs.`.•sa'•' . m�gafacx >~ a3 -.acct z '. atf,'. :a.• -.. �j �.c: s.. ;r _m--nr..V .ma; . ti . Somo'aetivitiea•am slowed witbia wctlm& provided written notice at least 10 days prior to the activity, is given to Publie;_Wotts and that disturbed _• areas ate oa. . 'iy+, aYntrcr immedrateb%sectored:>maiasearmoe sir tepok sof existing serviceable structures, wekss. utilities and infrastructure.. This does not include changes to the character or size of the structure.:' ' +< s�•rs."xv+ ... "t�'n�c'av:: • ".. mss �•o_ • _ : ores trshs3:•. : •: .:.M+x__r.:';, b. Emergency approvals can be granted for iotnineat threats W public heath, safety or the environment. In such eases, restoration shall be completed within 90 .t ci^ +, 's�+i. lsi{xa3q' c:tr:..::1q: ::_'_:.• . Adaya."F 71T:a IY, � � � .4a laY � YetbW. .ii noatonforming seq-is:ooewhchwasLwfut'ahabegu1s..% t. ' •.a titi+tiw ct+.r .' ?!,a. hers,- ;-,•.:: ' yet nor in with KCC 11;OS..Such utivity.mty be oontmped osly.so long as it is ,•rs.;:s szd trfadti: •C- s not lj.expauded or ehangedcia say way after June:18th. 1993.,such as to incense tht;'extent of its nonconformity OR 2).diacantmued for 12,eontiauous months i after June 18, 1993 OR 3) damaged by natural disaster, including flooding. 7. General Requirements. For all wetland types and sneer, a regulated activity -in a wetland or wdiand buffer shall be approved only if the activity avoids adverse impacts to wetlands and buffers, OR if the applicant demonstrates that adverse impacts are both unavoidable and necessary and that appropriate compensatory mitigatim will be provided and that the activity will result in no net loss of wWand area. function or value 3 x u/and < 20!70 s do k raridenaal - -, �1Cda7' 1�* q��j6► d 1�' maybe.mitigated for anth.fea in Gar of mi$gatian, providedfeea ate directed toward a City owned • . and operated mitigation bank. Nfitrgatioa few shall be established by Public. Worts on a ase by can basis . ..:; ;•, .. . - ; .,w .;t ..:.a; r !Zrlla," ..c =: .Y.9j14'_:: -:. b.: ..: )S' Wit• yt -... i [ c.: .77�v. 5 t. _ ` Category 3 waland filLc < 10,000 sgttanfar permitted without specific approval as long as appropriate, necessary mitigation is provided. An approved mE+b- per. bowever, is required. .. r::; : x�gF'as+riF� ul�+ xc...: • i, bruicv r .: �. - �ci`i (ice' ,_ .. YEt� . •.. :.' n:;.�;. cq,�, +u� #nab ill odw, op. of redw dimr: Regulated activities sb&MvA be authorized except where it cam be demonstrated that the impact is both %mavoidabk and neeessary, and that: . . a"e •%Y::, .�;ta•�f+Fl.l Y4 ys.• Sa1hR•N 4na.it .; 8�+if„R-:,._ .:. , ...aAt.:` ,. .�t•: a The basic project purposeceaonot rsaseoabtybe ucamplished using an altermwe,srte ia;the general regiomthat is avagable.to the applicant,:and b. A reduction int the scope of the project or all altemative designs that would impact lesa',wroland or.buf er will not seeompbsh tho basic purpwe c- A aetLnd mitigation pian cern' bewroved-Twvo- tut ; :Y , r ... _ ,t ogr+ gtt% 8. Huffcrs/Sct-becks. Wetland buffer mus shall be required for all regulated activities and retained in their natural state as much as possible. Any wetland err or enhanced as compensation for approved wet)and: alterations shall also kchWc the standard buffer required for the category of the created or enhanced wetland_ En6noc& buffers may be used to satisfy landscaping requirements where Public Worts determines that the enhanced buffer wiIIreside rater P g protection ofwdlsnd functions. A minimum buffer width of 25 feet shall be maintained, if buffer averaging is employed.. The minimum building set -beck from any wetland buffer is 15 fccL The minimum buffer zone widths for Category 1, 2 and 3 wetlands are 100, 50 and 25 fed, respectively. .. •5•+Cit f,i:v; - .9 :: t -Wetland Mitigation..,.All wetland fill projects, require an approved mitigation:phn that is consistent with the mitigation standards as outJroed m KCC 11.U.- he goal behind srequitiog the applicant to engage in the creation or cnhaneemcnt of wetlands and buffers to offset the impacts of regulated activities is. no net loss of wetlaod acreage. value i +!r.;2,x or function. In general,. oa-site and is. kind compensation is preferred; otheroptions shall be reviewed on a caw -by -cm. basis.., _zea , p....•, , - . ttCc, -. r Lr_;t:.v •. -ata'-:.,a'' 1 laat•:• The aootieant shall make even effort to provide for the completion of compensation prior to wetland destruction where practicable. Required replacement and enhancement ratios aro as follows: ±res>: Cale;cry 1 wetlaadr. Create new wetlands at 3:1; OR create new wetlandsitt 1:1 and enhance existing category 2. or3 wetlands at 3c1.. Category 1 wetlands shall not be Category 2 and 3 sartlandr. Create new wetlands at 15:1; OR create new wetlands at 1:1 and enhance existing .wcdands at 1:1. •. i . •y,;; Y2'. 't:t:n „^t„ . Mitigation banking: The !racy eacouraga and may facilitate the opening of.eooperative mitigation projects or mitigation banks to provide for mora efficicat and beneficial compensation for wetland impacts. Contact Public Works for more information. Mitigation Plans: Mitigation piens shall contain the following at a minimum: baseline information (•mchrdiug acreages, maps of existing Iwetland and proposed fill and compensation arca:, proposed utility locations, etc.), goals and objectives, performance standards to be used, detailed construction plans, monitoring program, performance bond information, and contingency plan. Contact Public Works for mora information. 10. Enforcement. Procedures on investigation and notice of violation, and imposition of civil penalties for violations of KCC 11.05 shall be as specified in KCC 15.10 (Zoning Code). E: THIS SUMMARY IS INTENDED ONLY AS A SYNOPSIS OF INFORMATION, AND NOT AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR CODES, REGULATIONS OR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. CONTACT PUBLIC WORKS FOR MORE INFORMATION. mv---MwD�f PAa- 13.16.030 (51) "Urban growth" means growth that makes intensive use of land for the location of buildings, structures, and impermeable surfaces to such a degree as to be incompatible with the primary use of such land for the production of food, other agriculture products, or fiber, or the extrac- tion of mineral resources. When allowed to spread over wide areas, urban growth typically requires urban govern- mental services. "Characterized by urban growth" refers to land having urban growth located on it, or to land located in relationship to an area -with urban growth on it as to be appropriate for urban growth. (52) "' means an area inundated or.saturated by ground or sur ace water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances does support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas [Army. Corps of Engineers Regulation 33 CFR 328.3 (c) ] . WerXa7r`cs' I'Ude�%those artificial wetlands intentionally t&d from:nonwetland sites, including, but not limited .to irrigation and drainage ditches, grass -lined swales, canals,. detention/retention facilities, wastewater treat- ment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities. However, wetlands shall include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas created to mitigate conversion of -the wetlands. To as between levels of wetland protection and the application of development standards, wetlands are rated as follows: (A)=RA C" is wetland meeting any of the following criteria: (i) Any wetland meeting the criteria for either the #1 rating or #2 rating in the ZgCounty ..7etlandn= (ii) Any wetland that shows significantly changed conditions since being inventoried or any unin- ventoried wetland which meets any one of the following criteria: a. Wetlands having flora or fauna species, and/or outstanding potential for habitat for those species, listed by the federal government or state of Washington as endangered, threatened, sensitive, special concern, or monitored, b. Wetlands, or collection of wetlands with- in the stream corridor, equal to greater than one acre in size having one or more wetland classes, c. Wetlands, or collection of wetlands with- in the stream corridor, of any size having three or more wetland classes. B�`~ -" Srt�ai ''": is a wetland meeting any of the f g criter-i 186-41 (Normandy Park 6/92) 13.16.040 «, (i) Any wetland meeting the criteria for either the #3 rating in the iKzng"1County--�wetland;'3nventg 3 .,9,8: or (ii) Any wetland that shows significantly changed conditions since being inventoried or any uninven- toried wetland, or collection of wetlands within the stream corridor, which.is less than one acre in size having,two or 'fewer wetland classes. (Ord. 546 §3, 1992). 13.16.040 General requirements. (a) Applicability. All development -proposals in environmentally sensitive areas, whether public or private, shall comply with the requirements and purposes of this chapter. Responsibility for enforcement of this chapter shall rest with the city manager or his designee. For the purposes.of this chapter, development proposals include proposals which require any of the following: Building permit; land clearing, grading, or filling permit; shoreline substantial development permit; shoreline variance; shoreline conditional use permit; shoreline envi- ronmental redesignation; conditional use permit; unclassi= fied use permit; variance; zone reclassification; planned residential development; subdivision; short subdivision; any required approvals; lot line adjustments; and any sub- sequently adopted permits not expressly exempted from this chapter. (b) Special Studies Required. When an applicant submits an application for any development proposal the application shall indicate whether any environmentally sensitive areas as designated by Normandy Park's environ- mentally sensitive area map folio are located on the site. The city manager or designee shall visit the subject prop- erty and review the information submitted by the applicant along with any other available information. If the city manager or designee determines that sufficient environmen- tal information to evaluate a proposal is not available, the city manager or designee shall notify the applicant that special environmental studies are required. Special environmental studies shall include a comprehensive site inventory and analysis; a discussion of potential impacts from the proposed development, and specific technological measures designed to mitigate any potential adverse. envi- ronmental impacts of the applicant's proposal, on- and off- site. The city manager or designee shall develop and main- tain a detailed list of required study contents. All spe- cial studies shall be funded by the applicant and conducted to the requirements of the city. (c) Appeals. (1) Any final decision of the city manager or his designee in the administration of.this chapter may be ap- pealed to the city council. Such appeal must be filed with 186-42 (Normandy Park 6/92) � 7i 13.16.070 (A) Significant streams with salmonids--one- hundred-foot buffer; (B) Significant streams without salmonids -- fifty -foot buffer; (C) Important streams--twenty-five-foot buffer; (D) Any stream restored, relocated, or enhanced because of alterations shall have at least the minimum buffer required for the category of stream involved; (E)- All buffers shall be measured from.the ordinary high water mark as identified in the field or, if that cannot be determined, from the top of the bank. (�1�"+7elaiL The following buffers of native vegetation measured from the wetland edge, minimum require- ments: (A) Significant wetlands-14ne; t red=foot buffer; (B) Important wetlands -rte'.-t h"�; y�`�'` foot buff- er; uff- er; (C) Any wetland restored, relocated, replaced or enhanced because of alterations shall have at least the minimum buffer required for the category of the wetland involved; (D) Any wetland adjacent to a stream shall have the buffer which applies to the stream unless the wetland buffer requirements are more expansive. (3) Additional Buffers. The city manager or designee may require either enhancement of vegetation to achieve the purposes of this chapter or increased buffer sizes as necessary to protect wetlands, fish habitat, and streams when either is particularly sensitive to distur- bance, in a critical watershed as determined by an offi- cially authorized and adopted study or program, or the development poses unusual impacts. In cases where addi- tional buffers are not feasible, the city manager.or designee may require.the applicant to undertake alternative on-site or off-site mitigation measures, including but not limited to a financial contribution to projects or programs which seek to improve environmental quality within -the same watershed. (b) Bluff, Ravine Sidewall and Landslide Hazard Area Buffers. If a hillside is located on or adjacentto a development proposal site, all activities on the site shall be in compliance with the following requirements and re- strictions. (1) Ravine Sidewall and Bluff Buffers. A minimum fifty -foot undisturbed buffer of native vegetation shall be established from the toe of all ravine sidewalls and bluffs, and a minimum of fifty feet from the top. (2) Buffer Reduction. The minimum buffer may be reduced only when the following conditions are demonstrated to the city manager or designee: 186-47 (Normandy Park 6/92) NED GULBRAN - ASLA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 2833 Mt. St. Helens Pl. S. • Seattle, Washington 98144 • (206) 725-0390 October 3, 1997 & Kathy McClung, Land Use Administrator City of Federal Way 33530 First Way South Federal Way, WA 98003 RE: Environmentally Sensitive Areas Code Updates Dear Kathy: We were pleased to hear at Wednesday evening's Planning Commission meeting the Staff recommendations for allowing access to regulated streams for the purposes of rehabilitation and maintenance. The proposed changes are among the several regulatory changes needed to make it possible to solve the problems along the watercourse on the 40+ acre Powell property. As we have described to you and the Planning Commission, the watercourse on this land located between Dash Point Road and the sewage treatment plant at Redondo (please see attached map) is in great need of rehabilitation. Our view of the of the regulatory changes needed is from the perspective of the situation at just this one site. But there probably are many similarly degraded streams in the City which would benefit regulations that would permit their rehabilitation. The changes proposed by the Staff in the wording of the Stream Regulations, Sec. 22-1311 and 22-1312 are helpful. However, there are other regulatory factors to consider so that work could take place in a timely and effective manner. The following are our suggestions: 1. Permit Process - We recommend that permits for stream re- habilitation and maintenance be granted through Process I. We recommend also that once the project is permitted and constructed that JW go 4 periodic maintenance and replanting of native vegetation be allowed without l� ovm, lv� repeating the permit process. ,. = wfy.*' 2. Regulated Slopes - We recommend a provision that would allow s intrusion on or close to regulated slopes for the purpose 4vu- q of gaining access to a stream rehabilitation site. Our stream lies in the bottom of a deep, steep -banked ravine. We would require permission to traverse slopes of 40% or more in some areas in order to get machines and materials to areas ofthewatercourse that require clearin is or installation of check dams. It may also be necessaryb e stream bed to get around excessively steep s, the stream bed can be reached without i RED BY areas. In a fe on a regulated slope. In other areas there are roads or tM8kJ9lTtfi51EL0PMENT DEPARTMENT 0 C T 6 199% Landscape Design • Landscape Restoration • Land Planning Kathy McClung, City of Federal Way Oct. 3, 1997 Page 2. were built on steep slopes many years ago by the Water District and in conjunction with installation of a culvert which we are now trying to protect. But Sec. 22-128 revents us from coming within 25 feet of these steep areas. C'e, on t, fs 5w" s, &V,T- pro nticr,�, APPA&V4-', 3. Protection from Wildfires - We recommend that there be a provision for clearing of trees to establish fire breaks to protect life, property and public safety. The fire break rule should be linked to both slope and stream regulations 5(5001, so that clearing is done in a manner both effective and aesthetically v' sensitive. There should also be provision for establishing and maintaining`' access tracks for fire fighting equi ent. gTuiS o4ow t 5 rt6h i n� f Gtr ►'f �na� /4 ? `rJ 1,4 This 40+ acre property, like most of Puget Sound lowland forests, consists Lust Vsat. mostly of law quality deciduous trees which are vulnerable to winter storms. The forest floor is choked with dead wood from downed trees. The deep ravine is like a chimney, and it is aligned with dry summer north winds. Residential neighborhoods surround the forest, and the owner's home is in a clearing in the woods. One end of the property borders on Dash Point Road, a major route where a discarded cigarette could start a fire. The property is large enough that access to it cannot be controlled, and there is the possibility of trespassers starting aA fire � � without it being immediately noticed. ✓16 � ,.rw V oa.► `rt "rosS� Fire breaks would be planned to divide the property into units that ��d Iffe'°Y best protect the surroundings and would isolate a fire into an area most40W&1d19__1 easily defended. A fire break would be just wide enough that tree tops aol7 o on opposite sides would not touch. It would not be a straight swath MOIOL cut through the forest, but would sensitive to slope, the stream bed, views and habitat. Trees, brush and dead wood would be cleared from the fire break, and somewhat fire-resistant native shrubs would be planted. These are our concerns. We hope that they can be addressed in the revised Sensitive Area Regulations. We would be happy to continue working with you on them. We would also be happy to guide you and your staff on a visit to the site so that you can see first-hand the stream bed problems that must be resolved. As additional background information, we are enclosing a copy of a study of conditions in the ravine which we sent to Ron Garrow in April, 1995. Sincerely, Ned Gulbran for Monte and Diane Powell enclosures: map and report of April, 1995 VICINITY MAP DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, November 19, 1997 17t6 West Marine View Drive. Suite C Planning Commission Everett, Washington 932ot City of Federal Way Federal Way, Washington Tel:2 0 425. 59 4 99 SUBJECT: PROPOSED SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS Fax: 415.259.1230 Dear Planning Commission Members: I have been retained by a land owner that has made a major investment in a property within the City for a senior citizens facility to review and comment on the proposed amendments to the City's Environmentally Sensitive Areas Ordinance, Article XIV. My background in this topic area includes: 1. Administration of the SEPA program at Snohomish County for three years. 2. Membership on the Governor's W-4 Committee to develop recommendations for the regulations of wetlands and other critical areas statewide. 3. Technical expert for preparation of a Handbook on Regulation of Sensitive Environmental Areas for the American Society of Planning Officials. 4. Member of the Snohomish County Aquatic Resources Advisory Committee. 5. Member of the Snohomish County Groundwater Advisory Committee. 6. Drafter of the White Paper on Local Critical Areas Regulations for the Snohomish County Economic Development Council. 7. Drafter of the Functions and Values Matrix for Stream & Wetland Regulation for the Master Builders of King & Snohmish Counties. 8. Special Consultant to the City of Everett in the comprehensive updating of the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinane (ongoing). 9. Special Consultant assisting the Cities of Edmonds, Bothell, Mukilteo and Lynnwood in the development of Sensitive Areas Ordinances. I have also had over 15 years of experience managing design and project review teams with significant geotechnical, wetland, seismic and riparian analysis and evaluation functions. Of my 30 years of professional planning experience, 15 have been spent with public planning agencies. I have been practicing in the Puget Sound region since 1980. I have had an opportunity to review the existing City critical areas regulations, the staff report from Don Largen and Attachment A, the matrix of preferred alternative and 2 other alternatives. In summary I have the following comments and recommendations: WETLAND DEFINITIONS: The regulations lack a definition of man-made wetlands as exempt from regulation as consistent with state law. WETLAND CATEGORIES: Most critical areas regulations for cities and counties under the Growth Management Act have three or four categories of wetland and streams with distinct criteria for each category. The actual regulations provide a decreasing level of protection and an increasing flexibility to alter wetlands for lower categories or classes. The proposed amendments to the City's regulations should incorporate this concept. Outstanding Professionals ... Outstanding Quality Planning Commission November 19, 1997 Page 2 WETLAND BUFFERS: Most critical areas regulations for cities and counties provide graduated buffer widths for the different categories of wetlands. The most common system for wetland buffers is: CATEGORY 1 WETLANDS 100 FOOT BUFFER CATEGORY 2 WETLANDS 75 FOOT BUFFER CATEGORY 3 WETLANDS 50 FOOT BUFFER CATEGORY 4 WETLANDS 25 FOOT BUFFER The Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board very recently upheld the Snohomish County Critical Areas Ordinance with the above-mentioned buffer widths as being most consistent with GMA requirements. These are essentially the same buffer widths of the King County Sensitive Areas regulations, supplemented with the 15 foot building setback from the buffer used by that County. The buffer widths proposed for the amendments to the Federal Way critical areas regulations are twice that approved by the GMA Hearings Board for Snohomish County. I would strongly urge the most common buffer widths identified above. Studies commissioned by the Washington State Department of Ecology in 1991 concluded that buffers less than 50 feet in width do not provide full protection of wetland functions and values. Detailed interviews with this studies primary author, Andrew Castelle of Adolfson & Associates indicate that the study assumed no storm water collection, detention or water quality treatment and all storm water run-off flowing through the buffer into the wetland. Within the Puget Sound region, all cities and counties require storm water collection, detention and water quality treatment for all runoff from impervious surface areas. No storm water runoff from impervious surfaces is allowed to flow untreated through wetland buffers into wetlands from new development. Further, the previously mentioned DOE study also concluded that there is relatively little benefit to wetland functions and values from buffers greater than 50 feet. The main reason larger buffers are considered are NOT to protect the wetland, but to provide upland wildlife habitat. This in most cases proves counterproductive to efficient utilization of urban land served by urban infrastructure. Wildlife habitat in an urban setting generally is only useful to urban -tolerant wildlife species which do NOT require wide buffer areas for habitat. The proposed wetland buffer widths are twice those proposed for stream buffers, yet urban streams provide far more viable wildlife habitat for salmonid populations than urban wetlands do for terrestrial and avian wildlife. The width of wetland buffers proposed for the amendments to the Federal Way regulations do not recognize these basic wildlife management considerations by proposing larger buffers than necessary to protect wetland functions and values by promoting wildlife habitat greater than required for urban -tolerant wildlife species. EXEMPTIONS FOR SMALL RESOURCE AREAS: Most critical areas regulations exempt isolate wetlands too small to have significant functions and values. The most common exemptions are for Category 3 wetland under 2500 square feet and Category 4 wetlands under 10,000 square feet. I would strongly encourage the City to incorporate both levels of small wetland exemptions utilizing a four category wetland system. Planning Commission November 19, 1997 Page 3 BUFFER AVERAGING: Most city and county sensitive areas regulations allow buffer averaging, provided the minimum buffer width is not less than 25 feet and the total buffer area remains the same as though the standard buffer widths were imposed. It is not clear from the proposed Federal Way amendments exactly how the buffer width averaging will be limited in terms of minimum widths and area. As noted in the background material provided by the consultant, buffer averaging is a positive approach, both for an applicant and for resource protection. It is a particularly good tool where buffer enhancement is necessary due to poor quality of buffer areas, whether these conditions are natural or as a result of history site disturbance. These parameters need to be clarified in the amendments. Incentives should be offered for buffer enhancement where such enhancement improves functions and values. VESTING: Whenever a new set of critical areas regulations are adopted or amendments made, significant implementation questions arise as to how to handle projects filed whose applications are considered complete prior to the effective date of the new regulations. The general practice is to have to new regulations apply to all new applications that are considered complete AFTER the effective date of the new regulations. Applications deemed to be complete prior to the effective date generally are subject to the old regulations, unless a specific written request for consideration under the new regulations is made by the applicant. I strongly encourage the City to incorporate a vesting section to the amendments, making only projects for which applications are determined to be complete after the effective date of the new regulations subject to the new regulations. All applications deemed complete prior to the effective date of the new regulations I recommend be considered under the previous regulations. With the additions and amendments I have recommended, I believe the City will have a realistic and workable critical areas ordinance that is consistent with Growth Management Act and balances the GMA planning goals and principles for a wise utilization of both developed and preserved lands within the urban growth boundary. Cities and Counties that have incorporated these criteria and principles have been supported by the GMA Hearings Board as appropriate and viable approaches. I strongly urge the Planning Commission to recommend this additional modification to proposed amendments to the Federal Way Critical Areas Regulations. Sincerely, DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Ji Miller lanning Consultant JGM c: IlOPM4 0M., Pacific International Engineering - FFcFIvED BY �.�I,FNT OFp, RT%1PN� ESM inc. A CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND SURVEY, AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT CONSULTING FIRM November 17, 1997 Federal Way Planning Commission City of Federal Way, City Hall 33530 1st Way S. Federal Way, WA 98003 RE: Proposed Sensitive Areas Ordinance Dear Sir: I received a memo dated November 10, 1997 from Kathy McClung with a copy of the proposed amendments to the sensitive areas ordinance, now under consideration by the commission. As you know, I have attended a couple of hearings on this issue and written letters and supported the testimony of Sue Burgemeister from B -Twelve and Associates. After reviewing the memorandum from Don Largen on the proposed changes which accompanied the memo which is undated, I have come to the conclusion that you have come full circle back to exactly where you were to start off with and, therefore, I have the same criticisms that I had before. I am unfamiliar with any other City or jurisdiction in the area that has 200' buffers around class I and 50' buffers around class III. More typically they are 100' on class I, 50' on class II and 25' on class III. The jurisdictions have the ability to increase these set backs if there is something specific about the wetland that needs protection. As this is set up, there are ways to reduce them, but the burden is on the applicant not on the City, which in my opinion puts too much responsibility with staff and that result will be that there will be no reductions. What is proposed is taking double the necessary property to protect the wetland without compensation or justifications. 720 South 348th Street • Federal Way, Washington 98003 Federal Way (206) 838-6113 • Tacoma (206) 927-0619 • Seattle (206) 623-5911 • Fax: (206) 838-7104 Federal Way Planning Commission November 17, 1997 Page 2 I would appreciate it if the City would again look at the requirements and what they are doing. In our opinion, this still does not get us where we need to be. I would appreciate it if you would reconsider the proposals that now exist, while it is better than what you have. it is not the optimum that one would expect from this kind of an of ort. Very truly yours, ESM; INC. E ROBERT D. SCHOLES, P.E., P.L.S. President \\esm\sys\wrd-proc\letter\rds l .doc B -twelve Associates, Inc. 1103 W. Meeker St. (v) 253-859-0515 Suite C (f) 253-852-4732 Kent, WA 98042-5751 (e)bl2assoc@compuserve.com November 19, 1997 Planning Commission City Hall Federal Way, WA Dear Commissioners, Thank you for this second opportunity to present some comments and suggestions regarding the revisions to the Federal Way Sensitive Areas Code proposed in the Nov. 10, 1997 Memorandum from Don Largen. 1. Category 3 Category 3 wetlands whichare less than 1 acre and larger than 2500 square feet with two wetland classes, neither class dominated by non-native invasive species, shall be regulated as Category 2 wetlands. We support this modification to the original preferred alternative. 2. We understand that the proposed buffer widths will be Category 3 wetlands = 50 feet Category 2 wetlands = 100 feet Category 1 wetlands = 200 feet At a previous meeting, Mr. Largen presented a possible sliding scale of buffer widths for the Category 3 wetlands, based on size of the wetland. I believe that everyone felt this would be a very cumbersome scale to administer. However, we do agree that some breakdown in buffer width is appropriate, given the possibility that a very small wetland could be elevated to a Category 2 wetland with a 100 foot buffer by virtue of the two native classes. As an alternative, we propose: Category 3 wetlands with two wetland classes, (neither class dominated by non-native invasive species), and less than 10,000 square feet shall be protected with a 25 foot wetland buffer. We have prepared the following attachment to show the dramatic change in protected area created when the wetland buffer around a small wetland is expanded from 25 feet to 50 feet, to 100 feet. We' have chosen a wetland area of 2600 square feet, since this is slightly larger than the minimum (2500 sq. ft.) regulated size. A 25 foot buffer surrounding a 2600 sq. ft. wetland will protect approximately 10,198 sq. ft. (0.17 acre) If the wetland is a 2 -class, (both native) wetland of 2600 square feet, then the wetland will be elevated to a Category 2 and the buffer will become 100 feet. As a result, an area of approximately 40,397 sq. ft. (0.88) acre will be protected. Thus, an area approximately 14.5 times larger than the wetland will be protected. We do not believe that there is environmental justification for preservation of buffer areas of this magnitude adjacent to wetland of less than once acre in size. RE: Federal Way SensitiveAreas Code B -twelve Associates, Inc. November 19, 1997 Page,2 In our 14 years of wetland experience through -out the Puget Sound Basin, we have not encountered extremely small wetlands which warrant this level of protection. However, the proposed revised codewill give you the flexibility to increase the buffer to this width if an ` 4 extremely high value very small wetland is encountered. For this reason, we suggest that a 50' foot buffer is adequate for the, moderate value Category 3 wetland and that smaller wetlands (less than 10,000 sq.ft.) are adequately protected by 25 foot- buffers. 3. As we stated in our initial submittal to you, it is our experience that a 50 foot buffer provides, adequate protection for Category 2 wetlands. The administrative ability to require an increased buffer width when staff determines that the particular wetland is of significantly higher value, will enable protection of unusually valuable'wetlands. We therefore believe .that the 50 foot buffer should be the standard width for Category 2 wetlands. 4. -Again, we encourage you to review the requirements for processing sensitive areas review, for existing, single family platted lots: Administrative review, without an automatic public hearing, enables staff and the lot owner to determine how to get a home on the lot while providing maximum protection of the sensitive area on the lot. An automatic public hearing simply allows adjacent land owners to attempt to protect the "open space" they have enjoyed next to their own home, while causing extreme expense and delay to the lot owner. We do agree that the public process should be available to staff and the owner if the two parties cannot arrive at an agreement for the site. 5. In summary we propose: A. Wetland less than 2500 sq. ft. not regulated B. Category 3 wetlands: 1.' greater than 2500 sq. ft. and less than 10,000 acre = 25 ft. buffer 2. greater than 2500 sq. ft. and less than 1 acre with 2 vegetation classes = 50 ft. buffer C. Category 2 wetlands = 50 ft. buffer D. Administrative review for reasonable use review of existing platted single family lots. Thank you for taking the time to review our concerns and suggestions. Sincerely, - B -twelve Associates, Inc. Susan L. Burgemeister president Enc. rileledway2 E CMrr: Buffers adjacent to Category 3 Wetlands which have: 1. 25' = 100.992 = 10198.98 -2600. Area in Buffer. 7598.98 = 0.17 acre Ratio Buffer to Wetland: = 2.92: 1 2. 50' = 150.992 = 22797.98 -2600. Area in Buffer. 20197.98 = 0.46 acre Ratio Buffer .to Wetland = 7.77: 1 3. 100' = 200.992 = 40396.98 -2600. Area in Buffir. 37796.98 =0.97=m Ratio Buffer to Wetland =14.54: 1 November 19, 1997 Planning Commission City of Federal Way 33530 ls` Way South Federal Way, WA 98003 RE: Proposed Sensitive Areas Regulations Amendments Dear Commissioners: File: 990.22.B.10.200 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments to the Sensitive Areas regulations, including the November 10, 1997 recommendations from McConnell/Burke, Incorporated. As a certified Professional Wetland Scientist with an active practice over more than ten years, I have had the opportunity to formulate, review and work with wetlands and sensitive areas regulations adopted by most of the jurisdictions in the Puget Sound region, including those currently used by King County and the State of Washington. As you are undoubtedly aware, the variables affecting the sensitivity and classification of various wetlands and the application of specific protective buffers based on those classifications has been the subject of a considerable effort in the Puget Sound area. Overall, regulators understand that a balance must be struck between: • development of a regulatory basis sufficiently detailed to respond to the range of variability and functions of wetlands and • creation of regulations which do not become unwieldy in their implementation. In recognition of the complexity in that range of variability and functions of wetlands, most jurisdictions, including Federal Way (FWCC 22-1356(b)) require that when wetlands are located on or near a site which is the subject of a development application, those wetlands must be assessed and delineated by a qualified wetland biologist, rather than a lay person. The City of Federal Way also has licensed professional requirements in Section H of its Development Application Submittal Requirements. Therefore, Federal Way expects that professionals will interpret and respond to instances where complex regulations result in an effective regulatory modality; in other words such regulations do not need to be written so that they can be 310 WATERFRONT PARK BLDG. TELEPHONE (206) 744-7700 144 RAILROAD ,AVENUE ■ FASCIMILE (206) 744-1400 E D M O N D S, WA 9 8 0 2 0 E-MAIL piengrCkpiengr.com C, Letter to Federal Way Planning Commission November 19, 1997 Page 2 of 4 implemented by lay persons. In a similar fashion, I encourage the Planning Commission to make sure that its critical areas regulations are sufficiently complex to respond to the degree of complexity in wetlands functions and values understood by professionals. In my professional opinion, the preferred alternative in the current amendments oversimplifies the establishment of criteria for classification of wetland categories. The following are examples of such oversimplification: • The current Federal Way amendments for classification of wetlands do not provide a mechanism for balancing size and number of wetland classes against an estimate of the degree to which a wetland provides recognized valuable functions, but rather attempt to use size and number of wetland classes as the sole assessment tool. Such an approach is inconsistent with current scientific understanding of the functions of wetlands. • Since most open water wetlands transition to uplands, the submerged wetland fringe and adjacent frequently -saturated vegetational zone contain both emergent and scrub -shrub classes: three wetland (vegetation) classes - open water, emergent and scrub -shrub. The current City amendments classify de facto, as Category 1, most wetlands larger than 2,500 square feet which also contain an open water zone. Certainly the City has a strong interest and responsibility in protecting recognized highly valuable wetlands. Without more sensitive screening criteria, the net effect will be overprotection of less valuable wetlands simply because they contain an open water component. • The currently -proposed amendments provide for a least -valuable (Category 3) condition in wetlands in excess of 2,500 square feet, where there are either less than two wetland classes or where one of two classes is dominated by invasive vegetation. However, in areas suitable for development in Puget Sound which do contain wetlands, these wetlands are typically not the least or most valuable from a functional perspective, when compared with Category 1 wetlands in other jurisdictions or your proposed Category 3 wetlands. Recognizing that there are degrees of sensitivity and value amongst this larger majority of the remaining wetlands, rather than aggregate them into one remaining category, most jurisdictions further divide this segment into two categories of differing value. Again, the proposed amendments oversimplify a complex biologic condition by offering only one category. I suggest that you take the lead of other jurisdictions whose regulatory experience includes administration of a multi -tiered system of categories and further segregate into two categories those wetlands proposed to be considered as Category 2, specifically separating out wetlands smaller than one acre. Perhaps the most critical element of regulation of development of property containing wetlands is the selection of appropriate buffer widths which respond to the scientifically -understood Letter to Federal Way Planning Commission November 19, 1997 Page 3 of 4 r�ode protective functions provided by ranges of those buffer widths. The obvious for establishment of *Protection protocols through requirement of buffers is to make those buffer widths significant for the most valuable wetlands, or those the regulatory context rates the highest and then provide lesser buffer widths for wetlands of lesser value. In the main, this approach is effective, but weight must be given to the findings of a document commissioned by the Washington State Department of Ecology, in that wetland buffers in excess of 50 feet do not provide significantly improved protection for wetlands, unless sensitive species are present, and then that buffer is deemed to provide habitat, in acIdYtion to its 'primuria un ion in wetland protection. It is important to carefully consider the impa�i tip an settings on the intent of the Growth Management Act.6 Act.'Supported by findings of the Growth Management Hearings Board and recognizing that functions of urban wetlands often become affected by their setting irrespective of larger buffer widths, some jurisdictions have established a reduction of buffer widths under urban versus rural settings. Accordingly, it is my professional opinion that the currently proposed amendments require buffers which are both excessive and unresponsive to scientific understanding of the range of value and sensitivity of wetlands in urbanizing conditions, especially where portions of a wetland are less valuable than others. In addition to provision to treat portions of wetlands differently aidor+ the basis of their value, I suggest that there be a maximum of. • 100 foot buffers for the currently -proposed Category 1 wetlands identified by subsets "a" and "b" of the Category 1 criteria , or are greater in size than ten acres and meet criterion "c" of this category; --ars pcoFO • 7,500 foot buffers for wetlands between one and ten acres meeting criterion "c" of the currently proposed Category 1, rating these wetlands as Category 2, • 50 foot buffers for a new Category 3 which further segregates wetlands on the basis of the satisfaction of criterion "d" ofkthe currently proposed amendments, and • 25 foot buffers for a new Category 4 C`4tP'I Zan I understand that the proposed amendments have provisions for buffer averaging and relaxing of wetland buffer widths, but these provisions are excessively restrictive. "Permanent alteration" of a sensitive area should not be a criterion for qualifying for a buffer averaging. Many other scientifically credible instances occur where actual functions and values of the sensitive area or surrounding uses dictate such averaging. Reduction in buffer size may be technically supportable in contexts where one portion of the wetland has lowered value. * You have the opportunity to incorporate the most current scientific understanding into the body of regulation that will guide the City in development where sensitive areas are affected. A realistic and workable set of Sensitive Areas regulations will accomplish this goal. I strongly �w�l%hecMorejb � '� "'"w`�sbo"t tr�aM,a,sau�able.�vol �pjQ��a �ror redAua(rrs �{ ,,,t„cc� bti vc a� `"°1 ��w.Pla�e�, r ¢M1nnncertiQakcoy%t� &tiMc`"CkxrC be unuk &V, a,L wncn�.,e S�cn �ner2 or�c�,_�j b �talc4 �osc. Letter to Federal Way Planning Commission November 19, 1997 Page 4 of 4 urge the Planning Commission to remand the proposed amendments for further appropriate modification. Sincerely, PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL ENGINEERING PLLC Anthony Roth Senior Biologist Friends of the Hylebos Wetlands 34915 4th Ave. So. Federal Way, WA 98003 (206) 838-0951 (206) 946-2328 Supporting Group for West Hylebos State Park November. 120, 1997 The Staff for Planning Wetland Buffers City of Federal Way - City Hall 33530 1st Way South Federal Way, WA 98003 I- A&" The Hylebos Wetland was given a 100 foot buffer some years ago. The community had battled through a hearing, through newspapers, and appearances. A large wetland Northwest of Seattle was given a 200 foot buffer but this was largely a political arrangement. `gad called many places in the East for advice and was told by officialdom there we should, at this early point, designate at least 200 feet of buffer for wetlands. They had decided on 300 feet in some places because of their experience. As a result of the low degree of protection for its wetlands Federal Way is overbuilt. This, however, is an excellent time to correct this to 200 feet and in fact for all wetlands. Ted Enticknap has told me that because of the bad judgement by the previous decision of 100 feet there are now 5 houses instead of buffer. These are the reasons for raising the buffer from 100 to 200 feet: a.) There is definitely an excellent population of species and documented habitat. Actually, the Hylebos Wetland was officially rated as"unique� aos and outstanding." Although occasionally smaller Federal Way's enjoy the same favorable situation and by all means should at this time have a 200 foot buffer designated. b.) Virtually all the characteristics of a 200 foot buffer are true of the Hylebos Wetland, eg. prescence of plant associations of infrequent occurence, exceptional local significance of ecological functions, peat bogs, mature forested wetlands, etc. (continued on reverse) (continued from front) c.) Wetland classes including one of open water. d.) And, as mentioned in the November 10, 1997 Memorandum, the Hylebos Wetland is certainly greater than 2,500 square feet in area. e.) However, the real value,of a wetland cannot be based alone on 2500 square feet -- even an occasional smaller one should be judged on its biological characteristics. It would be a total risk to make this a flexible decision. Politics might be a deciding factor as in the decision of many years ago, wheneaanother wetland than the Hylebos got a rating of 200 feet. It is often the decision by a "consultant" to please the landowner who hired him (her). Respectfully, �i4ib Ilene Marckx Vice President rn V 32456 46th Place South Auburn, Washington 98001-3606 December 1, 1997 Ms. Cathy McClung Deputy Director, Community Development Services 33530 1st Way South Federal Way, Washington 98003-6221 Dear Ms. McClung: I would like to comment on possible changes to the city of Federal Way Sensitive Area Ordinance (SAO) pertaining to wetland buffers. It is my understanding that the proposal is to change the current 100 -foot buffer requirement to a tiered system. I have worked as an environmental planner for the past fourteen years and have been involved with designs of wetland mitigation projects. My experience has been that smaller buffers (less than 100 - feet), while politically acceptable do not provide adequate protection for wetland areas. I have enclosed a series of tables from several sources which highlight the effectiveness of various size buffers. Buffers less than 100 -feet typically do not provide sufficient screening for wildlife or adequate pollutant filtering. Given the importance of Federal Way's wetlands for aquifer recharge I see that smaller buffers could impact aquifer recharge. As a future resident of Federal Way (I'm in a future annexation area) and a person who remembers that Federal Way was formed to prevent exactly what is being proposed (a weakening of environmental standards and a subsequent deterioration of our quality of life), I urge you not to recommend changing the current SAO with regards to wetland buffers. Please include me on the mailing list for future meeting and mailings on this topic. Sincerely, Michael R. Scuderi 1' 1;'a0 ;% ,s I SnOVM DY.c.i1cil of Figure 9. Ranges of-Vulffer.widths..'. Avian noted " in the literature to provide effective habitat for seve'r'al broad - Wildlife Travel Corridoi categories of wildlife. The ranges Breeding Bird _a �,rcj6 rited by Of categoes represented All Except - arise.from'one study, and therefbre.- Large Mammals may not be very.. reprcsentativapf General Wildlift that particular -category. Tw 0 reported values mAke up the range U Rare Specle:, 11 . the 0 zo.. 0 20 _40 60 80 bus: Data are taken from Table 6. Range of Buffer Widths (m) [I meter= 128 feet] IOU 30 IOU „- Ihble7.Asummary of pollutant removal effectiveti_ess and wildlife habitat value of vegetated buffers according to buffer filth ;'The stepretare.adapted from Table`5 and Table.6,'and reflect-changes.tn pollutant removal effectiveness and «ticii,fe habitat value according; to width of ttie vegetated buffer. [1 meter:= 3.28 feet] M u1'fer Width (m) Pollutant Removal Effectiveness. •: Wildlife Habitat;.Value • .- i s $. , : - .-Approximately.507o or greater sediment and Poor habitat -value;,usefuI for. temporary.. activities of pollutant removal.' •wildlife'•” i ..: 10 Approximately 607o or greater sediment and . :Mirlimally protects. stream habitat;poor habitat y .: :pollutant removal ; value; useful for temporary-activities`.of wildlife "'-- 15'• ' __ Greater'than 6070.sediment.and- 'Minimal general wildlife and avian habitat -value .:pollutant removal - Approximately 700/6 or, greater sediment and , Minimal wildlife_ habitat value; some value as avian ;pollutanr.removai. .• habitat..; "w 30 Approximately 70% or greater sediment and. May have use as _a wildlife -travel corridor as well as pollutant removal general avian habitat i, -.--77777750— Approximately 75% or greater sediment and : Minimal_general, wildlife habitat value pollutant removal , 75 .Approximately -80%. sediment and pollutant. Fair -to -good generat wildlife and'ayian habitat value: _;•. removal ".. 100 Approximately 80% sediment and pollutant : Good general wildlife habitat value; may protect removal significant -wildlife habitat 200 , Approximately 90% sediment and pollutant . Excellent general wildlife .value; likely_ to support a '. removal diverse community. Approximately 99% sediment and pollutant Excellent'general wildlife value; supports a diverse :=f • ' removal Comm protection of si ,►cant species y; p gnifp itiCdoes result in -a given buffer width that.will -Despite rts limitations, the modeling approach is Y,.._ getter approximate a,specific "performance standard,: • often considered the most accuiate-and dependable Id modeled approach, however;' will, only. be as mefhod of delineating.vegetated buffer widths, and .&d as the site–specific. data from which the model is.comrnonly4used by regulatory agencies. A strictly ; �:_.. s run. High quality data for use in a model will _ modeled_ approach, because it js based solely upon iften:.be expensive (e.g., time put into collecting it),- "real" data, leaves less room for argument•of re- �.:;.. Vhlch'may limit its overall practicality for general quired- buffer -widths (other than whether or not the ase urresource- management programs. Further- input data•or the actual model is appropriate)'and'is riore, most modeled approaches only consider one therefore generally viewed as`more'"justifiable." vegetated buffer benefit-- pollutant removal, for Sincea strictly modeled approach is'very. "black-. tistance —"''and neglect other potential benefits., and -white," it is generally inflexible; and may limit Many of the existing buffer delineation models were . full implementation of multiple -use vegetated ► eloped to mitigate construction impacts, and buffers by resource inanagers..Using a modeled herefore may not be readily applicable in establish- ..... approach to determine buffer widths to achieve a :ng:multiple-use vegetated buffers in already devel- given pollutant removal standard, and then review - ,ped or undeveloped areas. A further limitation to ing the modeled buffer width using best professional elite -specific modeled approach is that regulatory -judgment to achieve .other benefits (e.g., provision itaff,will be required to delineate vegetated buffers My: of wildlife habitat) may provide more flexibility and DAa case-by-case basis, which could become time a better M4 ultiple-use vegetated buffer program. �6nsuming. Furthermore, permit applicants will not �e able Each approach to the application of vegetated to incorporate vegetated buffer widths buffers as a management tool has both good and bad.. during the initial design process. This will add cost all•,development points, and it will be up to the. implementing author- requiring a permit, and the cost ity to determine what trade=offs. are the most reason- . -4�be borne by both the permit applicant and the able and the most acceptable. Costs -and benefits ra enc gg y33 will have to be weighed and examined in light of the rt.�tin Pel. Appendix C � n CURT SMtTCH DirrCl tx +' STATE OF WASHNGfON DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE ` 600 Capitol Way North • Olyrrpu, WishkWon SYi501-7091 • (206) 753-5700 FINAL DRAFT: FEBRUARY 12, 1992 BUFFER NEEDS OF WETLAND WILDLIFE i e HABITAT MANAGEMENT DIVISION 137 7 Appendix C The Fragment Connection by William Stolzenburg, Nature Conservancy, July/August 1991: "Fragmentation entails a biological fallout more complicated than an arithmetic reduction of living open space might intuitively . suggest. Ecologists have lately begun to see more clearly what happens when, say, a big forest suddenly becomes a small forest squeezed by development. From the isolated remnant disappear the wide roamers --the bears, big cats and wolves. The same goes for the deep forest specialists, types like the hooded warbler, the goshawk and the marten. Flooding in from the outside are the generalists, the common species of the edge --the starlings and cowbirds, the opossums and raccoons. Like an onion peeled by the layers, there comes a point when the core becomes nothing but the edge, a place where the generalists rule." Page 20. "According to population theory, the fewer the individuals, the more potentially devastating the purely random forces of nature. A roll of the demographic dice can leave a small population with too many old, too few females, too little genetic variability --too little internal rebound to survive. Natural catastrophes, like fires, storms, droughts and disease --blows that might dent a big. population—can crush a small one." Page. 20. 138 Appendix C WETLANDS - PROVIDE FOOD, WATER, SHELTER FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE Wetlands and their buffers are essential for wildlife. The complex interface of land and water is used to meet life needs by 85% of terrestrial wildlife species in the State (Brown, 1985; Thomas, 1979). One value provided by wetlands is production and maintenance of the public's fish and wildlife resources. If there is to be no -net -loss of wetland area and function, it is essential that wetland protection measures and buffers be planned to protect fish and wildlife. WETLAND SYSTEMS = WETLANDS + ADJACENT UPLANDS Wetlands and the uplands adjacent to them form a physical, hydrologic, chemical and biologic system. Native fish and wildlife populations have evolved with this system and take advantage of interactions. Large numbers of wetland dependent wildlife need not only the wetland but also the adjacent upland to meet essential life needs: food, water, shelter from climatic extremes and predators, structure and cover for reproduction and rearing of young. For example, waterfowl feed primarily in wetlands but most species nest on dry ground where nests will not be flooded. In the Columbia Basin, heavy grazing next -to wetlands removed buffer vegetation and reduced waterfowl production by 50% (Foster et al. 1984). A wetland may be preserved but if the waterfowl nesting habitat in the adjacent upland is lost, a component of the wetland's function is lost. DISTURBANCE AND LOSS OF WILDLIFE FUNCTION A person approaching heron or a flock of waterfowl can agitate and flush them even at distances greater than 200 feet. In 1976-7, Department of Wildlife found migratory bird use increased 30-50 fold on three Columbia Basin wetlands where parking lots and access were relocated to areas 0.25 to 0.5 mile from the wetlands (Foster et al. 1984). Conversion of farm lands to office park along North Creek in King and Snohomish counties, significantly reduced the function of the areas wetlands for migratory waterfowl although the wetlands remain. Many of the wet pasture areas that provide waterfowl feeding are frequently not scored high in wetland rating systems because of low diversity of plant life. If there is to be no -net -loss of wetland wildlife function, even these will need sufficient buffers. HABITAT FOR MOST SPECIES = PLANT STRUCTURE OVER DISTANCE Animals evolved with different plant communities and hydrology in and around wetlands: They depend upon plant communities and their associated physical structures both inside and outside th&wetland. To retain full complements of wetland dependent wildlife, the plant structure in adjacent uplands needs to be retained for sizable distances from the wetland edge. 139 Appendix C Wetland dependent wildlife such as salamander, waterfowl, beaver, and mink use the adjacent uplands to meet essential life needs. They are dependent on both the wetland and the adjacent uplands. The buffer zones are areas where animals have needed separation and interspersion to reduce competition and maintain populations. The more narrow the buffer left around a wetland when land use changes, the more susceptible the wetland becomes to loss of habitat function and productivity. Remaining wetland wildlife are more concentrated and more vulnerable to disease and predation. WETLAND BUFFERS - ALSO ESSENTIAL FOR WETLAND -RELATED WILDLIFE Natural vegetation next to wetlands moderates extreme environmental conditions. Plant structures provide microclimates that keep water and surface temperature cooler in summer and warmer in winter than surrounding areas. Lush and divergent vegetation in wetland buffers provides food and cover for many species ranging from large mammals such as deer and elk, to small ones such as voles and shrews. These areas are used for rearing of young. They receive heavy use by animals that concentrate near wetlands but are not necessarily wetland dependent. In Grant County loss of wetland buffers and the cover they provide significantly reduced pheasant populations to 20% previous levels. Wetland buffers provide nutrients and cover for aquatic systems and their organisms. Large organic debris has been shown to be essential for native fish populations. It provides for pool development and fish hiding cover. Also important is small organic debris, the leaf litter from trees and shrpbs. Ninety percent of the biological energy in some aquatic systems comes from leaf litter. Buffers help to maintain existing fish and aquatic invertebrate levels. They also maintain water quality by filtering sediments and pollutants. t. WETLANDS WITH OPEN WATER COMPONENTS - NEED LARGER BUFFERS y Brown (1985) reports that 50 vertebrate species use the water -shrub edge for primary breeding or feeding; 46 use the water -forest edge, 98 use the riparian zone of herbaceous wetland, and 85 use ponds. Medin and Clary (1990-1991) found more than 3 times the bird biomass and species richness and mammal density and biomass in beaver ponds wetland complex than in adjacent riparian areas. USFWS reports show that wetland dependent species, dependent in part on open water; needed large buffers. EVEN SMALL WETLANDS NEED BUFFERS Size is not the main determinant wetland value to wildlife and need for protection. A Columbia basin study (Foster et al. 1984) showed that there was an inverse relationship between wetland size and waterfowl production. Highest density of ducklings were observed on wetlands of five acres or less in size and were particularly abundant on wetlands 140 Appendix C from 0.1 to 1.0 acre. In this study 68% of nests were within 100 feet of water and all but six of the rest were within 300' of the water. Many amphibians achieve their highest densities in small wetlands (McAllister and Leonard, pers. observation). Long -toed salamander is one example. It cannot survive in the presence of healthy fish populations. It breeds in small temporary ponds. In small headwater streams of the Pacific Northwest, amphibians are the dominant vertebrates. Their numbers and biomass in these small streams are often greater than that of Coldwater fishes in their optimal habitat (Bury et al. 1991). Small wetlands are frequently very sensitive to impacts. For example, when stream gradient is greater than 4%, most beaver pond wetlands are less than 2 acres in size. They are very sensitive to silting and increased stream flows from logging in a watershed. They suffer greater losses from "blowouts" in high flow events. They may lose their soils and all vegetation in such an event. DRY CLIMATES CONCENTRATE WILDLIFE USE Influence of the water table on the landscape and vegetation is often reduced on the eastside of the state with more abrupt wetland -upland edges. Wildlife use tends to be concentrated closer to water in drier climates. Hall (1970) showed more narrow beaver use on streams in eastern California than had been reported in the literature (100' vs. 328'). Mudd (1975) showed minimum riparian area for maximum pheasant and deer use to be 75 feet in one eastern Washington study. SUMMARY Tai retain wetland dependent wildlife in important wil,,?life areas, buffers need to retain plant structure for a minimum of 200-300 feet beyond the wetland. This is especially the case where open water is a component of the wetland or where the wetland has heavy use by migratory birds or provides feeding for heron. The size needed would depend upon disturbance from adjacent land use and resources involved. In western Washington wetlands with important wildlife functions should have 300' upland buffers for high impact (urban) land uses and 200' upland buffers forJow impact (rural) land uses. In eastern Washington wetlands with important wildlife functions should have 200' upland buffers for high impact land use and 100' buffers for low impact land uses. Priority species or especially sensitive animals or wetland systems such as bogs/fens or heritage sites may need even larger buffers wetlands to prevent disturbance or isolation of subpopulations or other loss of wetland function or value. See Attachments 1, 2, and 3 for buffer ranges. 141 6-1 -0 r C� Nam Appendix' C 9 O 11) �N 1 7 g. C u `" 3 l0 � G v O �Q (V �' N SC G� C •f .a � � 1� V a c 0 c 14 Ems' ° ° � u g bE o G v a c° a. 3 c G C zi c i N 3�3 ILE 8 00 Uj Appendix C i b cti O U cti _� •� I C M U N � U I O I � T 1 c 4-j �I A W2 M4 coo b cld 4) g O CldU �U U 4-J v/ J 0 V 10 'o,j) w O a� C}� N 8 t Cd 1 Appendix C I R r d Author: FWIM-L Discussion List <FWIM-L@listserv.vt.edu> at Internet Date: 10/8/97 11:10 AM Priority: Normal BCC: Michael R Scuderi at NPS -EN TO: FWIM-L@LISTSERV.VT.EDU at Internet Subject: Appropriate Buffer Zones - Summary Information -----------------=------------- Message Contents ------------------------------- To all those who replied to my request for information concerning appropriate buffer zones adjacent to development initiatives, thanks very much!! The following includes a pseudo -table (it looked much better in MS Excel!!) summarizing natural features/buffer zones and excerpts of responses including those received through another list server: U Q CIO o v tr) C4 Cd 04 0\ a 40, ni cd a : c a � i-. N 3 O tr) �ca rn z Cd CIO .0 Cd b -ZI 0 A N oA iUC 'l7 p Q i Cd U COD a w � C4 a 3 Q.� z w a cn CIO o v tr) a� Cd 04 0\ a 40, ni cd a : c a � i-. N 3 O tr) �ca rn C- a� Cl)42 �H CIO .0 Cd p C b -ZI 0 A N CIO o v tr) G]. � Cd 04 4 b ' 3 a Cd Q 0 N cd b a � i-. N 3 O tr) 3 3 U U CIO .0 0 o b A N oA iUC 'l7 p Q 0 N O N .-. N 4-4 VJ,- w CD C's 0 0 cC o o. 0 G .5 N o � d o 0 1-4 N o b 0 0 O N W) w �M b N 4(L.) N— Cf) CIO o v tr) G]. � Cd 04 4 b ' 3 a Cd Q 0 N cd b a � Cd 3 3 3 3 3 x Cd tr) 00 ON O 0 � U CIO .0 0 o U 0 N .-. N ,C's VJ,- C's 4C3 cC o. w O G .5 N � 0 1-4 � 1-4 a. c Cf) a o E6 -, O rn U CT 6' Q O N O 04 O C O� (ON ON (ON C7% w rn rn rn rn rn rn rn Cd o ,. � b o CL) a OM > b Q, C cop') O C-4 N O N03 r. +' b w O .� U O p C '" i cn C4 C6 to v) CJ N N OO O O O N Q N O O N Cz. O O O O ,� N 10 � �—+ M N tr) W) W) a03 b 0 3 Cd 0o H � a� b w ao x � b L cl ctl � o x Cd cco)x C,3o b bGOx 0 Cd Cd w m l/rI �Cd ::3 0 `v .vel u N co Q w U W U iii v) w v) a) v) DEC -03-1997 18:09 FROM B12 ASSOCIATES TO 8398663 P.01 B -twelve Associates Inc. 1103 W. Mcekcr St. (v) 253-559-0515 Suite C: (t) 253-852-4732 Kent, WA 95032-5751 (e) hl 2amoc(a)compuserve_com December. 3, .1947 Planning. Commission City Hall Federal .Way;., WA Attn:. Ms. Kathy McClung RE: Revisions to Federal Way Sensitive Areas Code Dear Kathy and Commissioners, I wilI not be able -to attend the Planning Commission meeting. this evening to provide comments on the November 25, 1996 of the Sensitive Areas Regulations—Kathy, would you please present this letter to the Commissioners on my behalf. 1. Thank you for responding to our suggestion that Reasonable Use Exceptions for existing. single family platted lots be reviewed under the Phase I process. We believe that this small change will significantly reduce stress and expense for both the lot owners and your staff. 2. I understand -from a phone call with Don Largen that your intent is to continue to keep "Regulated L *6s" as a separate. category from, regulated wetlands. We strongly encourage this• approach since every regulated lake we have encountered in Federal Vinay would meet -the criteria to be rated as Category I wetlands under this revised sensitive areas. language. 3. We suggestedin-our initial comments to you that we believe that defining Category . II wetlands as those: areas having two wetland classes is too restrictive and will place the vast majority of wetlands within this category. We still feel that a wetland of middlevalue should be required to include three native wetland classes and as was originally suggested by your consultant. We request that the proposed language of Section 22.1357 Wetland classifications and standard buffers (a)(2) c. be modified to read: Category II wetlands .... C. are less than or equal to one acre in size in its entirety and have f" Lh= or more wetland classes, with neither class dvminated.by non-native invasive species. 1 DEC -03-1997 18:10 FROM B12 ASSOCIATES TO 8398663 P.02 RE: Fedend-W.1y Sensitivs.Aiew Code $-twelve. AssociaW, •Inc: . Uecen b 3, 19V . -Page Z . 4.: We support the ,proposal that Category m wetlands have two buffer widths: 50 feet for 25()0=1Q,000'square foot wetlands and 50 feet for wetlands larger than 101 000 square feet. - This break will ensure that the smallest, lowest value wetlands will have'buffer areas .appropriate to their environmental value. 5. in -addition, we i uggest that. you consider providing a two-tier buffer width opportunity for 'the Category I' and II wetlands as well. However, there still remains the potential: that a.2600 square foot wetland could be surrounded by a 100 foot buffer (or. a•200 foot. buffer in the case of Category I wetlands). We suggest that the logic which applies to the smallest of the Category III wetlands is also appropriately:applied-to the smallest of the Category I and Category H wetlands and that the buffer widths -should be. appropriate to the size of the wetlands. Thus, we suggest that buffer widths would be: Category V: W acres -and larger Buffer = 200 ft . '2500 sq. ft. to 10 acres Buffer = 100 ft Category U. 4 -acre and larger Buffer= 100 ft 2500 sq. ft.- 1 acre. Buffer = 50ft Category III •.:10,000 sq. ft and larger Buffer = 50 ft 2500-..10,000 sq. ft Buffer = 25 ft I want to thank you for your response to the issues we have raised over the last several months'. It is rewarding to see that our time and professional opinion have been well . regarded. And. thank you again .for taking the time to review these concerns and suggestions',.'... _ Sincerely; . :. . B-twetve AssociWss Jnc.' Susan L. urgem6iister- President. ' -Enc. file.• sb%FDWY3Aw. TOTAL P.02 29508 12TH Ave S Federal Way, Wa 98023 12/3/97 Planning Commission of Federal Way City Hall Federal Way, Wa 98003 Ladies and Gentlemen, Wetlands and minor streams I have the following items to request at tonight's Public Hearing. 1. My wife and I have owned approximately 2 and 1/2 acres of land at 12th Ave Sw and S 295th St since 1972. This has a say 6000 sq ft marshy area and a minor stream including marshy area of say 9000 sq ft. These are probably wetland areas, for a total of say 15,000 sq ft. 2. On the 6000 sq ft area, this has a sewer line going through it and it has all been dug out during sewer construction and backfilled. 3. On the 9000 sq ft area, this is a minor stream of say 3 inches width and depth, with marshy boundaries. This may be treated as a wetland contiguous to the other area or it may be designated as a minor stream. 4. I believe that there was going to be as clearer definition by Don of non fish areas, especially as my stream drops 100 feet straight down into Puget Sound. 5.1 think that Diane's point of "sensitive areas regulations not needing to be fair" is very wide of this Planning Commission's thinking. I don't believe that citizens should be told this if it is not true. 6.1 am attaching a map of buffer coverage area versus wetland size. I am using to say that this coverage is excessive and that you should use or 20000 sq ft instead of 10000 as proposed by Diane on her first cut as requested by you. 7. I think the point needs to be made that the existing 100 ft set back was completely arbitrary and that it was known that it was going to be temporary for up to say 5 years. Thus I do not see this present process as giving me something lesser than the current setbacks: it is just that the current buffers are excessive and arbitrary and I hope to see that these new proposed rules put the pendulum back in the center. I still believe that Diane has got them too far towards the current rules. 8. I believe that if current wetlands can be improved, then the owner who makes these improvements should be given credit for this in the process. 9.The degree of what is being protected should also be put into the equation, particularly for small areas, and this should go into a letter of intent paragraph or section, together with a statement of the need for balance for wetland protection versus equity for property owners. 10. My understanding is that if a wetland has 2 or more classes it it automatically be put into category 2 with a 100 foot buffer; I am told that that could be the case for the vast majority classes of small wetlands, as they could nearly have 2 classes„ so the present wording is a hoax on the property. 11. 1 would like to ask that minor streams get roughly the same setback as small wetlands of 25 feet, or at least 35 feet as in Normandy Park. Why should they be different from wetlands. In my case they are almost the same. 12. 1 believe that the 8 criteria are too restrictive and I would like to go thru them with you and I suggest adding some words of intent into this language. 13. When you finalize you review, I suggest that before final signing off you get a ranking by staff/consultants of how restrictive Federal Way is compared to surrounding jurisdictions. All consultants have told you that Federal Way is the most restrictive of all and I believe that you have a duty to check this out before sending it to the Land Use Committee as I am sure that they will ask for this information. Very truly yours, P , --, -t, � � 1iti'J December 3, 1997 To: Federal Way Planning Commission From: Monte and Diane Powell Subject: Sensitive Areas Regulations Amendments The proposed changes on the attached draft will allow us to do the necessary stream restoration on our 40 -acre site. Our attorney Konrad Liegel has reviewed your proposed language and has drafted the changes. Thank you for your help with this matter. [8699 ON xUall TZ:ZT au U/SZ/TT November 25, 1997 To: Federal Way Planning Commission From: Donald 13. Largen, AICP Planning Consultant Subject: Sensitive Areas Regulations Amendments The Planning Commission requested at the last meeting that we address several specific issues relative to the proposed sensitive area regulation amendments. Modifications have been made to respond to the commission's request. The effected sections -of the City code are presented below by .subject in an underline (new items in the code) and strike through (deleted items) format to show how they would appear in the code. We have attached the existing wetland regulations in Appendix A so the commission may see how those regulatory items fit together. The modifications are summarized as follows: • A new clause (c) defining and excluding active drainage facilities from the wetland regulations has been added to Sec. 22-1356 Determination of wetland and regulated wetland. This has been based on a staff interpretation issued in 1996. Note that Sec. 22-1356 is the section of the City's code that specifies the information required for review of a wetland site. The proposed Weiland definition remains the same as in our previous discussions. • Two clauses have been added to the proposed reduced buffer provisions with criteria to allow for buffer reductions in cases of significantly altered wetlands and for single residential lots platted prior to the City's incorporation. • We have split the buffer size requirements for Category III wetlands, such that those greater than 10,000 square feet will have a 50' buffer, and those less than 10,000 square feet would receive a 25' buffer. A modification has been made to the existing reasonable use provisions to allow for a Process I review for single residential lots platted prior to the City's incorporation. • A modification has been made to the stream rehabilitation provisions to allow for intrusions into steep slopes and associated setbacks. WETLANDS CHAPTER 22 AR'riCL.E I. GENERALLY Sec. 22-1. Definitions Regulated wette m&- shall mean those areas grtttter than 2.500 sqqy.-u'G reel in armma dint arc inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support. and that ?O'A R 1 , 71 -4n 1 1 r—C7-AM1 18699 ON 111/Y.L1 TZ:ZT au L6/SZ/TT under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, matches. bogs, and similar areas. with the exception of the following areas shown in rhe King County Wetlands Inventory Notebook, Volume 3 South: (1) Lower Puget Sound Beach; (2) Lower Puget Sound 1 and 51; and (3) Alms defined as a regulated lake, Methodology in the . Lurch 1997 Washington $tate Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Department of Ecology publication #96-94) as stipulated in WAC 173-22-0$4 will be used for regulatory delineations of wetlands within the City. Although a site specific wetland may not meet the criteria described above;, it will be cormIdered a regulated wetland if it is functionally related to another wetland that meets the criteria. ARTICLE XIV ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS DIVISION 7. REGULATED WETLANDS Sec. 22-1356. Determination of wetland and regulated wetlarA t: Drainage Racilifies Surface w,iter rids drainast ditiMs and other such faqililies which were designed to imnounciconvoy water for an enadneereclpropose are not t�idercci re ulg aced y{�tlands un Is r this article provided they meet all of the fQljgwing criteria: Th¢ dn, inage faciHiy mMt have been intentionally human created This iso differenti:tic from (bade wetland sites that aro accidental consoqueg s of development pctjons, such as road construction or culvert pent. Such sitar m,1y be considered regulated wetlands by the Jircc:tar upon a review of the ecologicalfuneti90 and values of the &SIS~ f2) Thk drainage facility must have been originally constructed on uplands (non -wetland, ( tZrea5 . If the dr:tittp.Fe facility is located within a straightend. channelized. or otherwise disturbed natural watercourse. it may be eonsiderod a regulated wgtland by the directQr upon review of the ecologic>`fttnctions and valugs- of the site. (3) '17tc facility must be actively operated as for use as a,urface waterdraiaa&,eJp lits. �4bandoned drainage fgcilitics may be con5i jered regglated we jlands by the directQ,Upon a review of the ecological functions and values of the site. 4 Wetl:ln.q_conditions havg tjo_ t pxpandcd beyond the originaIIy concrtttcled driinagc f, lid houndaty , In such a case the eatpanded arca may be considered a regulated WgQand by diQ ifircctor upon review of tau ecological functions and vies of the site. (5) The drainage facility was not designed or con5tructtd as a requirement to mitigate gr vious we lanyl impacts. (6) Thcdirector finds that limittd ecologicafunctions and valuct do not warrant application or the Ci y's wetland regulations. Sec. 22-1357. sMkHICte4rFeCfC Wetland classifications and standard buffets. t94j_ Wetlands meclinfi the d6finitiQ6 in Article I Chgpig22 art classified into the followip cg tueg_ories: 2 20 'd R t: Z t int I R-n7.-AON . [8699 ON 19111 1. TZ=ZT 311.E L6/SZ/TT () Category tr wetlands are graM than 2500 sam feet in arca and meet one of the following criteria• j_ contain the presence of tceocias ordocltttmented habitat mc:ognixed by stafo eEMOral aeunctes as endangered throacenod or potentially exiimated plant fish or animal snccia,: or h contain the presence of plant associations of infrequent oCCIslYited irrcnlaccablo ecoloQlcal functions, or cxccptional_ locall� tgaifiottce including but not limited to gnugdpq ystems. Int bogs and, fans, mature forested wetlands. uagj) jwater exchange areas. sigpif =t ba iittat or unique educational sites: or c. have throe or more Mdand classes one of which is onm water. �2) C igr ry /1 wrtlands are t►rearor than 2500 square feel in ama. do not exhibit the characterig�cs o� Category, l wetlands. and meet one of ft t lowing criteria - u. urc contiguous with water bodies or tributaries to waren bodies which under normal g'1111t: lances contain or suRaQn _a fish p2puladon. including streams where flow is intermittent: or b. are greater than one arm is size in its Qntirety_ or U. arc: less than or to one acro in srzc in its enrir= and hIlye two or more wetland c)Wes, with neither class dominatod by non-native invasive species S„t) Carejeory fil wetland are greater than 2.500 square &,t in area and do not exhibit thQso characteristics of Category 1 or a ytctiands. tui Stnndnrd hut7er widths for remilated wetlands are estahlished as follows: (I 1 Cat LO I wedli tds shall have a standard buffer width of 200 feet. (2) Category Il wctlanLlg shall have a standard huflfer width of 100 fem t3 p Category ill wetlands shall have a standard buffor width of 50 feet for wedand I- al arc rtrcalcrlhan 10.000 square feet in arQ, and shall have a standard buffor width of 25 feet for wetlands that arc bctwccn 2.500 to 10.000 square feet in 9=. Sec. Modification of standard wetland buffer. a Ru er-Arrruylrw, Buffers may averaged only when the sensitive arca to be buffered contains habitat tyres which h_3Yg been so permanently impacted that reduced buffers do not nose a detrimgnt to the existing or £xptccted habiqu function, 1'he applicant must demonstralc to the satisfaction of the Director ofQmmunity [�4v,1 potent that the ptopased buffer averaging will meet the followingcriteris: I. [2cduecd hpffers wilt not affect [h& WatCr quality entering a wetland or stream: 2. Reduced bltffers will not adversely affec,-c significant habitat pleas within a sensitive area or the buffer. 3. Reduced buffets will not result in 11gstable earth conditionSnQr create Grnsion mArds: and 4. gpduccd buffers will not be detrimental Io any other public or nriyplc pruncrties. including clic los. Of QjZ('r11 sDACe Ar g ic�jistas. lrt no ins( nce5 shall the bu(Ycr wiclth_be reduced to less than 5_Q% of the rcauired stcipdnrd buffer width. I ls.ltllal arca contained within the buffer after averaging shall be egtlal to the arca rectuimd for LI_rncl�( LDmffcr dinicnsions� 1 Redup[jim of Standard Wer and l3tiffir Widrh, "llte director of community developmFnt, ptaY reduce !lite standard wcdjinl buffer widths by up to 5096 on a case-by-case basis whcre, one of thg-, oliowin s;jiptditions can be demonstrated: bn'd nz:zt �n.l. 1.6-q7.-AON . '[9699 ON XU/X.LI TZ=ZT MU L6/SZ/TT I. axLQ1hm ondidonc qtr such that the mquired standard jairfor exists in a permanently altered state (a.& raa )m_ Rand parkinit lots permanent atructuros gM.) which does not SIrgyMeg any buffer function then the buffer can be reduced for that portion where the iniry—cions aro existing 2. extent for CaMry 1 -wetlands. existing conditions are Mlt.f im the wetland bac been permanently impacted by adjacent develooment activities m evidenced by such things as persistent human alfgMdons or the dominance of nonnative invasive appsles. 3 a nroicct on an exi,lins< i family lot plaited prior to the ineompQn of the City. where imposition of the standard buffer would preclude reasonable use_of the lot. and the oroiect includes a buffer enhiMcemolit plan. using appropriate native Mrtation, which clearly substantiated ihat an enhanced butter will j=rove the f ictionnI attributes of the buffer to provide for additional protection of wetland funA,ou& and values. The director shall have the authoriV to determine if buffer averaojis warranted on the subi .91 pSp_qtly to obtain additional buffer area on other portions of the perimMa of the sensitive arca. (s;)fly frx Grcreases. The director shall require intwascd convirontncnMv sensitive area buffer wid(hs on a case �y cast basis when the director determines that a larger buffer is nc:cS.yspry Lq- pMtect environmentally s% . ve ,"r 1 ttuc(gns. values or haratrcls based on site specific conditions. This determination shall be supported by tt nrotsriatc documenmilon showing that additional buf er width Is reasonably related to nrotection of environmentally sensitive area functions and values. or nmtecrign of public health. safety and wgl arc. Such cloterminnEign.F!bnll be attached as permit conditions. The determination §hall demonstrate that at leayl one oi' Q).j; fojlowing factors are mer. 1. jb_qEgAhUbitat for state or federal listed suedes present within the sensifiy2 area rind/or its buffcrrt amt additional buffer is nccessary_tp maintain viable functional hahiiq,; 2. 'There tire conditions or features adjacent to the batten such as story slopes or emsign lJnzard areas. which over time may nose an additional threat to the viabilljy of the buffer and/or the tet i-Ovc area In Such circumstance c the City may choose to impgsc diose buffers. if tiny, gs„ i_nted with the condition or feature nosing the ducat in addition ro, o W.8 maximum. beyond the b2E& reguired for the subiect seUAIA a area. STREAMS CHAFr6R 22 Alt'riC1_E 1. GENERALLY Sec. 22-1. Ocfinitions Stream %hull mean a course or route, formed by nature, including those whj h have been modified by man, and gonefally consisting of a channel with a bcd, banks or sides difoaghout substantially all its length, along which surface waters naturally and normally flow in draining from higher to lower elevations. A stream need not contain water year tMund, In it developing setting streams may run in culvert&or are channeled In a concrete. SS�ykQt other artificial conveyance systems This definition is not meant to include jaigzation ditches gAtlnts, surface water rutiOtY facilities or other artificial watercourses uniess used by a local or migratoryfish nonulafan or W s constructed to convey streams which existed prior to construction of the watercourse. Major srrecnn shall mean any stream, and the tributaries to any stream, which contains or supports, or under nurittal circumstances contains or supports local or migratory fish population. If there exists a natural permanent hlm;ktige on the stream course which precludgs the upstream movement of anadromous fish. then tb1,it nortion of dic sircilm which is downstream of the natural MUMELnent blockage shall )zE regulated as a maior scream. cn ',i OZ , z t �_ m. /_6-9z-AON 19699 ON XH/%z) TZ -T�e a&ACcftOr 0'P r 1► c (kh+ ZT aU L6/SZ/lttt �oMrl�lh�}�{ t�� tleYll. r%Q- ,4, .�'1'rk Q- or M0.%-nik%7t Nab a�S� pmt w+� CA, Y\ a �ret<, M � MR�or ar Mucor sweam shall mean any stream that does not meet the definition of Major Stream. ARTICLE XIV. ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITNE AREAS W t rt� DIVISION S. STREAMS 4k A c't % vh\ Sec. 22-1311. Rehabilitation. d��n � W. The director of community development may require the an aPnlicant to rohab itatc or . F1�'�er� Al 5 maintain a Maier Sstrettm by requiring the removal of detrimental materials such as deb .sunt sediment and inappropriate vegetation and+*-mquW '-&-vegetttlie n. �4Pp vat of SSC" 1� 4( S stream rehabilitation shall be Dated on a review a plan r ntajnin¢ at a minimum an analysis of uxiStjne conditions. identification of the source of the dc~adation of the etr�eam or riparian zone, �C� /� � S nmposed cotrcctiye actions, pgrformance:itnn&WL monitoring schedule, planting P1 S, plans as necessary. 'Che dirt ctor may require an annlicant to retain the services of a qualified professional in preparing the rmtoration plan Thew actions may be permitted or required at any time chat a condition detrimental to water quality, stability of stream banks or habitat exists. Intrusions into &11` emulated steep slopes and associated setbacks will be allowed for ournoses of approved stream rehabilitation nmiects VQ,,�\\c�__y ,� eRP qh� 4 &A`a tar, nh Sec. 22-1312. Intrusions into setbacks. tt' TrtZ�i` R C, w, s IV— Vqp� .` M (c) Other infrusions. 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 land surface modification within stream scthack areas only through process II, based on the following criteria: 1. It will not adversely affect water quality. 2. It will not destroy nor damage a significant habitat attic. 3. It will not adversely affect drainage or storinwater retention capabilities. 4. It will not land to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards. S. It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor to the city as a whole, including the loss of significant open space or scenic vista. G. fi:- • • It is •nnccis:,at-,,, fix ret!ioimMe-devekltneat-of4he-.%aljjeut-property. �X j\ r� Itis necessary to correct env one of the adverse conditions specified in subsections (1) through (S) of this section. 1 va -r ARTICLE XIV. ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITYVE AREAS DIVISION 2. ADMINISTRATION Sec. 22-1244. Reasonable use of the subject property. (b)_ An applicant may apply for a modification or waiver of the provisions of this article using process III; Except that applications forprQiects ogSinyle family residential lots plaUcd prior to die ineoWration of the City may use process 1. .S 90 'd iZ:ZI 11. 1.6-q?,-AON 19699 011. XU/%Ll TZ=ZT MU L6/SZ/TT rirrrtvLix r� EXMING WETLAND REGULAIIONS DIVISION 7. REGULATED WETLANDS Sec. 22-1356. Determination of wedand and regulated wetland. (a) Generally. This section contains procedures and criteria for determining whether an area is defined as a regulated wetland under this chapter. (b) F.valuarlort. If the city determines that a wetland may exist on or within 100 feet the subject pmpetly, the director of community development shall require the applicant to submit it wetland report preparod by a qualified professional approved by the city, that includes the following. Information. The director of community development shall u.c this information to determine if the area is a regulated wetland and, if so, the precise boundaries of that regulated wetland. (1) An evaluation of the area in question based on the definitions in this chapter of "regulated wetland." (2) An overview of the methodology used to conduct the study. (3) A description of the wetland, including a map identifying the edge of the wetland and plant communities and detailed description of the method used to identify the wetland edge_ (4) The wetland classifcadon (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service "Classification of Wetlands and Deep Water Habitats in the U.S.'). (5) A list of observed plant and wildlife species, using both scientific and common names, and a description of their relative abundance. (6) A list of potential plant or animal species based on signs or other obsorvation. (7) An evaluation and assessment of the existing or potential functions and value.e of the wetland based on the following factors: surface water control; wildlife habitat; pollution and erosion control: groundwater exchange; open space and aesthetic contrast; and rcercational. educational and cultural opportunities. Sec. 22-1357. Setback areas. The setback arca from a regulated wetlands is all land within 100 feet in every direction upland from the edge of the regulated wetland. Sec. 22-1358, Structures, improvements and land surface modifications within regulated wetlands. (a) Cenerally. No land surface: modification may take place and no structure or improvement may be located in a reguluted wetland except as provided in this section_ er pP%yvtaie. rick �N,>a�, pnav: r 1..,.5\: A e ce s5' (b fteekl:c�urk. The city may allow pedestrian access through a regulated wetland in conjunction with a public pa The access, if approved, must be designed to die maximum extent feasible to protect the wetland from any udvcrs 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 the applicant to rehabilitate and maintain a regulated wetland by removing detrimental material such as debris and inappropriate vegetation and by requiring that native vegotation be planted. These actions may be required at any time that a Lo .d zz21 3AI N-R-AON 18699 ON %2I/XLI TZ:ZT.3fLL L6/SZ%TT APPENDIX A EXIS fING WETLAND REGULATIONS condition detrimental to water quality or habitat exists. (d) Uadif c ation. Other than as specified in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, the city council may approve any request to locate an lmprovemcnt or engage in land surface modification within a regulated wedand using process III. The specific location and extent of the inaucion into the regulated wetland must constitute the - minitnuin necessary encroachment. Approval of a request for improvements or land surface modification within a regulated wetland through prooess III shall be based on the following criteria: (1) It will not adversely affect water quality. (2) It will not destroy nor damage a significant habitat 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 or scenic vista. (6) 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 make corrections if the project fails to meet projected goals. (e) Required infur=trion. As part of any request under this section, the applicant shall submit a report, prepamd 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. C. Monitoring program for a minimum of five years. f. Contingency plan. g. Performance bonding in an amount of 120 percent of the costs of implementing each of the above elements. (2) Mitigation. Mitigation of wetland impacts shall be restricted to un -site restoration, creation or enhancement of in-kind wetland type which rceults 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 replacement ratio. The following are minimum restoration, creation or 2 90 'd ??:?,t qnt I R-q7.-AnN 19699 ON %2i/%LI TZ=ZT aU L8/9Z/TT APPENDIX A EmnNG WHTLwo REGuLAnoNs " enhancement ratios for various impacted wetland areas. The first number of the ratio specifics the acreage of wetland requiring replacement and the second specifies the acreage of wetlands impacted. a. For areas with documented habitat for endangerod or threatened plant, fish, or animal species; natural heritage wetland sites; regionally rare wetland communities with irreplaceable ecological functions: or wetlands of exceptional local significance the replacement ratio shall be a minimum of 6:1. b. For forested wetlands with at least 20 percent of the surface anew coveted by woody vegetation greater than 20 feet in height the replacement ratio shall be a minimum of 3:1. C. For scrub -shrub wetlands with at least 30 percent of Its surface covered by woody vegetation less than 20 feet in height as the uppermost strata the replacement ratio shall be 2:1. d. For emergent wetlands with at least 30 percent of the surface arca covered by erect, rooted, herbaceous vegetation as the uppermost vegetative strata the replacement ratio shall be 1.5:1. e. The replacement ratio for all other wetlands shall be 1.25:1. The above replacement ratios may be increased or decreased based on the following criteria: IL 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) Tinting. All required wetland mitigation improvements, except monitoring, shalt be completed and accepted by the director of community development prior to beginning activities that will disturb regulated wetlands, and 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 complies with requirements of the mitigation plan, and to conduct and report to the director on the status of the monitoring program. Sec. 22-1359. Structures, improvements and land surface modification within the setback areas from regulated wetlands. (a) Generally. Except as allowed in this section, no land surface modification may take place and no structure or improvement may be located within the setback area from a regulated wetland. (h) Essential public facilities and utility. The director of community development may permit the placetttent of an essential public facility or utility in a setback area from a regulated wetland if he or she determines that the line or improvement must traverse the setback arca 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 setback area must 3 60'd R : z t ani c6 -5z -nos 19699 ON 19/1Z1 TZ=ZT 3fa LVGZ/TT �rrctvutn n EXISTING WETLAND REGULATIONS constitute the minimum necessary encroachment to meet the requirements of Elle public facility or utility. (c) Minor Improvements. Minor improvements such as footbridges. walkways and benches may be located within the setback area from a regulated Wetland if approved through process I based on the following criteria: (1) It will not adversely affect water quality. (2) It will not destroy nor damage a significant habitat 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 or scenic vista. (d) Mcxlifccation. 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 setback area from a regulated wetland through process M based on the following criteria: (1) It will not adversely affoct water quality. (2) It will not destroy nor damage a significant habitat 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 subjcet property nor to the city as a whole. including the loss of significant open space or scenic vista (6) It is necessary for reasonable development of the subject property. (c) Revegetation. The applicant shall stabilise all areas left exposed after land surface modification with native vegmution normally associated with the setback area 4 01 'd H: z 1 ani L6-S�-AON DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, December 3, 1997 ''v West AVarine View Drive, Suite C Planning Commission Everett, Washington 98201 City of Federal Way 33530 1st Way South Tel: 425.259.4099 Federal Way, WA 98003 Fax: 425.259.3-'30 SUBJECT: PROPOSED SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS Dear Planning Commission Members: Once again I wish to thank you for this opportunity to review the revised proposed amendments to the City Sensitive Areas Ordinance. We note from the agenda for the December 3, 1997 meeting that the public hearing has been continued. We are most interested in being able to comment on the revised text proposal provided by the City's consultant as part of the continued public hearing. We realize this may necessitate the commission reopening the hearing. Since all present at the November public hearing had constructive notice of the continuance to December 3, 1997, no additional noticing should be required to reopen the public testimony portion of the hearing. We regret having to request reopening of the hearing; however, at the November hearing the public comment was closed before the responses were provided by the City's consultants. In our experience this is quite unusual; normally these responses would be part of the public testimony and the public would be provided a chance to respond, just as the consultants had a chance to respond to others testimony. In addition, new text proposal have been drafted by the City's consultants in response to excellent direction provided by the commission. We have additional comment on these new text proposal. We have the following comments and recommendations regarding the proposed revised text proposed by the City's consultants: EXCLUSIONS FOR MAN-MADE FEATURES: The exclusion clause proposed by the consultants is based upon a staff interpretation issued in 1996. The exclusion clause should be based upon the provision of state law which specifically cover exemptions under RCW 36.70A.030(17): "Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass -lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetland created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetland intentionally created from nonwetland areas created to mitigate the conversion of wetlands." ALTERATION OF STANDARD WETLAND BUFFER WIDTHS: The consultants have not identified a category of buffer enhancement where existing buffers are of poor quality or a disturbed area within the required buffer that could benefit from enhancement. Most sensitive areas ordinances have such provisions. This encourages applicants to provide more functional buffers where poor quality buffer conditions exist. This obviously improves protection, functions and values of the wetland and should be encouraged. Provisions for such buffer reduction where enhancement is proposed should be added. y\p,N 8 FR r SIr1AIa BUFFER WIDTHS: We continue to support the wetland buffer widths most commonly found in city sensitive areas regulations for agencies planning under GMA: CATEGORY 1 WETLANDS 100 FOOT BUFFER CATEGORY 2 WETLANDS 75 FOOT BUFFER CATEGORY 3 WETLANDS 50 FOOT BUFFER CATEGORY 4 WETLANDS 25 FOOT BUFFER A suggestion made by the Planning Commission at the previous meeting of having special buffer widths only for the exceptional wetland of 150 or 200 feet has merit. This would not necessitate all Category 1 wetlands having exceptionally wide buffers. As an alternative, the City could make the Category 1 buffers greater and leave the other three categories as recommended above. The category 3 wetlands could be those over 10,000 square feet and the Category 4 wetlands could be those under 10,000 square feet. We continue to feel the Category 2 wetlands are too all inclusive and will end up governing the vast majority of wetland remaining in the planning area that are not Category 1 wetlands. We also have the following comments to testimony provided by the City's consultants following our testimony, for which we were not given an opportunity to respond: WETLAND BUFFERS PROVIDING RECHARGE TO WETLANDS: The amount of additional surface or ground water reaching wetlands due to the additional width of buffers is absolutely negligible. The City's consultants need to provide hard data to support this contention. If this is a major consideration of the Planning Commission in arriving at buffer widths, we would be happy to provide subsequent calculations of additional water volumes provided by increased buffers for sample wetland areas. Further, any storm water run-off that would have reached a wetland in the predeveloped state on a given property must be redirected to that same drainage, after detention and water quality treatment, by state water law. We DO NOT remove all storm water inputs to wetland as part of standards storm water drainage system design practices. The post - development storm water inputs to wetlands will reach those wetland at a reduced rate as a result of the DOE manual standards, but at a greater volume over time - the apparent argument of the City's consultants for greater buffer widths. URBAN WILDLIFE HABITAT: We were particularly surprised at the City's consultant characterizing white tail deer as an urban tolerant wildlife species and the reason for greater wetland buffers in the urban environment to protect habitat for such species. We are aware of no sources that would consider white tailed deer as urban tolerant wildlife. Again, the City's consultant should provide hard data to support this contention. NO ENCOURAGEMENT OF WETLAND BUFFER ENHANCEMENT: We were again surprised to hear that the City's consultants do not support enhancement of poor quality buffers around wetlands, but instead suggest wider buffers elsewhere around the wetland where the quality of vegetation is naturall high. The City consultant's support for minimizing buffer widths were buffer quality is low simply does not make common sense, given the whole concept of buffering wetlands for their protection. EXEMPTIONS FOR SMALL RESOURCE AREAS: Most critical areas regulations exempt isolated wetland too small to have significant functions and values. The most common exemptions are for Category 3 wetlands under 2500 square feet and Category 4 wetlands under 10,000 square feet. I strongly encourage the City to incorporate both levels of small wetland exemptions utilizing a four category wetland system. VESTING: We note that the City's consultants again have not made any recommendations regarding the vesting issue raised both in public testimony and by the Planning Commission. This needs to be addressed in the ordinance to be legally sustainable. As we noted previously, whenever a new set of critical areas regulations are adopted or amendments made, significant implementation questions arise as to how to handle projects filed whose applications are considered complete prior to the effective date of the new regulations. The general practice is to have the new regulations apply to all new applications that are considered complete AFTER the effective date of the new regulations. Applications deemed to be complete prior to the effective date generally are subject to the old regulations, unless a specific written request for consideration under the new regulations is made by the applicant. I strongly encourage the City to incorporate a vesting section to the amendments, making only projects for which applications are determined to be complete after the effective date of the new regulations subject to the new regulations. All applications deemed complete prior to the effective date of the new regulations I recommend be considered under the previous regulations, unless a specific written request to the contrary is filed by the applicant. Cities and Counties that have incorporated these criteria and principles I have proposed have been supported by the GMA Hearings Board as appropriate and viable approaches. I strongly urge the Planning Commission to recommend this additional modification to proposed amendments to the Federal Way Sensitive Areas Regulations. Sincerely, DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Jim Miller Land Planning Consultant JGM c: Pacific International Engineering NED GULBRAN • ASLA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 2833 Mt. St. Helens Pl. S. • Seattle, Washington 98144 • (206) 725-0390 December 3, 1997 To: Planning Commission, City of Federal Way From: Ned Gulbran1��1,� Subject: Suggested Additional Paragraphs; Article XIV. Environmentally Sensitive Areas Division 5. Streams 1. Section 22-1311. Rehabilitation As presented, the proposed Code revisions do not provide for the rehabilitation of a Minor Stream. I suggest labeling the paragraph for rehabilitation of a Major Stream "(a)" and adding a second paragraph for Minor Stream, thus: "(b) A Minor Stream may be maintained or rehabilitated by the correction of degradation and the removal of detrimental debris, sediment and inappropriate vegetation. Intrusions into regulated steep slopes and associated setbacks will be allowed for purposes of stream rehabilitation projects." Do I assume correctly that because you specifically addressed the Major Stream, the Minor Stream rehabilitation would be less regulated, or would receive a lower order approval? 2. Section 22-1312. Intrusions into setbacks. Under "(c) Other Intrusions", former Item 6. has been removed; "6. It is necessary for reasonable development of the subject property." I think that this provision in the Code for Streams should be retained for consistency, and for the same reasons that this same provision has been included in the proposed Code for Regulated Wetlands [please see Section 22-1358. (d) (6).1 ;nvironmental quality is protected by the other provisions (1- ) in this sub -section. It seems reasonable to allow an ntrusion that would facilitate use of the property. Landscape Design • Landscape Restoration • ' - ' - Date: December 3, 1997 To: City of Federal Way Planning Commission From: Peg Altman 253-927-2242 Re: Sensitive Areas Ordinance. I am speaking to you today as a private citizen who has grave concerns regarding possible changes to the Ordinance. I am particularly concerned that your Commission not make alterations that would relax the regulations and enforcement of the current Ordinance. I am most concerned that you not allow variable buffers. I am by no means an expert, or even a novice on the issue of surface water management. My Husband and I are volunteer Rainwater Monitors for the City of Federal Way's Surface Water Management Division, and we sure know how much it can rain here. In addition, we live in Gose proximity to large wetlands. We have seen some extremely high water due to runoff from upstream development and deforestation. During the "Thanksgiving Day Storm", and the "Winter Storm of 1996-97" our entire neighborhood would have been under water without the protection of the wetlands and buffers. I understand the concerns of property owners who may want to develop property that includes a wetland. I also understand the concerns and rights of property owners downstream. "We all live in the same neighborhood." We must always think of the consequences our actions have on others. Wetlands and buffers help protect us from the devastating effects of flooding. Flooding can have enormous consequences. There is Government money spent for cleanup and rebuilding, and insurance money spent for losses to property owners and rebuilding, and of course there are the personal costs in terms of grief and heartache, and let us not forget, the occasional loss of lives. I have lived in Federal Way for 12 years and I certainly have seen my share of flooding. I have also seen a lot of clean up. What did that cost? Who paid for it? • We need these buffers to help filter water and to keep our aquifers filled. • We need these buffers to protect and provide habitat for a host of wild critters (animals, amphibians, bugs, birds, etc), and encourage native plant life. • Healthy wetlands and buffers can help protect the critters and us from fire. • We need these buffers and wetlands so our children can learn. • We need these buffers so we can all enjoy and protect the unique ecological systems in our beautiful Pacific Northwest. I am proud of our City for having such a strong Ordinance protecting our sensitive areas. Federal Way does not often get the opportunity to be a positive example and a leader. We are now, let's keep it. I want to proudly tell my Grandchildren that our community had the foresight to protect them, and to provide them and future generations a healthy and thriving environment, one that really makes our City more beautiful. People move to Federal Way for a lot of reasons, one of them is (and it's a big one!), the trees, water, open spaces and wildlife. Let's keep it that way. A-12V,14� r 5150 SW 326th PI Federal Way, WA 98023 December 3, 1997 Cathy McClung: Planning Dept. City of Federal Way 33530 First Way S Federal Way, WA 98003 Subject: Sensitive Area Regulation Amendments Dear Ms McClung, I am writing to express great concern over the proposed changes to the Federal Way Environmentally Sensitive Area Code. The current code is well written and should remain unchanged. Proposed changes to the code will weaken our watershed protections and jeopardize our water quality. Federal Ways code standards must remain high because we have unique conditions in our area. Our City is dependent on several aquifers for water supply. Many parts of our city have steep slopes A seismic hazard designations. Weakening regulations in these areas will only increase the potential ror problems that my tax dollars will have to pay to fix. The Lower Puget Sound and Hylebos Creek Watersheds are complex systems. The wetlands in the area are interconnected, value cannot be placed on size alone. When part of the system is changed the water is redirected creating a problem in another area. A highly developed downtown core has drastically changed the Hylebos stream system and we are currently spending millions on drainage projects to curb flooding and stream erosion downstream. Even with these improvements, the Hylebos Wetland is being stressed ( I`ve never seen the wetland flood this early in the season.) Areas of the wetland that once dried out in the summer are now wet year round. Again I stress the Sensitive Area Code should remain unchanged. The City should not compromise standards in this area, the risks are too great. Respectfully, '44a Xt�'Z� Adele Freeland cc: FWay Planning Commission Jay City Council