Res 99-292
R"SOLUTION NO.
99-292
A RESOLUTION OF TUE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FEDERAL WAY, WASUINGTON, APPROVING WITH
CONDITIONS TIlE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF VENTANA,
FEDERAL WAY FILE NO. SUß-97-0005
WHEREAS, the applicant Wellington Morris Corporation applied to the City of
Federal Way for preliminary plat approval to subdivide certain real property known as "Ventana"
and consisting of9.91 acres into twenty-eight (28) single family residential lots located between SW
304th and SW 306th Streets, at 24th Avenue S.W. and 25th Avenue S.W., as (if) extended; a~d
WHEREAS, on October 15,1998, a MitÌgated Determination ofNonsignificance
("MONS") was issued by the Director of Federal Way's Department of Community Development
Services pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, RCW 43.21C, and no one appealed the
MD1>lS; and
February 2, 1999 concerning the preliminary plat of Vent ana; and
WHEREAS, the Federal Way Land Use Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on
Federal Way Land Use Hearing Examiner issued a written Recommendation containing findings,
WHEREAS, following the conclusion of said hearing, on February 22, 1999, the
conclusions and conditions and recommending approval of the preliminary plat of Vent ana; and
WHEREAS, the Federal Way City Council has jurisdiction and authority pursuant
to pursuant to Section 20-127 of the Federal Way City Code approve, deny or modify a preliminary
plat'and/or its conditions; and
Res. #9~Page I
cç:~fr'
WHEREAS, on March 16,1999 the City Council considered the written record and
the Recommendation of the Hearing Examiner, pursuant to Chapter 20 of Federal Way City Code,
Chapter 58.17 RCW and all other applicable City Codes;
NOW THEREFORE, TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF TIlE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Adoption of Finding¡¡ of Facts and Conclusions. Findings 1-14, and 20-
23, and Conclusions 1-8 and Conclusion 10 of the February 22,1999 Recommendation of the
Federal Way Land Use Hearing Examiner peJ1aining, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated
by this reference, are hereby adopted as the findings and conclusions of the Federal Way City
CounciL Any finding deemed to be a conclusion, and any conclusion deemed to be a finding shall
be treated as such.
Findings 15-19 and Conclusion 9 of the Hearing Examiner's February 22, 1999
Recommendation are not adopted. Based on the City Council's authority under FWCC 20-127(c),
the following revised Findings 15-19, Finding 21 and Conclusion 9 are adopted:
15. A drive through the View Cliff subdivision reveals an attractive, well
maintained neighborhood with streets of substandard width and no curbs, gutters, or
sidewalks, and either narrow or no shoulders. View Cliff is shaped similar to a
chicken "wishbone" with the two prongs being 25th Avenue S.W. and 24th Avenue
S.W. and the stem extending north from their intersection. To access Ventana
through View Cliff, a driver would travel westbound on S.W. 304th Street, turn
northbound on 24th Avenue S.W., travel north for approximately 1,000 feet, make
a horseshoe left turn onto 25" Avenue S.W., and then drive south about 1,000 feet
to Ventana. A much quicker and easier access into Ventana is provided via 21"
Avenue S.W. and S.W. 306th for drivers coming from either the north or the south.
Ventana residents would have no reason to use View Cliff roads unless visiting
someone in View Cliff, or if other accesses were closed. While connecting 25th
Avenue S.W. could mean that some residents of View Cliff desiring to travel south
would use the Ventana road as opposed to the present 24th / 304th route, this is
unlikely in light of the fact that 97% of the View Cliff residents are opposed to the
Res. # .99=29:fage 2
road connection and have stated that they will not use it. The View Cliff subdivision
contains 54 lots, most of which will continue to the use the 24"' / 304'" route to Dash
Point Road.
16. Land use decisions are not made by popular vote, but are determined by whether
the project complies with adopted criteria. Chapter 20 FWCC contains the Federal
Way Subdivision Code, which are the criteria applicable to the proposed Ventana
subdivision. Section 20.2 states that the purpose of said chapter is to implement the
Comprehensive Plan; promote the health, safety, and general welfare; promote safe
and convenient travel by the public on streets and highways through the proper
planning and coordination of new streets within a subdivision with existing and
planned streets in the surrounding community; provide for proper ingress and egress;
and promote the effective use of land by preventing overcrowding or scattered
development which would adversely impact the transportation system. These
purposes are implemented by specific design criteria contained in Section 20-151.
17. FWCC Section 20-151, entitled "Subdivision Design," provides in part as
follows:
a.
Subdivisions should be designed so that traffic is distributed in a
logical manner toward a collector street system, to avoid intrusion
and over-burdening of residential streets, and to connect with planned
or existing streets.
c.
Cul-de-sac streets should be no longer than 600 feet.
d.
Blocks should be no longer than 1,200 feet without an intersecting
connector road.
The guiding criteria to be applied is contained in subsection (a). In this instance,
because traffic from Ventana will not have occasion to use View Cliff roads as
described in Finding 15, extension of 25" Avenue S.W. is not necessary in order to
distribute Ventana's traffic in a logical manner toward the collector street system,
or to avoid intrusion and over-burdening of residential streets. Subsection (c) is not
applicable, because no cul-de-sac in the plat of Ventana will be longer than 600 feet.
While extension of 25" Avenue S.W. through Ventana to View Cliff would be
Res. # 99-2~:Page 3
necessary to connect with the existing street, doing so would also create a block in
excess of 1,200 feet, contrary to the criteria in Section 20-151 (d). Because extension
of 251h Avenue S.W. is not necessary to further distribution and spacing of traffic
from Ventana, or to avoid over-burdening of residential streets from traffic generated
by Ventana, and because extension would be contrary to the 1,200-foot block
standard, full street extension of 25dl Avenue S.W. is not required by Section 20-IS1
in this insiance. Extension of a pedestrian connection and emergency vehicle access
will provide an adequate connection to the existing 25"' Avenue S.W., will provide
an additional emergency route in the event of blockage of the 24"' / 304"' route, and
will suffice to achieve compliance with Section 20-151(a) here.
18. Requiring a limited pedestrian and emergency vehicle connection to 25"' Avenue
S. W. is also consistent with the land use goals and policies of the Federal Way
Comprehensive Plan, as follows:
~
a. Land Use Goal 3 and Land Use Policy (LUP) 14 encourage the preservation and
protection of Federal Way single family neighborhoods through strict enforcement
of the City's land use regulations. Such includes the requirements of the subdivision
code set forth above. Furthermore, while smaller street grids are encouraged to
disperse vehicular traffic so that no residential streets are overburdened and walking
distances are shortened, the pedestrian connection will shorten walking distances
even in the absence of a through traffic connection, which is not necessary to avoid
overburdening since Ventana traffic will not utilize 25"' Avenue S.W. in the View
Cliff subdivision. For the same reason, while LUP 17 encourages the development
of transportation routes to single family neighborhoods, reinforcing the concept of
multiple routes between destinations, the extension of 25"' Avenue S.W. is
unnecessary given the findings above that such an extension would not be used.
Finally, the transportation goals and policies of the comprehensive plan encourage
the protection of neighborhoods from traffic impacts. As previously found,
connection of 25th with the Ventana street network will add little, if any, traffic to the
streets within View Cliff.
b. Transportation Goal 2 and TP 20 state as follows:
Transportation Goal 2: Provide a safe, efficient, and economic street system with
sufficient capacity to move people, goods, and services at an appropriate level of
service. The City shall adopt policies for the construction, reconstruction,
maintenance, and preservation of new and existing facilities such as gravel and
substandard streets.
TP 20: Take advantage of opportunities to open new road connections to createroute
alternatives, especially in areas with few access choices.
Res. #~Page 4
This policy is implemented by the connection of S.W. 304th to S.W. 306th via 24th
Avenue SW. In addition, requiring pedestrian and emergency vehicle connections
between View Cliff and Ventana provides additional route alternatives, as well as a
safe, efficient and economic street system, and sufficient capacity for emergency
services. Meanwhile, extending 25" Avenue S.W. to through traffic is not necessary,
since it does not create any route alternatives that would be used.
c. TP21 states as follows:
Enhance traffic circulation and access with closer spacing of through streets as follows:
a. Arterial streets at least every 1,200 feet in single family zones and every 600 feet
in non-single family zones.
b. Collector streets every 600 feet in single family zones and every 600 feet in non-
single family zones.
Implementing TP 2] would require extending S.W. 304" Street to 25'" Avenue S.W.,
but City staff have elected not to do so. Keeping 25" Avenue S.W. closed to through
traffic, while providing a pedestrian and emergency vehicle access, will further the
health, safety, and welfare, and make appropriate provisions for streets, roads, alleys,
and other public ways.
19. Lakehaven Utility District will provide both potable water and fire flow to the
site and sanitary sewer service to each lot. The Federal Way Fire Department has
a fire station within a reasonable response time, and requiring an emergency vehicle
connection to 25" Avenue S.W. provides an additional route connection for services
through the plat of Ventana and into View Cliff. The plat therefore makes
appropriate provision for water supplies, sanitary waste, and fire protection.
Conclusion 9. According to the Plat of ViewCliff No. 2, the temporary turn-around
located at the southern portion of View Cliff No.2 is to become void on the
extension of 25'h Avenue S.W. Because 25" Avenue S.W. is not being extended to
through traffic, the cul-de-sac does not become void. Further, as part of its road
plans for the plat, the applicant shall provide for a cul-de-sac at the north end of 25"
Avenue S.W., with provisions for a pedestrian connection to the plat of View Cliff
No.2, and with provisions for emergency vehicle access to the cul-de-sac at the south
end of 25'" Avenue S.W. with the plat of ViewcliffNo. 2.
Res. #.22=mPage 5
the Federal Way Land Use Hearing Examiner and the findings and conclusions contained therein,
Section 2. Conditional Application Approval. Based upon the Recommendation of
as adopted and revised by the City Council immediately above, the preliminary plat of Ventana,
Federal Way File No. SUB-97-0005, is hereby approved subject to: (a) the conditions contained in
the February 22, 1999 Recommendation of the Federal Way Land Use Hearing Examiner (Exhibit
A), as modified by the findings and conclusion adopted in Section I above; and (b) the mitigating
measures set forth in the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance.
Section 3. Conditions of Approval IntegraL The conditions of approval of the
preliminary plat are all integral to each other with respect to the City Council finding that public use
and interest will be served by the platting or subdivision of the subject property. Should any court
having jurisdiction over the subject matter declare any of the conditions invalid, then, in said event,
the proposed preliminary plat approval granted in this resolution shall be deemed void, and the
preliminary plat shall be remanded to the City of Federal Way Hearing Examiner to review the
impacts of the invalidation of any condition or conditions and conduct such additional proceedings
as are necessary to assure that the proposed plat makes appropriate provisions for the public health,
safety and general welfare and other factors as required by RCW Chapter 58.17 and applicable City
ordinances, rules and regulations and forward such recommendation to the City Council for further
action.
Section 4. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution
should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity
or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence,
clause or phrase of this resolution.
Res. ~Page6
Section 5 Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the
effective date of the resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed.
Section 6. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon
passage by the Federal Way City Council.
RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY,
WASHINGTON, THIS 6th DAY OF
April
,1999
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
~&
MAYOR, RON GINTZ
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~-~
~: ~;ORNEY, LO~~.~~ELL
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 3/15/99
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 4/6/99
RESOLUTION NO. 99-292
k :\cd\ordina \ventana.res
Res. # 99-29,2Page 7
~c:z ~ (I~ ¿)~
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
The Preliminary Plat of Ventana
Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner
with all exhibits
is enclosed.
March 9, 1999
TO:
FR:
RE:
DT:
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
MEMORANDUM
City Council Land Y?dTransportation Committee
Stephen Cli~ /. tor of Community Development Services
Preli' !at of Ventana
Federal Way File No: #SUB97-OOOS
February 24, 1999
I.
II.
III.
SUMMARY OF APPLICATION
The applicant requests preliminary plat approval of a twenty-eight (28) lot single family
residential subdivision as provided for under Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Chapter 20,
Subdivisions, subject to City Council approval.
REASON FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Pursuant to FWCC Section 20-127(a), the City Council issues a final decision at a public
meeting after review of the Hearing ~er's recommendation. Consistent with how
land use matters are currently processed by the City, preliminary plat applications are
brought to City Council Land Use and Transportation Committee for review and
recommendation prior to review by the full Council.
HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION
On February 22, 1999, the Federal Way Hearing Examiner issued a recommendation
(attached) to approve the proposed preliminary plat subject to the following conditions:
1.
Because the plat proposes to redirect surface water runoff from the northeast basin
into the western basin (the net result of which is an increase in the areal size of the
plat's westernmost drainage basin, as required by the Public Works Director), and
prior to constructing the plat improvements, the conveyance system downstream
of this basin shall be analyzed in sufficient detail to insure that the increased
volume of water discharged from this basin can be accommodated. A level three
downstream analysis shall be performed from the plat to Puget Sound for
engineering plan review. Additional hydrologiclhydraulic analysis shall be required
if the level three analysis is not sufficient to determine all drainage problems.
Preliminary Plat ofVentana, LUTC Memorandum
Page 2
2.
The downstream capacity of the new drainage conveyance for the Southwest basin
between the project site and Puget Sound has to be adequate. The capacity of this
conveyance needs to be fully analyzed using the design standard outlined in the
King County Surface Water Design manual. The analysis will be reviewed in the
engineering review process. Any deficiency of the conveyance has to be addressed
before engineering approval of the project. Depending upon the result of the
analysis and the historical observation record, the mitigation effort may involve
substantial improvement of the conveyance system downstream. The bonds and
liability requirement, including drainage facilities restoration and site stabilization
bond and the maintenance defect, shall be applied to all downstream improvements
constructed by the developer.
The applicant shall be required to construct all improvements necessary to mitigate
all identified conveyance problems, whether existing or resulting from the plat's
development, as identified during engineering plan review, as required by the
Public Works Director. Engineering approval shall not be granted if it is
determined that proposed mitigation is not adequate to address the impacts of the
project.
All plat drainage elements shall be required to conform to the standards, policies,
and practices of the City of Federal Way's Surface Water Management Division
as outlined in the adopted "1990 King County Suiface Water Design Manual,. the
"City o/Federal Way Comprehensive Suiface Water Management Plan - Phase I,.
the "Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan," and the "Stormwater System
Operation and Maintenance Manual,. and as modified by the Public Works
Director.
3.
Retention/detention facilities used to control runoff from the site to off-site
drainage courses shall be located in a detention tract dedicated to the city at the
time of final plat approval, unless located within improved public rights-of-way.
Vegetative screening of the facilities shall be provided.
4.
The final plat drawing shall establish the open space in an open space tract to be
owned in common and maintained by property owners of the proposed subdivision
(or owned by an incorporated homeowner's association and maintained by the
association), and prohibiting removal or disturbance of landscaping within the
tract, except as necessary for maintenance or replacement of existing plantings and
as approved by the city. Additional vegetation may be located in open space(s) and
Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE) tracts to meet the MDNS conditions
as approved by the city.
5.
Prior to issuance of construction permits, a landscape plan, prepared by a licensed
Preliminary Plat ofVentana, LUTC Memorandum
Page 3
9.
landscape architect, shall be submitted to the city for approval, and shall include
the following elements:
a)
Open space landscaping;
b)
Street trees in planter strips inside plat boundaries;
c)
Tree conservation and significant tree replacement; and
d)
Visual screening of all property boundaries of the detention tract from
adjacent properties and the right-of-way with landscaping and/or fencing.
Cyclone fencing, if used, shall be painted black or green, and shall be
surrounded by vegetation.
6.
Retaining walls and rockery design shall be harmonious with existing adjoining
residential uses, and shall promote residential design themes through such means
as terracing, orientation, natural material selection, use of vegetation, and textural
treatment.
7.
The applicant must develop written procedures to inform personnel working on the
site (1) to be on the alert to the possibility that (a) archaeological remains could be
exposed during construction, and (b) evidence of the remains can include
concentrations of organic material, shell, fire modified rock, burned or oxidized
sediments, bone or lithic, and (2) that should remains be exposed, personnel must
follow specific procedures to notify the Washington State Department of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation, the City of Federal Way, and an
archaeologist. The written procedures shall be reviewed and approved by the city
prior to beginning construction.
8.
To provide a safe route of travel for school children, the applicant shall install a
pedestrian corridor from the subject site, east along the southern side of SW 304th
Street to Adelaide Elementary School, subject to review and approval by the Public
Works Director. The pathway shall generally be 8-feet wide, but may be narrowed
down to 5-foot wide in places as necessary to avoid construction conflicts with
existing improvements along the route.
According to the Plat of ViewCliff No.2, the temporary turn-around located at the
southern portion of Viewcliff No.2 is to become void on the extension of 25th
Avenue SW. The applicant will be responsible for preparation and submittal of any
documents necessary to accomplish the voiding of the existing 25th Avenue SW
cul-de-sac at the direction of the city.
Preliminary Plat of Ventana, LUTC Memorandum
Page 4
10.
The applicant shall provide a copy of the final storm drainage plans to Dean
Condos for review and comment prior to final approval by the City.
IV.
PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
November 14, 1997 Notice of Application issued.
March 28, 1998
Second Notice of Application issued.
October 16, 1998
Environmental determination issued.
January 15, 1999
Notice of Public Hearing issued.
February 2, 1999
Hearing Examiner public hearing.
February 22, 1999
Hearing Examiner recommendation issued.
March 1, 1999
City Council Land Use and Transportation Committee meeting.
March 16, 1999
City Council meeting.
v.
DECISIONAL CRITERIA
The Hearing Examiner may recommend approval of the preliminary plat to the City
Council if the following decisional criteria ofFWCC Section 20-126(c) are met.
1.
It is consistent with the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan;
2.
It is consistent with all applicable provisions of the Federal Way City Code,
including those adopted by reference from the Comprehensive Plan; and
3.
It is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare.
4.
It is consistent with design criteria listed in FWCC Section 20-2
5.
It is consistent with the development standards listed in FWCC section 20-
151through 20-157 and FWCC Section 20-178 through 20-187.
Findings on how the application is consistent with these decisional criteria are contained
on page 11, item 21 of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation.
Preliminary Plat ofVentana, LUTC Memorandum
Page 5
VI.
COUNCIL ACTION
The Federal Way City Council's review of the application is limited to the record of the
hearing before the Hearing Examiner, oral comments received during the Public Meeting,
(so long as those comments do not raise new issues or information contained in the
examiners record) and the Examiner's written report. The City Council may receive new
information not in the record pursuant to FWCC Section 20-127(b).
A draft resolution recommending approval of the proposed application as recommended
by the Hearing Examiner will be included in the March 15, 1999 City Council agenda
packet. After consideration of the record, the City Council may, by action approved by
a majority of the total membership, take one of the following actions, pursuant to FWCC
. Sec. 20-127(c);
1.
Adopt the recommendation; or
2.
Deny the recommendation; or
3.
Adopt their own recommendations; or.
4.
Remand the preliminary plat back to the Hearing Examiner.
Attachments:
Hearing Examiner Recommendation dated February 22, 1999, with exhibits, and including the Staff
Report to Hearing Examiner.
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SERVICES
STAFF REPORT TO THE
FEDERAL WAY HEARING EXAMINER
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF VENTANA
Federal Way File No. SUB97-0005
PUBLIC HEARING - FEBRUARY 2, 1999
FEDERAL WAY CITY HALL CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
33530 FIRST WAY SOUTH
Table of Contents
I. Generallnformation....................................................2
II. Consulted Departments and Agencies........................... ............3
ill. State Environmental Policy Act ...........................................3
Iv. NaturaiEnvironment ...................................................4
V. NeighborhoodCharacteristics ............................................7
VI. GeneraiDesign .......................................................7
VII. Transportation........................................................8
VIII. PublicServices.................. .............................9
IX. Utilities............................................................11
X. Analysis of Decisional Criteria ...........................................12
XI. FindingsofFactandConciusion..........................................14
XII. Recommendations ....................................................16
xm. List of Exhibits.......................................... .............18
Report Prepared by:
Deb Barker, Associate Planner
January 26, 1999
EXHIBIT
11-fl¿~£
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SERVICES
STAFF REPORT FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING OF FEBRUARY 2,1999
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF VENT ANA
FileNo:
SUB97-000S
Applicant:
Wellington Morris Corporation
Greg Sahar, Vice President
10335 Main Street, Suite 8
Bellevue, WA 98004
Phone: (42S) 455-2929
Engineer:
Pinnacle Engineering, Inc.
Ray Miller, PE
11100 NE 8th Street, Suite 355
Bellevue, W A 98004
Phone: (425) 462-7663
Owner:
Roberta and Ernest Gadberry
438 Comstock Place
Seattle, WA 98109
Action
Requested:
Preliminary plat approval of a 28 lot single family residential subdivision as
provided for under Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Chapter 20,
Subdivisions; and requiring approval pursuant to FWCC Section 20-110.
Staff
Representative:
Deb Barker, Associate Planner, (253) 661-4103
Staff
Recommendation: Preliminary Plat Approval with Conditions as Recommended
Preliminary Plat of Ventana
Page I
SIaffReport 10 the Hearing Examiner
EXHIBIT~
GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Description of the Proposal- The applicant proposes to subdivide a vacant 9.91 acre
lot into 28 residential single family lots, each having a minimum of 9,600 square feet
(Exhibit A).
B. Location - The site is located in the northern portion of the city between SW 304th and
SW 306th Streets, at 24th Avenue SW and 25th Avenue SW as extended (Exhibit B).
C. Legal Description - See Exhibit C.
D. Size of Property - The subject site has a land area of 431,763 square feet (9.91 acres).
E. Land Use and Zoning -
Direction Zoning Comprehensive Plan Existing Land Use
Site RS-9.6' SF - High Density2 Vacant
North RS-9.6 Same SFR
South RS-9.6 Same SFR
East RS-9.6 Same SFR
West RS-15.0J SF - Medium Density Vacant & SFR
F.
Background - The preliminary plat ofVentana was submitted on October 17, 1997, as a
25 lot subdivision, with four open space tracts. The application was determined
complete on November 14, 1997. On January 6,1998, the Federal Way City Council
amended the open space provisions of FWCC Chapter 20, Subdivision. On March 28,
1998, the developer modified the preliminary plat application to propose a 28 lot
subdivision with one open space tract, with the balance of the open space to be paid via
fee- in-lieu-of, as provided in the amended subdivision code. The revised preliminary
plat application was determined complete on April 27, 1998.
IRS-9.6 ~ single family residential, 9,600 SF minimum lot size.
2SFR = single family residential.
3RS-15.0 = single family residential, 15,000 SF minimum lot size.
Prelimimuy Pial ofVentana
Page 2
Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner
----,-,...----..-
EXHIBIT ( ~ ~ W-E
II
CONSULTED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
The following departments, agencies, and individuals were advised of this application.
A. Community Development Review Committee (CDRC), consisting of the Federal Way
Community Development Services Planning and Building Divisions; Public Works
Engineering and Traffic Divisions; Parks Recreation and Cultural Resources
Department; Federal Way Department of Public Safety (Police); Federal Way Fire
Department; Lakehaven Utility District; and Federal Way Public Schools. CDRC
comments have been incorporated into this report where applicable.
B. All property owners and occupants within 300 feet ofthe site were mailed notices of the
original and revised application, and of the February 2, 1999, public hearing. The site
was also posted and notice published in the newspaper and on the city's official notice
boards. Thirty-six (36) comment letters were submitted in response to the two notices
of application (Exhibit D). A petition signed by 44 residents was submitted on February
II, 1998. Following notice of the public hearing, a January 18, 1999, comment letter
was submitted to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner on January 20, 1999.
C. In accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A) and FWCC Chapter 18,
Environmental Protection, all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the
site, and all affected agencies, were notified of the proposed action and the city's
environmental decision. In addition, the site was posted and notice placed in the
newspaper and on the city's official notice boards. Thirteen (13) public comments
regarding the proposed action and the city's environmental decision were received. No
changes or corrections were made to the city's initial determination.
III STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
a.
A Mitigated Environmental Determination of Non significance (MDNS) was issued for
the proposed action on October IS, 1998 (Exhibit E). This determination was based on
review of information in the project file, including the environmental checklist (Exhibit
Fj, resulting in the conclusion that the proposal would not result in probable significant
adverse impacts on the environment provided the following measures are complied with:
I.
One or two Douglas Fir or Grand Fir trees, a minimum of six feet in height at the
time of planting, shall be installed in each building lot before final building
inspection shall occur; or,
In lieu of planting the trees within individual lots, the same number and type of
trees shall be installed within an area, such as an open space or detention tract.
The trees shall be a minimum of six feet in height at the time of planting, and shall
be installed before the final plat is approved.
2.
Preliminary Plat orVentana
Page 3
SlafTReport 10 the Hearing Examiner
EXHIBIT
I~~t+.t;
B. Thirteen comment letters were received during the 14 day SEPA comment period
(Exhibit G). The comments addressed opposition to the street extension, proposed
grading, wildlife impacts, vegetation removal, drainage, fence encroachment, and burial
site potential. City response letters are in Exhibit H.
Based on information contained in two of the comment letters, a cultural resources
survey and additional wildlife analysis was requested of the applicant. Pursuant to
RCW 197-1l-340(3)(a)(ii), if the requested reports revealed new information which
indicated that the project would cause probable adverse environmental impacts, the city
would withdraw the MDNS and issue a new environmental decision. Based on
information provided in the amended wildlife analysis and the cultural resources
survey, no changes or corrections were made to the city's initial determination. No
appeals were filed. See section IV. E. of this report for a detailed description of the
wildlife issues, and Section V. B. for detailed description of the cultural resources
issues.
IV NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
a.
Storm Water Runoff-The applicant will be required to provide storm drainage
improvements to comply with all applicable Core and Special Requirements outlined in
the King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM), including surface water
quantity and quality control. Pinnacle Engineering Inc. prepared and submitted a
October 27, 1997, Preliminary Storm Drainage Report, revised August 14, 1998
(Exhibit I), to the Department of Community Development Services for review by the
Public Works Department. A basin modification request, submitted in August 1998, for
the project (Exhibit J) was conditionally approved by the Public Works Director on
October I, 1998 (Exhibit K). The preliminary plat depicts storm water collected in a
detention pond at the northwest corner of the site, with release to a water quality
biofiltration swale on the west side of the site and on to Puget Sound via open and
closed conveyance systems (Exhibit L). An infiltration tank with oil water separator and
settling basins is also depicted in the northeast corner of the site, with connection to the
storm water system within SW 304th Street (refer to Exhibits Ml and M2). See Section
IX. C. of this report for a detailed description of the proposed drainage facilities.
B. Soils - The 1973 King County soils survey map lists the soils type as Alderwood
Gravelly Sandy Loam (Age) and Alderwood Kitsap (AkF). AgC soils are characterized
as moderately well drained soils over dense, relatively impermeable till at depths of24
to 40 inches. These soils are described as capable of adequate compaction, runoff is
slow, and erosion hazard is slight with slopes at 6-IS percent. AkF soils are
characterized as very steep, and include rapid runoff and severe erosion hazard and slip
potential with slopes of25 to 70 percent. Distribution of soils varies greatly within
short distances.
Preliminary Plat otVentana
Page 4
StalTRepon to 'he Hearing Examiner
.-----
EXHIBIT
\ 1 tk. tt-E
c.
Topography - The site is hilly, with an average slope of20 percent. Steep slopes on the
west side of the site adjacent to 26th Avenue SW are proposed to be retained in
constrained and buffer open space. A slope analysis map submitted with the application
depicts 83 percent of the site with 0-20 percent slopes, 16 percent of the site with 20-40
percent slopes, and .01 percent of the site with 40-100 percent slopes (Exhibit N).
D.
Vegetation - Vegetation on site is heavily wooded, and consists primarily of mature
firs, alders, and maples trees, with a dense native understory of shrubs. The Preliminary
Tree Preservation and Removal Plan (Exhibit 0) submitted with the preliminary plat
identifies 239 trees on the subject property that meet the FWCC definition of
significant. The plan locates 210 of these trees in the future right-of-way, utility
easements, and building pads; the trees are not proposed to be retained. Meandering
road(s) around significant trees was not feasible due to topography and existing points
of connection, according to the applicant, and 88 percent of the significant trees are
proposed for removal (refer to Exhibit P, the preliminary clearing and grading plan).
Approval of the preliminary plat is subject to submittal and approval of a landscape
plan pursuant to FWCC Section 20-158. During engineering plat design and review,
staff will work with the applicant to identify trees which could be retained on the site
with preliminary plat aligrunent and final construction. Retained significant trees
outside of open space areas would be regulated under FWCC Section 22-1568,
Significant Trees.
The applicant will be providing 10,284 square feet of constrained and buffer open space
on the western side of the site. This area contains 11 significant trees which shall be
retained. The balance of the open space obligation will be provided through fee in lieu
of payments due prior to final plat approval per FWCC Section 20-155.
E.
Wildlife - A Wildlife StudylEagle Assessment, prepared by Terra Associates, March 19,
1998 (Exhibit Q-J), indicated that eagles reside approximately 2,000 feet north of the
subject site in Poverty Bay Park, a 48 acre unimproved park site. The wildlife study
states that eagles may perch in the trees ofthe subject site, an event witnessed by
neighbors.
According to a July 9, 1998, amendment to the eagle report (Exhibit Q-2), retention
and/or replacement of significant trees and vegetation, as well as incorporation of street
trees and buffer open space into subdivision design, will help mitigate the introduction
of human activities on the wildlife habitat. The 11 mature trees retained in the open
space tract will provide eagle perching habitat as the subdivision vegetation matures.
The report recommends that perch tree replacement be initiated through installation of
evergreen trees on each individual building lot. Replacement trees were recommended
as a means to mitigate potential adverse impacts to eagle habitat, and stated as SEPA
conditions (refer to Section III. A).
Page 5
Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner
Preliminary Plat orVentana
EXHIBIT
l1~¡)-,E
An October 30, 1998, letter (Exhibit G-7, Carrell) commented on the sighting of
potentially threatened or endangered wildlife species at the subject site. A November
23, 1998, supplemental wildlife report (Exhibit Q-3) addressed northern goshawks,
pileated woodpeckers, and ensatina salamanders, as well as eagles in response to the
comment letter. This report amendment was reviewed by a Habitat Biologist with the
Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife. His response is Exhibit R.
The Terra Associates reports did not identify any adverse impacts on the
aforementioned species or individuals using the site. No additional mitigation measures,
other than those for replacement trees, was stated in the Terra Associates reports. The
condition required by the city through the environmental review process will ensure
adequate compensation for loss of vegetation and habitat in this urban setting,
consistent with recommendations of the state. No additional conditions are
recommended.
F.
Mapped Sensitive Areas - The Federal Way Sensitive Areas Map (Exhibit S) indicates
that the west side of the site is within an erosion hazard area with steep slopes,
consistent with the soils classification. No other geologically hazardous sensitive areas
are evident from the map. A geotechnicial report evaluating the erosion hazard areas
contains erosion control measures for improvements proposed within the erosion hazard
areas. The FWCC requires that these measures be implemented.
Typical soils excavation will occur with the street construction, at the site of the
detention pond, and for utility installation. The preliminary clearing and grading plan
depicts clearing limits which exceed city standards for development clearing noted
above. In an August 18, 1998 letter, the applicant requested mass regrading of the
subject site for lot development in conjunction with utility easement installation to
achieve a balanced cut and fill program, and to reduce construction related vehicular
traffic impacts at the site. Without the mass grading, the applicant estimates that 6,000
to 8,000 truck trips are necessary to remove and replace the material at the site. This
request was reviewed by the Planning, Building, and Public Works staff, and approved
subject to engineering plan review. It is anticipated that all excavated material can be
used on site, and that no import fill will be required if the mass grading is approved.
The Geotechnicial Report, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., February 27, 1998 and
revised August 17, 1998 (Exhibit 7), contains recommendations and conclusions for the
proposed development, including site preparation and grading of the subject site.
Supplemental geotechnicial analysis and recommendations may be required by the
Public Works Director or Building Official during development of the site.
P.-eliminary Pial orVenlana
Page 6
StatfRepon to the Hearing Examiner
._'._.._.~..." ....
EXHIBIT l ~~ {.L,t.
v
NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS
A.
Vicinity - The property is situated in the northern portion of the city, in a single family
residential area. The site is vacant. The majority of adjacent properties are developed
with single family residences on lots ranging from 7,400 square feet or more per
dwelling unit to the south (Plat of Lakota Highlands), to 11,000 square feet or more per
dwelling unit to the north (plat of ViewcliffNo. 1 and 2). Poverty Bay Park is northeast
of the subject site (Exhibit B).
B.
Cultural Resources - A letter identifying the subject site as a potential burial ground
was submitted during the SEPA comment period (Exhibit G-12, Clark). In response to
this issue, a Heritage Resources Investigation, prepared by Northwest Archaeological
Associates, Inc., December 4,1998, was submitted (Exhibit U). A copy was forwarded
to the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, the
Muckleshoot Tribe, and the Puyallup Tribe. A response from the Washington State
Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation was received on December 16,
1998 (Exhibit JI). To date, no tribal responses have been received.
The Heritage Resource Investigation found that four archaeological sites are recorded
within three miles of the project location. While heritage resources were not located
during a reconnaissance, specific procedures are outlined in the report should
archaeological remains be exposed. Refer to condition #7 of preliminary plat approval
(page 17).
VI GENERAL DESIGN
A. Subdivision Access and Roadway System - Access to the property will be provided by
the northward extension of 24th Avenue SW from SW 306th Street, connecting to SW
304th, and the southerly extension of2Sth Avenue SW, connecting to 24th Avenue SW
at SW 30Sth Street. Refer to Exhibit W, the preliminary roadway and utility plan. 24th
Avenue SW, 2Sth Avenue SW, and SW 30Sth Street are classified by the FWCC as
local streets, providing access to residences and connecting neighborhood streets to the
collector system. Pursuant to FWCC street improvement standards, the minimum right-
of-way width for local streets is SO feet. The applicant is proposing full street
improvements for the roadways, including 28 feet of pavement, vertical curb/gutters,
street trees, sidewalks, and landscape/utility strips within the SO-foot right-of-way. The
intersection ofSW 304th Street and 24th Avenue SW shall be widened and improved
with sidewalk on the west and south sides. The Public Works Department and Federal
Way Fire Department have reviewed the proposed access, street improvements, and
curve radius.
Page 7
Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner
Preliminary Plat olVentana
EXHIBITJ ~&. t1-£
Compliance with the City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP) and FWCC
was analyzed in a March 9, 1998, memorandum prepared by the city's Traffic Engineer
(Exhibit X). It concludes that the proposed street layout of the Ventana subdivision is
consistent with existing codes and Comprehensive Plan goals and policies.
Street connectivity from Ventana to the plat of View cliff No. 2 is opposed by Viewcliff
residents, who on February 11, 1998, submitted a petition signed by 44 residents
(Exhibit 1"). Staff responded to the petition in a March 20, 1998, letter (Exhibit 2).
B. Pedestrian System - Sidewalks will be provided along all lot frontages. Specifically,
full street improvements include five foot wide sidewalks on both sides of the street.
Half street improvements at SW 304th at 24th A venue SW will include a five foot wide
sidewalk only on the southerly side of the street. The applicant will be required to
provide an eight foot wide paved walking path from the subject site eastward along the
south side of SW 304th Street to Adelaide Elementary School. In addition, five foot
wide sidewalks will be extended northward to into ViewcliffNo. 2.
C. Landscape Buffers and Open Space -In accordance with FWCC Chapter 20,
Subdivisions, landscaped buffers are specified only when the plat is adjacent to an
incompatible zoning district. The proposed plat is bordered on all sides by single family
residential zoning, therefore, no formal buffers are required. Street trees, when mature,
open space vegetation, screening of the detention tract, and replacement trees will
contribute to visual buffering. Street tree requirements are described in VII. A.; open
space requirements are described in VIII. B., and detention tract screening in IX. C.;
below.
D. Lot Layout- The lots range in size ITom 9,626 square feet to 18,354 square feet. The
proposed lots are generally rectangular in shape. Five are flag lots in conformance with
FWCC standards. To facilitate storm drainage collection, lots 1 through 8 are proposed
to be regraded, and rockeries (six to eight feet in height), would be installed along the
east property line to contain a 20 foot drainage easement. To minimize visual and
aesthetic impacts to adjoining easterly single family homes, rockery and retaining wall
design should promote residential design themes through terracing, natural material
selection, placement of vegetation, and textural treatment. Refer to condition #6 of the
preliminary plat approval (page 17).
VII TRANSPORTATION
A. Street Improvements - In accordance with the FWCC, all street improvements must be
dedicated as city right-of-way and improved to full street standards. Specifically, full
street in;¡provements are required for 24th and 25th Avenues SW and will include: 28
Preliminary Pial of Venlana
Page 8
Staff Report 10 Ihe Hearing Examiner
EXHIBIT
\ 6b~ tt,t;
feet of pavement, vertical curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and street trees, within a 50-foot
right-of-way width. The intersection ofSW 304th Street and 24th Avenue SW shall be
widened and improved with sidewalk on the west and south sides. Sixty-six red maple
street trees are proposed to be installed in the right of way (Exhibit 0). The Public
Works Department and Federal Way Fire Department have approved roadway
improvements and curve radius as proposed.
In a June 8, 1998, memorandum, the Traffic Engineer stated that off-site improvements
to 26th Avenue SW were not warranted (Exhibit AA).
Pursuant to plat conditions as previously established for the adjacent subdivision of
ViewcliffNo. 2, the temporary turn-around located at the southern portion of View cliff
No.2 (Exhibit BB) is, "to become void on extension of 25th Avenue SW." The
applicant will be required to install street improvements at this location as required by
the city (Exhibit W). The applicant will be responsible for preparation and submittal of
any documents necessary to eliminate the turn-around at the direction of the city. This
requirement is addressed as condition #9 of the preliminary plat approval (page 17).
Street lighting is required pursuant to FWCC Sections 22-1522. The applicant has
proposed to install five street lights in the subdivision.
B. Adequacy of Arterial Roads - This proposal has been reviewed under the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEP A). Based on the FWCC, the additional traffic to be
generated by this development does not require any roadway improvements for vehicles
or pro rata share payments because there are no projects in the city's Transportation
Improvement Plan (TIP) impacted by the project.
VIII
PUBLIC SERVICES
A. Schools - As part ofthe city's review of the proposal, the preliminary plat application
was referred to the Federal Way School District for comments. Comments received on
October 31, 1997, March 4, 1998, and May 27, 1998, included the following
information. The proposed subdivision will be served by Adelaide Elementary, Lakota
Junior High, and Decatur Senior High Schools. As these schools are within one mile of
the subject site, no bus transportation is available from this site. School service areas
are reviewed annually and may be adjusted to accommodate enrollment growth and
new development.
The existing route of travel from the proposed subdivision to Adelaide Elementary is
via a substandard roadway, with gravel shoulders and ditches. To meet the standards of
FWCC Section 20-1 56(a), the applicant will be required to install an improved
pedestrian corridor from'the subject site to Adelaide Elementary School along the
Page 9
Staff Repon to the Hearing Examiner
Preliminary Piat of Ventana
EXHIBIT
¡ ~~H-,e
southern side of SW 304th Street (Exhibit CC), providing a safe route of travel for
school age children. This shall be a raised asphalt sidewalk located in the southerly
right-of-way ofSW 304th. Refer to condition #8 of the preliminary plat approval (page
17). Sidewalks are provided on SW 306th Street, and along most portions of 21st
Avenue SW for Junior High and High School students.
School impact fees, as authorized by city ordinance and collected at the time of building
permit issuance, are currently $2,882.00 per single family housing unit. School impact
fees are determined on the basis of the district's Capital Facilities Plan and are subject
to annual adjustment and update.
B.
Open Space - The nearest city park is Poverty Bay Park,"kitty-corner" from the
northwest portion of the subject site. Other public parks in the vicinity include Adelaide
Park, I ,000 feet southeast of the site; Lakota Park, approximately 3,000 feet southeast
of the site; and Dumas Bay Retreat Center, approximately 2,000 feet west of the site.
To provide adequate recreational opportunities commensurate with new residential
development, FWCC Chapter 20, Subdivisions, requires dedication of land on site for
open space, or a fee-in-lieu-of payment. Specifically, FWCC Section 20-1 55(b) requires
all residential subdivisions to provide open space in the amount of, "15 percent of the
gross land area of the subdivision site; or pay a fee in lieu of' payment for all or
portions of the open space area required.
Total open space required for this plat is 64,764 square feet (15 percent of the 431,763
square foot parcel). Pursuant to FWCC Section 20-155, the applicant proposes to
provide a portion of the required open space on site and pay fee-in-lieu for the balance
of the required open space. Specifically, the applicant proposes to provide a 10,283
square foot on-site open space tract, consisting of constrained and buffer area, on the
west side of the site (2.38 percent of the four percent of constrained and buffer open
space permitted under FWCC 20-155), and to meet the balance of the requirement
(54,467 square feet) through payment of an open space fee. The fee would be based on
the assessed value of the land according to the King County Assessors Office valuation
of the subject site at the time the final plat is reviewed. This fee shall be paid to the city
before the final plat is approved.
C. Fire Protection - The Certificate of Water Availability from the Lakehaven Utility
District indicates that water will be available to the site in sufficient quantity to satisfy
fire flow standards for the proposed development. The Fire Department requires that a
fire hydrant be located within 350 feet of each lot. The preliminary plat drawing depicts
the installation off our fire hydrants at the subdivision. The exact location of these
hydrants must be approved by the Fire Department.
Preliminary Plat orVentana
Page 10
Staff Repon to the Hearing Examiner
EXHIBITJ rfb ~ t!-e
IX UTILITIES
A. Sewage Disposal- The applicant proposes to serve the proposed plat by a public sewer
system managed by Lakehaven Utility District. A July 22, 1997, Certificate of Sewer
Availability (Exhibit DD) indicates the district's capacity to serve the proposed
development through a Developer Extension Agreement (DEA) between the applicant
and the district. According to the preliminary plat, an extension of the existing sanitary
sewer main in 26th Avenue SW will serve the site. The applicant will need to renew the
expired certificate and DEA before the engineering approval is granted.
B.
Water Supply - The applicant proposes to serve the subdivision with a public water
supply and distribution system managed by the Lakehaven Utility District. A July 22,
1997, Certificate afWater Availability (Exhibit EE) indicates Lakehaven's capacity to
serve the proposed development through a Developer Extension Agreement (DEA). The
applicant will need to renew the expired DEA and certificate before the engineering
approval is granted.
C. Drainage Facilities - The site is located in the South Lower Puget Sound Sub-Basin, in
an area identified by the Executive Proposed Basin Plan: Hylebos Creek and Lower
Puget Sound, as having downstream conveyance, flooding, erosion, and habitat
problems associated with stormwater runoff. The applicant is proposing to provide
mitigation as recommended in the Basin Plan, specifically, Basin Plan Recommendation
#BW-2 which calls for the use of a seven-day storm event in sizing on-site detention
facilities. A 30 percent safety factor is not required to be used in facility design.
The February 1998, Levell Downstream Analysis, including onsite basin comparisons,
offsite conveyance capacity checks, and core and special requirements under the
KCSWDM, was prepared by Pinnacle Engineering, Inc, and reviewed by the Public
Works Department (Exhibit I).
Development of the site will create additional runoff from new impervious area. The
9.9 acre project site is located on a ridge and contains four distinct drainage basins. The
applicant submitted a request for basin modification (variance). The detailed description
of the requested diversions can be found in the preliminary storm drainage report
containing an August 14, 1998, level II downstream assessment prepared by Pinnacle
Engineering (Exhibit J).
The variance request, was reviewed by Public Works Surface Water Management staff,
in conjunction with the KCSWDM, and was conditionally approved in a October I,
1998, letter (Exhibit L). Stormwater design and plat drainage elements must conform to
the standards, policies, and practices of the City of Federal Way's Surface Water
Management Division as outlined in the adopted "King County Surface Water Design
P"liminary Plat orVentana
Page II
StafTReport to the Hearing Examiner
EXHIBIT_( ~ t+ £'
Manual," the "City of Federal Way Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan-
Phase I," the "Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan," and the "Stormwater
System Operation and Maintenance Manual."
As the variance request proposes to redirect surface water runoff from the southeast
basin. of the plat into the west basin, the net result of which is an increase in the areal
size of the plat's westernmost drainage basin, the conveyance system downstream of
this basin shall be analyzed in sufficient detail to insure that the increased volume of
water discharged from this basin can be accommodated. A level three downstream
analysis shall be performed from the plat to Puget Sound for engineering plan review.
Additional hydrologiclhydraulic analysis shall be required if the level three analysis is
not sufficient to determine all drainage problems.
The applicant shall be required to construct improvements necessary to mitigate all
identified conveyance problems, whether existing or resulting from the plat's
development, as identified during engineering plan review. Engineering approval shall
not be granted if it is determined that proposed mitigation is not adequate to address the
impacts of the project. Refer to conditions #1 and #2 of the preliminary plat approval
(page 16).
Storm drainage facilities are to be designed in accordance with all applicable core and
special requirements outlined in the KCSWDM, and per the basin complex variance
request approval. An infiltration tank, detention pond, and biofiltration swale are
proposed to provide runoff control for the site. The approved storm drainage facilities
must be constructed per city code requirements, prior to final plat approval and
recording of the subdivision condition. The detention facilities shall be vegetatively
screened from the plat and surrounding properties. Refer to condition #3 of the
preliminary plat approval (page 16).
x
ANALYSIS OF DECISIONAL CRITERIA
The FWCC establishes review procedures and decisional criteria for deciding upon various
types of land use applications. Pursuant to FWCC Chapter 20, Subdivisions, Section 20-110,
preliminary plat applications are submitted to the hearing examiner for public hearing. The
preliminary plat application and the recommendation of the hearing examiner is submitted to
the city council for approval or disapprovaL
A. Hearing Examiner Preliminary Plat Decisional Criteria - Pursuant to FWCC Section
20-126(c), the hearing examiner may recommend approval of the proposed preliminary
plat only if the following decisional criteria are met. Decisional criteria and staff
responses are provided below.
Preliminary Plat orVentana
Page 12
Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner
EXHIBIT
/ õD~ tJ~
L
The project is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Staff Comment: The application is subject to the adopted 1995 FWCP, which
designates the property as Single Family - High Density. The proposed land use,
Single Family Residential, with 9,600 square foot minimum lot size (RS-9.6), is
consistent with density allowances and policies applicable to this land use as
established in the FWCP.
2.
The project is consistent with all applicable provisions ofthe chapter, including
those adopted by reference from the comprehensive plan.
Staff Comment: The preliminary plat application is required to comply with the
provisions of the FWCC, Chapter 18, Environmental Policy; Chapter 20,
Subdivisions; Chapter 22, Zoning; and all other applicable codes and regulations.
Future development of the residential subdivision will be required to comply with
all applicable development codes and regulations. As proposed, and with
conditions as recommended by staff, the preliminary plat will comply with all
provisions of the chapter.
3.
The project is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare.
Staff Comment: The proposed preliminary plat would permit development of the
site consistent with the current Single Family High Density land use classification
of the city's FWCP and map. Proposed access and fire hydrant locations must meet
all requirements ofthe Federal Way Fire Department. Future development of the
plat in accordance with applicable codes and regulations will ensure protection of
the public health, safety, and welfare.
4.
It is consistent with the design criteria listed in section 20-2.
Staff Comment: The proposed preliminary plat would promote the purposes
identified in FWCC Section 20-2, and the standards and regulations therein, as
identified in the staff report, including effective use of land, promotion of safe and
convenient travel on streets, provision for the housing needs of the community,
protection of environmentally sensitive areas, and flexible site design to protect
steep slopes. As proposed and with conditions as recommended by city staff, the
preliminary plat application complies with all provisions of the chapter.
Page 13
Staff Report 10 the Hearing Examiner
Preliminary Plat orVentana
EXHIBIT
l ~ mAl?
5.
It is consistent with the development standards listed in Sections 20-151 through
157,and20-!58 through 187.
Staff Comment: Development of this site is required to comply with the
provisions of FWCC Chapter 20, Subdivisions; Chapter 18, Environmental
Protection; Chapter 22, Zoning; and all other applicable local and state
development codes and regulations. As proposed, and as recommended by city
staff, the preliminary plat application complies with all applicable statutes, codes,
and regulations.
XI FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
Based on an analysis of the proposed action, the environmental record, and related
decisional criteria, the Department of Community Development Services finds that:
I.
The proposed action is to subdivide a vacant 9.9 acre parcel into 28 single family lots.
All adjacent land uses are single family residential. There are steep slopes in the
western portion of the subject site.
2.
Zoning for the site and adjacent parcels is RS-9.6, with the exception of RS-15,0 zoning
to the west. The proposed residential subdivision and density is consistent with existing
adjacent land uses and zoning.
3.
A Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) was issued for this
proposed action on October 17, 1998. Thirteen comments were submitted before the
comment deadline date. No appeals were received and the decision was finaled with no
modification. This determination is incorporated by reference as though set forth in full.
4.
Water and sewer facilities are available from the Lakehaven Utility District and are
adequate to serve the proposed development. The expired certificates must be renewed.
It is the applicant's responsibility to secure all necessary water and sewer services from
the utility provider.
5.
Surface water facilities will be designed in accordance with the 1990 King County
Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM), and the approved surface water
modification. The site is located in the Central Lower Puget Sound drainage basin, and
contains four distinct drainage basins, which the applicant proposes to modify. The
modification was approved by the Public Works Director on October I, 1998, subject to
conditions and the KCSWDM standards.
Preliminary Pial of Venlana
Page 14
Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner
EXHIBIT
l ~~lt-E
6.
Public access will be provided by the extension of 24th Avenue SW from SW 304th to
SW 306th Street, and the southerly extension of 25th Avenue SW connecting to 24th
Avenue SW as SW 305th Street. Pedestrian connections from the subject site to
Adelaide Elementary School are currently substandard and present unsafe school access
pedestrian connections. The applicant will be required to design and construct a safe
pedestrian corridor from the subject site to Adelaide Elementary School.
7.
24th Avenue SW, 25th Avenue SW, and SW 30Sth Street are currently designated as
local streets by the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP). Full street
improvements within a SO foot right of way are required for all internal roadways.
Public right of way and the stormwater detention tracts will be dedicated to the city.
8.
A geotechnicial report contains specific recommendations and conclusions for the
proposed development, including site preparation and grading ofthe subject site.
Supplemental geotechnicial analysis and recommendations may be required by the
Public Works Director or Building Official, as allowed by the Federal Way City Code
(FWCC), during development of the site in conformance with FWCC Section 22-1286.
9.
The subject site contains 239 significant trees. There are 210 trees proposed to be
removed with the grading ofthe subject site for the installation of roadways and
utilities.
10. Pursuant to FWCC Section 20-15S, the applicant proposes to provide a percentage of
the required open space on-site, and to pay an open space fee for the balance of the
required open space. The on-site open space will be delineated as a separate tract, and
owned and maintained by the subdivision property owners.
11. Prior to issuance of construction permits, the applicant will be required to submit a
landscape plan addressing open space, detention tract screening, street trees, and tree
conservation, and the replacement of significant trees.
12. The proposed preliminary plat is permitted by FWCC Chapter 20, Subdivisions, and
Chapter 22, Zoning.
13. The proposed subdivision and all attachments have been reviewed for compliance with
the FWCP; FWCC Chapter 18, Environmental Protection; Chapter 20, Subdivisions;
Chapter 22, Zoning; and all other applicable codes and regulations. As proposed, and
recommended by staff, the preliminary plat is consistent with the FWCP and all
applicable codes and regulations.
14. Prior to final plat approval and recording, all required and approved improvements will
be constructed, or the improvements appropriately bonded, per city code requirements.
Page 15
Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner
Preliminary Plat of Ventana
EXHIBIT
l ~~d-,~
XII RECOMMENDATION
Based on review of this application, the environmental record, and pertinent decisional
criteria, the Department of Community Development Services recommends approval of the
preliminary plat subject to the following conditions:
I.
Because the plat proposes to redirect surface water runoff from the northeast basin into
the western basin (the net result of which is an increase in the real size of the plat's
westernmost drainage basin, as required by the Public Works Director), and prior to
constructing the plat improvements, the conveyance system downstream of this basin
shall be analyzed in sufficient detail to insure that the increased volume of water
discharged from this basin can be accommodated. A level three downstream analysis
shall be performed from the plat to Puget Sound for engineering plan review.
Additional hydrologiclhydraulic analysis shall be required if the level three analysis is
not sufficient to determine all drainage problems.
The applicant shall be required to construct all improvements necessary to mitigate all
identified conveyance problems, whether existing or resulting from the plat's
development, as identified during engineering plan review, as required by the Public
Works Director. Engineering approval shall not be granted if it is determined that
proposed mitigation is not adequate to address the impacts of the project.
2.
All plat drainage elements shall be required to conform to the standards, policies, and
practices of the City of Federal Way's Surface Water Management Division as outlined
in the adopted "1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual," the "City of
Federal Way Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan - Phase I," the
"Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan," and the "Storm water System
Operation and Maintenance Manual," and as modified by the Public Works Director.
3.
Retention/detention facilities used to control runofffTom the site to off-site drainage
courses shall be located in a detention tract dedicated to the city at the time of final plat
approval, unless located within improved public rights-of-way. Vegetative screening of
the facilities shall be provided.
4.
The final plat drawing shall establish the open space in an open space tract to be owned
in common and maintained by property owners of the proposed subdivision, and
prohibiting removal or disturbance of landscaping within the tract, except as necessary
for maintenance or replacement of existing plantings and as approved by the city.
Additional vegetation may be located in open space(s) and Native Growth Protection
Easement (NGPE) tracts to meet the MDNS conditions as approved by the city.
Preliminary Plat of Vent ana
Page 16
Staff Repon to the Hearing Examiner
EXHIBIT~ õQ~ !f.E
5.
Prior to issuance of construction permits, a landscape plan, prepared by a licensed
landscape architect, shall be submitted to the city for approval, and shall include the
following elements:
a)
Open space landscaping;
b)
Street trees in planter strips inside plat boundaries;
c)
Tree conservation and significant tree replacement; and
d)
Visual screening of all property boundaries of the detention tract from adjacent
properties and the right-of-way with landscaping and/or fencing. Cyclone fencing,
if used, shall be painted black or green, and shall be surrounded by vegetation.
6.
Retaining walls and rockery design shall be harmonious with existing adjoining
residential uses, and shall promote residential design themes through such-means as
terracing, orientation, natural material selection, use of vegetation, and textural
treatment.
7.
The applicant must develop written procedures to inform personnel working on the site
be alerted to the possibility that archaeological remains could be exposed during
construction, that evidence of the remains can include concentrations of organic
material, shell, fire modified rock, burned or oxidized sediments, bone or lithic, and that
should remains be exposed, personnel must follow specific procedures to notify the
Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, the City of
Federal Way, and an archaeologist. The written procedures shall be reviewed and
approved by the city prior to beginning construction.
8.
To provide a safe route of travel for school children, the applicant shall install a
pedestrian corridor from the subject site, west along the southern side of SW 304th
Street to Adelaide Elementary School, subject to review and approval by the Public
Works Director.
9.
According to the Plat of View Cliff No. 2, the temporary turn-around located at the
southern portion of View cliff No. 2 is to become void on the extension of 25th Avenue
SW. The applicant will be responsible for preparation and submittal of any documents
necessary to accomplish the voiding of the existing 25 Avenue SW cul-de-sac at the
direction of the city.
Page 17
StatT Repon to the Heming Examiner
Preliminary Plat of Vent ana
EXHIBIT
\ -õb~ tk;e
XIII
A.
B.
C.
D.I-37
E.
F.
G.]-13.
H.I-13
L
J.
K.
L.
Ml.
M2.
N.
O.
P.
Q.I-4.
R.
S.
T.
U.
V.
W.
X.
Y.
Z.
AA.
BB.
CC-
DD.
EE.
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Reduced Scale Preliminary Plat of Vent ana
Vicinity Map
Legal Description
Comment Letters
October 15,1998, Mitigated Determination of Non significance (MDNS)
July 9, 1998, Environmental Checklist
SEPA Comment Letters
Director's Response to SEPA Comment Letters
Preliminary Drainage Report, Prepared by Pinnacle Engineering
Basin Modification Request
Basin Modification Approval from the Public Works Director
Reduced Scale Off-site Drainage Map and Downstream Analysis Exhibit
Reduced Scale Preliminary Profiles
Reduced Scale Site Cross Sections
Slope Analysis Map
Reduced Scale Preliminary Tree Preservation/Removal Plan
Reduced Scale Preliminary Clearing and Grading
June 26, ]997, Wildlife Study, Amended March 18, 1998, and July 9, 1998, and November 23,
1998, Wildlife Amendment
December 23, 1998, Fish and Wildlife Response Letter
Federal Way Sensitive Areas Map
February 27, 1998, Geotechnicial Report, Prepared by TelTa Associates
December 4, 1998, Heritage Resource Investigation, Prepared by Northwest Archaeological Assoc.
December ]4, 1998, Washington State Dept. of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Letter
Reduced Scale Preliminary Roadway and Utility Plan
March 9, 1998, Memorandum from City Traffic Engineer
February 11, 1998, Petition from ViewcliffResidents
March 20, 1998, Staff Response to Petitioners
June 8, 1998, Off Site Improvements Letter
Reduced Scale Map of View Cliff No. 2
Reduced Scale off Site School Walking Plan
July 22, 1997, Lakehaven Utility District Letter of Sewer Availability
July 22, 1997, Lakehaven Utility District Letter of Water Availability
TRANSMIITED TO THE PARTIES LISTED HEREAFTER:
Federal Way Hearing Examiner
Applicant - Wellington MolTis Corporation
Project Engineer - Pinnacle Engineering
L,\PRMSYSIDOCUMEN1\SUB97 - OOOSIST MEV AL.DOC
PreHminary Plat or Ventana
Page 18
Staff Repon to the Hearing Examiner
EXHIBIT
( q¡ftc -+lr-
VIEWCLIFF NO.2
PREUMlNARY PUT
OF
VENTANA
A PORTION OF THENWI/4 OFNEI/4, OFSEC.12, TWP.2IN,RGE.3E., W.M.
V I EWCL IFF \ KING COUNTY, CITy OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON
BLOCK 1
1
@
VIEWCLIFF BLOCK 2
SEE SHEET 1 OF 1
"\ /Fœ CIffSI'Æ "'.CMIoIENTS
'\...SW.304thST.
G- SCALI
t..J U~
~-
,.->
--... ..
L£GEND
iiiiiõiiiiiiY
PARCO.-
-.-"".......
---.......
_WA1ER
... ....... CR ......""
...... ......... 1M
- S1RŒT UQtT
~
--
~-
ø
....
...
"'
"'
-'
0
>
'"
'"
«
a.
_F"
A ....,... III
'50 nrr - A
~ NO""""" CR .... ....."'" WA"" ÐOST
""1OO"OFlI£>ICIIJ1I£A$J~
""""""",,"""""I1EPCRT.
. ........................... TO ..
,.",........................,.......
<§o~
'"
"'-"'"
."'"
-'"
,. I. \.u_r.
1" 0 ..Crm
~ I!OAD ECßCH
..... NO om< Ave. 8.W.
---.:u
FLE NO. SEP97-OO36 .. 9J897-000
-
SIn: DATA:
;;;¡¡¡¡¡;
-.--
iE.E .::'
...........
==---= :-.-
.......--
C_-
.......
--..
"",..n...-
50S::". ..... PL
.......-
~!"~--
=.:... P~
"""""","""""""""""""'LY
....... ....
ijIt
""".""'.......--
.......... """."'"
,~"'" C"".>
P/W,
PARCO.'"
_OF"'"
-\.Of"'"
'Z2I~
..
A'" \.Of "'"
TOT"- ... PÆk
......"
t." ..... ("'.783 51)
..."t "
'..... " CADI""," FU-tHJÐJ CIf)
....." (OX OF"'-"¡
...." (~... OF 01£_)
""IF
........."'" U1IJTY ......
........."'" U1IJTY 01SIIICT
SOIOCI.II1S1IICT-.
SOOIIΠOF ,.....
......POOEII
US .... ......--
........ WAY ... .....MOT
........ WAY SOIOCI. 01SIIICT
1I1I-CUINTY""" --- -.oy
SOOIIΠOf --
1I1I-CUINTY"""-----
PERNlT NO.
~
A Tri-County
Land Surveying Company
""0 20011> " .w. Suitt'
L,..".- ... 0!0J8 (425);78-2... F",,"8-2850
PER CITY -
PER CITY R£VIEW
PER CITY REVIf.W
PER OTY ........
3-27-98
7-23-98
ã=i2=õã
~
ORA" BY 8JL
.'1£ .-wIy. ,...
"""""BY
...... ,. - '"
.... ....!..- OF ....!..-
EXHIBit> ! ffbftu- f{-.~.
.
Preliminary Plat of Ventana
Vicinity Map
-1
.
.
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
A.L.T.A. COMMITMENT
SCHEDULE A
(Cootinued)
Order No.: 481371
Your No.: WELLINGTON/GADBERRY
LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT
(Paragraph 4 of Schedule A continuation)
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING
COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
EXHIB'T~~ H-E
CHICAGO 1ITLP..INSURANCP.. COMPANY
d"=06/I.Js.97/,lm
EXHIBIT
PAGE...L OF --L-
Exhibit D - Preliminary Plat of Vent ana:
Letters received following notice ofland use !lPplications
D.l
D.2
D.3
DA
D.5
D.6
D.?
D.8
D.9
D.1O
D.ll
D.12
D.13
D.14
D.15
D.16
D.17
D.18
D.19
D.20
D.21
D.22
D.23
D.24
D.25
D.26
D.27
D.28
D29
D.30
D.31
D.32
D.33
D.34
D.35
D.36
David Whiteside
Mary M. Hunter
G. Kent Nelson
Richard Thompson
Randolph M. Colton
Dean 1. Condos
Marie Francis
Donald and Marilyn Bunger
Fred and Marg. Edmondson
Dean 1. Condos
Dianne L. Ray
E. Imbro
Betty Huff
Robert F. Jones
Frank and Janie Lutje
James A. Craig
Robert and Betty Collins
Chris and Barbara Castrow
William Price
Jean Holmes
Howard and Darlene White
Joy and William Blackstone
Unknown
Kevin and Maggie King
Barbara Pooley
Caroline Quinell
Gary, Julie and Ben Gillespie
Susan and Dan Koehler
RL and J.A. Secreto
Richard Thompson
Lamont and Norma Haynes
Mark and Annette Hillman
Colleen Rott
Mary M. Hunter
Gerald and JoAnn Kure
John C.Cox
D.37
Stan Wade (letter submitted regarding proposed school walking route) I
EXHIBIL-J-~ ~ IT £
EXHIBIT D
PAGE-LOF ---L- ¡
EXHIBIT
1 2. 03. 97
02:24
PM
*RENTON METROLOGy
LAB
POI
.
REííiWVED BY
COMMUNITYO~'O;l"~.;, i¡rl~~PI.
Feden! Way. wi.. 9S023
DEC 03 1997
To:
City ofFcdera1 Way
Fax:
(253) 661-4129
From: David Whiteside
Date:
December 3, 1997
R8:
V OIltana Development Project
Pagee: 1
cc:
Deb. Bazkcr, Assoc. Planner
D Urgent
xForRmew
D PJu.e Comment
I:] Please Reply
D Please Recycle
'~t¡.
-"': oM a neighbor to the subject property, as tfuCUlled in our recent telecon, the following are
fconcern!: .
of large fur trees (everg!eens) wiIJ have a significant envlromnental impact in the
. There lire a large number of fur trees both on the subject
as well as neighboring
erty. Significant removal of tree.< will destroy natural wind baIrien and dispenion
patterns in the area whicl1 could lead to significant property damage and potential human
injury. 'Ihisahould be considered in depth. The minimum 25% retention of trees may not be
nearly adeqUate. The geography of tbi& property need! to be considered since it is basically on
the edge ofa large bluff which is more highly prone to accelmltion of wind.
b. There presently can be seen nesting cagles and a number of old growth fur !reea on the
subject property.
e. There will be an increase of traffic on streel:! presently without side walks.
. . . . . . . .
EXHIBIT ~
EXHIBIT -
'PAßE~0F --L-
12/03/97 WED 14:25' ITX/RX NO 67621
- - .
.
City of Federal Way
Department of Commercial
Attention: Deb Barker
33530 1st Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003
Develo¡:ment
December 02, 1997
Dear Deb,
I'm writing with information regaràing a new subdivision, reference rrumber
SUB970005. We live along the undeveloped park in this proposed area. We
have for many years, the opportunity to observe the eagle family that live
in this park. In fact, they hunt their prey in this proposed subdivision.
We have also observed red tail hawk, falcons, and owls in this area, sometimes
in our back yard. Why take their home away?
In addition, with all the talk and controversy on "old growth timber", how can
this subdivision be created and this "old growth timber" be done away with?
This proposed area has beautiful "old growth timber" on it.
Please keep me informed by placing my name on the mailing list:
Mary M. Hunter
30205 25th Ave SW
Federal Way, WA 98023
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
. .~. -lc ~
(//' /\
MaryW Hunter
EXH I BIT Ú~ 2-
PAGE-LOF--1-
RECEIVED BY
COMMUNITY OEVELOPMENrOEÞ ARTMENT
11 DEC d 1997
EXHIBIT.I M-I1.P,~.¡/ Ut. ':.i,)i;);:?'~,'
~""""':""
.
8.
Dec. 2, 1997
G. Kent Nelson
30206 25'h Ave S.W.
Federal Way, WA 98023
Deb Barker
City of Federal Way
Depl. of Community Development
33530 First V:lay South
Dear Ms. Barker:
I am writing to express serious Concern about the proposed development at 24" Ave. S. W. and
S.W. 304'" SI. (File #: SEP97-0036, SUB97-0005). As a resident of the View Cliff
neighborhood which is adjacent to the proposed development site, I am fearful of tile impact of
this development for the surrounding areas.
My concern about this development is threefold. First, I am concerned about the construction
process and the extent to which it may disrupt our current lifestyles as residents of the area,
including access to and from the neighborhood, the noise generated, the physical "mess" that
may result, and the span of time such a development may cover. A development of this size can
severely disrupt the livability of the area while the construction takes place.
Second, I am concerned about the quality of the development and its impact on the investment
value of our homes in the area. The value of our property is heavily dependent upon the quality
of the surrounding areas. Without proper assurances of the quality of the new development, I
have serious worries about the negative impact on the current value of my home and property.
Finally, I am concerned that this development will negatively and irrevocably change the nature
and character of the surrounding neighborhoods. View Cliff is currently a safe, peaceful place
to live, which is the primary reason we have chosen this area to invest in a home. The
development of the adjacent land, without proper quality controls, could destroy our existing
quality of life. Of particular concern is the "right of way improvements." What does this
involve, and how might it alter the flow of traffic on our residential streets? I am interested in
learning of the details of such right of way improvements. Other developments and city projects
in the general area have already caused traffic delays and other inconveniences; this development
could "xacerbate those existing problems.
In short. this development could have devastating effects on the quality of our lives and the
investment value of our property. I urge the City of Federal Way to establish proper quality
controls to maintain the quality of the existing neighborhoods which surround the proposed
development site. I would like to get more detailed infonnation about the proposed plans, and
voice my opinions about them in a public forum or with the proper city officials.
In the meantime, should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at my home
phone: 835-0381.
EXHIBIT~
:e:elt:: -! jL
G. Kent Nelson, Ph.D.
'.'EPAHTMENr
RECbVC, dY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMEDf C 0 3 1997
DEC 0:3 1997 EXHIBIT_J)- 3
PAGE--.LOF I
COMMUNlF'\;.{..
(
\
Il-Z-Q1
Ç-~-¡--'--t- +-l--¡-- r-iLlli-j
. '-;-:'LLLL-cL~:__L¡
" I "
RECEIVED B~ARTMENT; ~- ~~~~
COMM\1N\1Y OEVELOPMENli DE , ::-1
I
-i
(
Ot:b ß4rker
C-.4yð{ FEIJ¡£IlAf., (¡vA '(
.33S-3o I ~ tu(J" Sov..Tl1
f^ &. Aatk,. ~
[:EC- S 1997
¡
-,
I
i
-,
¡ í
- ¡ ¡
;1
(
\
/IA.~Y\~ ,~ RtcAl1.J-d ~.JdrI. I ~M ~ '.
C d't\c~ec( ~'t:f~ I" fl"e Vlt:W t:..uPF Alâ11t~ðö&.
I\'~ t4ikli-j !.oJ rY.. ~ ^,tl,l-.Iioo. f?t,"¡ÚJ (¡fø,.¡I.
~/N1 lÀMc.UI\t.& <lhöLAf t( dt.llt,úfWlfA4!- j(";;~I~ OL(.r
fl.e.t q l1 'ørhOOJ.. ~E!- /oIe;Jhb~ ðctJ dJ(,(fJjJ(J[&I. fb
iJ¿. c~ /fed Vb1r-~. :.r Wt:ut-l +0 C,r;I-á. flUAA~e,
"I v aM~ Ú'\1 (4 Y" S ,f;.. ::rL4' I'; -G.-"""o.'¡"'J.,...
i ¡
, I
¡ ,¡-t
Tj
~ Deb:
f,rÌf / iA¡J J'\.aM\L. ndu '1 ¡;'1.I..1t.~ Ó;. l.J"f{1,."itt.,.
í'IAJ' rS Mf 4..Þt c..'P"'P,,¡Ltt. 11.A~L *If.. FcelUJ ~
Ii-, a Wood ry ~. ---1IM.š i.J ,G J¡,cJJ 01l41'4.UJlAA,
,~f ItMA.tf Ix I'e.c.¡¡<Rtd. ' - ¡
: ¡
'.- - ".-
, . ,E~~'B':T-bI.1f-e:~.f1 :
, .)~~) : ~ 'a,..' ~; ~tu.ClJ"Aà"'CAI'.T$ ~~- k '. '. -
~~' ~'(t *~'LÚf(è S-J~ {4:1;k:~/~i, .' L , :-+
f ( . '" .... wo,t<J frh '.;" a. l&f' " ¡ ~ ~ ~ ,
! í
, ' ,
i-
- , .,..,.(Lf.'_L_L~
( ,': : : I , " : ii . [ it!=tt=t=1=1=t=t-=
f1>. pw,{C'Þ (P~. T ~f +ø:~ ~~~l-FT++.l--! ~
:; :; Ii 1 -r'r--T-:- -
Láof rAA-~ ~r ~ ~-Þ~~., : ckr(~ I ~- 1:1'-:=.;, -
J ," ..' ,
~S I -tkis (! c....~d&, ~Y\ ttvl"W~~r fith(cc :1 ~~-'i.t=-.-j=
V>t\ÅJt\~ - JUšf &\ ,Ç~~ t-lr- av- foii4t,,~.!-i--"j .
, , ' ' I I
i ,: i i ¡ ir ~
, " 'I
'ÎlAÌh&¡ -u.... f~ kt;rúu.. Û 1Þ" 4u..~~~;,
~ (.AM.ç,'¿: l-t~ .p,. ~~4 . 'ÎI1..š J"'¡{ P. t.r~lPt¡'fi£-
J , I ; I .
l,vU.{. 7:>r'1.,jlV<>-<¡pr?-.J.J tW. ~ic"ltfty ~d! 'd;;'-:I=
~Iu.~.ltmlc (;fu- tM."'-{~àJ.' ~4tt ðr ¡J1Ú~';~CI_t~
ú.l..~~r'rl.q. 1u(c. RotJ.o/.¡r/1.;u.td ftU44tdlra1~n: ' - ._~ -
0 l..c.( j ybL41"t~ tW...d. ~ ~.f(orf S ho...Ld t;t. ~{ttd,,: - ,
-fu ~ 1/.N. ðlt!. ~ - WtJ f¿U-((: (lfÚUt ~ : - - - .
witt- S"(Jw..£ (~e. f'l<6s;/I-¡....t-.o b'( ûd.e.. 7h.e.
fl(~f a.~ ~ Now IITa.J LvílA ~~ G\.
S}jVl,ff~ 'cL~ fA&. eu..J ~d ~ ik , L
, €.mJ,liskd ~: r,'r1~S( (hA4(tLr (oist
St-~ ~~ ( d"al~ cw.o.~ ~; {f¡¡C.Jú4i
~ll Ú d4 1M ~,~ ~ ~k tt.J., ~e,{ r ALl'tt! .- '
;! Ii, ¡~,~M ~ ~~? ~~~~\,d i i-I ¡
.r : ¡ ¡. ," ',' , . '! ' " i: I !.! I
, , .¡:f~ foS\!b{t!:, ~ pa.d;'cW.~(, s~ ¡lðfr:~l«-,LTi ~ T-
- ,-'-: .(141 . ~¥-f' l~ ¡~ ,~+: II, 12(:f ¡~11(2} l:l.rJ,r$ttbL-~n
. --; '-: lZk~ r~ )~,o.;'J¡~'k rr~~J:lI~~o~:.Ln
: ",' ":,, ~M~ ,!",:
(
\
\,
"
I
, I.j.
(
\
\
! I
; :
: ! ,
i :
: , I
,. I ! i
J , , ,
(
, m' --l I ¡ . r -
tort ~'r- --1-i.1=t..-t
I I I ,
'-~'-+-~-:i--:-r'-:-' -,..
r ::'
(, '
WÞYr~ ~ t- - .~ Ti.:~ .
¡; V\f.t ÚAt t Y ~ vevj ÚMCtM.t uJ t..;ri4: ""'f.4 I
~úf ft.o.¡ ~,~ rJo rtlc.if.c'fl(~;fj .
-h, rlvw (fro Ne-"t.Jw,j ~ Nf..1! c{~
tM U:-hc."'-. ' ~:~ fe-ofOJe.d. ft:!;1d.L..~,'r J :
()~ lIMI.{f '~-6k:' /~Ct.'I"" t4 ~~4'~! I
~d. ~ ~-()';'-6, wCtL ~d.r..' ~ ' :
hu.i lJf2.r ~ ~ -(., c-stl'uc.t- 4 tt..u.c, .
: ' ¡
~ ~ t~¿:r~.
) f ~kc.( I1A.J .~~ ~uw.Jt? ct tt.e..
1.MA;1,W!- ~~ '1 ,¡,~d;~ .' ~fAf-
ç', ù.. ( ~ a.,.clt..~c'fv.M. I ~ tÀ.A.~()~
5 ~ UwlPr ( Q.wi f:4 ~ c..vw ~ WOd r1. S'.
fL1.p)f ~r-c,;~~J d- ($ e<. AA;tf(.(,(,. i"'-'
c,b4U ~; &AM- a44~ds jriYiJ.: : ; ! i, i
: l . ,:' ¡ ¡ , I, , "" ',I I ; !. 1 I ,;;:.,
I~6 ;¿i-lt¡ ~: ~,~t~ f~J~.: Ii :, i ' , ;
., '. EXH 8ITM-fLe-~
.~ ~¡;N~ /~ ¡J~ce~tS1i~'
I AAT (,Ja-..-{- To' ~f4f~f ~A$ét~-~ P:Fi 11:
, ' , : I ¡
i' ~. ~ .
(
\
. .,.- .j-
(
I
\
, .---,. -,
, --
i¡ ~-: : j ¡-
I :
¡ 1 ì
. ¡ ::tlfBJi#ff
, --;_! : ' . ' :,' J,-,
- ': ¡ ,
j{~t..~1'4 )
, ,I
, ., ,
R ¡ c '^' tJ..,d "1ìw Wf ! {]v¡
70 ( ~ t¡¡ 2s-1h ~l.<t. Sw :
y--
l-~dQrrl.( L..I4.7 J
--(w)
(1-+ )
, - ,
(,vA
o¡ ~o:2-3
~J- s:q-'(J j(( ;iÓÌ(f,
).5"3- &3ß - <7/13
-¡ - ,.. , - ¡ ¡
: : J
l'
, ,
, , , ¡. ,
,j ì
; i
,- ,
¡ :
: ¡
: ;
: : j
: i
" '" i j : !.! ¡ :
" ,:! i , , ! I : , I I I ! ¡ I
i i ¡ ¡I! : I , i ¡ ¡ i i
! : j ,. '", : .l. '
I " .I!: -, i; : ¡ l
, i '.:",'
, , . ' 'EXþlBIT [6b--fk- t!.é . ,', :
, , "E)cHIBITlliC t
PAGE--=L-OF ~
, ,
, ,
(
c
RANDOLPH M. COLTON
30168 25TH AVE. S.W.
FEDERAL WAY, WA 98023
TO: Ms. Deb. Barker
Associate Planner,
Community Development Services
City of Federal Way
33530 1St Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003
TO: Mr. Stephen Clifton,
Development Services Manager
Public Works
City of Federal Way
33530 1St Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003
RECEIVED BV
COMMUNIlY DEVELOPMENT !)~~AlrmEm
Ufe IJ 9 1997
Date: December 3, 1997
Ref. #: SUB-970005 (Ventara)
Subject: 1) Access to ViewCliff Block 1&2 and ViewCliffNo. 2 Sub-divisions during construction.
2) Proposed plans for development of the Ventara Subdivision site.
Ms Barker and Mr. Clifton,
Thank you for the kind attention, responsiveness and assistance you provided during my several visits to
the Community Development Services office coucerning SUB-970005.
I am a resident of the Viewcliffsubdivisions, which includes 24th and 25th Avenues S.W., that abut the
north boundary ofVentara along 304th St. and along a line continuing west passed the present tenninus of
25th Avenue S.W.. I have reviewed, with neighbors, the information and preliminary plans, you provided,
about the proposed Ventara subdivision plus excerpts from chapters 20 and 22 of the Federal Way City
Code (FWC) dealing with Single Family Residential Detached Dwelling Units (Zone RS 9.6),
Subdivisions, and Landscaping. I offer these comments as a summary of views expressed during this
meeting.
nlere is no doubt in our minds that this project will proceed to conclusion. The site is highly desirable and
the owners have every right to develop it. The City of Federal Way, however, has the jurisdiction and
obligation to ensure that the utilization of existing trees in site landscape planning is done wisely and with a
real sense of community esthetic balance to offset a developer's natural urge for stuffing as many clear-cut,
miOlmum size, view lots into a given space as is allowed by zoning.
What seems to be going on is that Ventara is being designed as though it was an island unto itself, without
any aesthetic connecOon to surrounding neighborhoods and the wooded character of the city at large. We
object to the present lack of landscaping plans detailing the retention of Significant Trees on housing lots
that reflect some aesthetic continuity with the tree rich contiguous subdivisions where space between view
lot homes is sufficiently open to allow mini-views from sidewalks and homes across a street. Both
developer and city should ensure that generous, not Just minimum, existing tree conservation values are
reflected in the Ventara theme design together with, but not totally dominated by, view considerations.
The following comments are offered in two parts. Part I deals with isolated points worthy of mention, easily
accomplished and not expected to have major impact on the economics or design of the project. Part II is an
appeal for Significant Tree retention above minimum statutory levels that hopefully will inspire both city
authorities and the developer to place special emphasis on design concepts and lot details, including size,
that will maximize tree retention on these view lots.
EXHIBIT~
EX~-~
PAGE.LOF Ï-
Ii '"
(
c
PART I:
I) ACCESS DURING CONSTRUCTION. At the intersection of304th Street and 24th Avenue the street
will be widened and considerable land contouring wi!! be required to create the new intersection extending
24th Avenue from Viewcliff into the Ventara site. Residents of the Viewcliff Subdivisions have no other
access except through this intersection. We ask that construction be planned and executed in such a way
that at least II2 of the road at this intersection is alwavs open to local and emergency traffic without delays
of passage.
2) CHANGE STREET NAME FROM 25th STREET S.W TO 25th A VENUE S.W The short extension
of 25 Avenue S.W. from ViewcliffNo. 2 into Ventara should not have it's name changed to "street" at the
border of the subdivision. People looking at a map, trying to fmd a stubby little 500 foot long street
discontinuity will have a terrible time finding it, including guests of the new residence and maybe
ambulance, fire and police personnel. When Ventara is thought of as being part of something larger than
itself, the advantages of change the street name becomes obvious.
3) DETENTION POND: First, we are concemed that the detention pond will become a sta!!nant
siltation/water retention Dond, over time, with sediment clogged, inadequate leaching, thus, becoming an
accumulator of water bom storm drain trash, odor and a mosquito breeder. What are the leachmg
properties going to be, of the final detention system, so this won't happen? Second, who will maintain the
area and mow the grass that should be planted in the retention pond and biofiltration swale so it doesn't
tum into a rotting, bug infested neighborhood eye sore plugged with weeds, new alders and thom bushes. !§.
the city !!oin!! to include mowin2 this Dond and biofiltration swale in the public works budget so it gets
scheduled, cared for and mowed on a reaular basis? Ifnot, what then and by whom? Certainly not the
resident who has to live next to the ugly thing and smack bugs while property values decline!
4) SEWER LINE: We are pleased that the sewer line stops at the border of the project and isn't extended
into Viewcliff. Our septic systems are in excellent soils and working just fine. We feel no compelling need
for sanitary sewers at this time.
5) MAILING LIST: Please add my name to the mailin2 list for communications concerning the Ventara
project.
PART II:
I) SITE DESCRIPTION: The 9.9 acres making up the proposed Ventara subdivision comprise a uniquely
beautiful site with 239 tall Fir and Hemlock trees that qualify as "Significant Trees" (over 12 inches in
diameter) in the FWC 22-1568 definition for SR zoned sites. At the site, the average tree diameter is
around 24 inches including some with diameters as large as four (4) feet across, "Big Daddy" measuring
five (5) feet in diameter and "Grandpa" more than 6 feet in diameter. From it's western edge, the site
slopes gently upward from a lower elevation overlooking Puget Sound and the Cascade mountains. The
rise continues to a rounded ridge located along a generally south by southwest centerline. Behind the ridge,
the topography progresses easterly sloping gently downward to the eastem site boundary which drops off
suddenly to neighboring subdivisions. I hope you and other city staff members who will have decision
authority over the Ventara project will take the time to walk through this beautiful woods before any plans
to alter it are approved and while it still stands in it's virginal condition. My offer to escort such a walk
still stands.
E X H ! BIT -UJt 'f-k.d+ t
EXHIBIT 1)- 5
PAGE .~ OF 4
('
(
c
2 MOST COMPELLING ISSUE: I wish to resent an a eal for the maximum retention 0 mature
~ on the Ventara site, especially Significant Trees, rather than ending up with minimums, as appears
to be the present design intent. After review of the planning available to me, to date, I conclude that the
thrust of the project could lead to a virtual clear-cut of all but 15% ofthe entire 9.9 acre Ventara site
resulting in the destruction of 199 Significant Trees and almost all mature trees ohon-fir or hemlock
species outside designated Open Spaces, regardless of size or esthetic appeal. One's first reaction might
be... "Who is this guy kidding?, they would never do that." My response is to look at the newer upscale
subdivision on 304th Street S.W. across from Adelaide Elementary School, and count the Significant
Trees, not replants, remaining in these view lots (which are 30 feet wider than Ventara's lots). Virtual
clear-cut? Not so far fetched as one might initially think! Follow the reality!
3) TREE COUNT: Of the 239 Significant Trees on the site the FW Code allows a developer to remove up
to 75% without restriction. Of the remaining 2S% (60 trees), fulJy 1/2 of them can be removed and replaced
(one for one) with 30 mini-trees 12 feet taIL All such replacement trees can be placed within the IS % Open
Space alJocation. Thus, the true minimum retention of Significant Trees is only 12 1/2 percent of the
original 239 pre-development Significant Tree count, e.g. 30 trees (see TalJy below).
4) Bv statute (see Summary TalJy below), only 30 Sil!nificant Trees must be retained without
substitution in the entire Ventara project. All others appear to be fair game for the ax. The view lot
character of this site and the saw milJ value of the timber alone makes virtual clear-cut a great temptation
and, I submit, a high probability, especialJysince there appears to be no proposed plan to the contrary i.e.,
plans showing pralJOsed hal/sin!! lot Simifìcant Tree retention for consideration by the City of Federal
Way, before preliminary site plans are formally approved,
S) Of the 30 Si!!l1ificant Trees that ml/st be retained, 20 of them are already in the required Open Space
areas. The other 10 required but unidentified retained Significant Trees can be randomly selected by the
developer and grace 10 house lots with a single tree in each lot while alJ other housing lots can be stripped
bare to ease construction. Some of the 10 may not be earmarked for a house lot but, may be located on
easements. If so, these trees would have to survive trenching for sanitary sewer, storm drain and potable
water pipings, underground electrical cable, or excavation of the storm water Detention Pond basin. Maybe
a few could be retained (FWC 20-186c) along sidewalks by meandering the road a little bit near the
detention pond.
6) In the Ventara Dlan ODen SDace Tract 996 contains 53% of all required Open Space in the project. It
lies along the eastem boundary of the site and wilJ not interfere with the sight-lines of any of we stem facing
view lots, By plan, this Open Space wilJ be heavily contour graded near the 304th Street intersection with
24th Avenue S.W. and contain only one Significant Tree. Tract 996 will need cover and can be loaded
with all 30 of the replacement mini-trees without hampering view lines anywhere. This may meet the
minimum Landscaping Code and it may help give Tract 996 some needed repair, but it will not help keep
any of the Significant Trees on the housing lots in front, side or back yards, or along the sidewalks.
7) Summary Tally. The following tally emerges as a very likely Significant Tree virtual clear-cut scenario.
DescriDtion: fu& Trees Source:
Total Significant Trees on 9.9 acre Ventara site ~ 239 Prelim.Tree PreservlRemoval Plan
Less 75% authorized removal by FW Code (.7Sx239) ~ 179 FWC 22-IS68 (c-Ia,b)
Minimum 2S% to be retained by FW Code ~ 60 FWC 22-IS68 (c-Ia,b;c-S)
1/2 of retain minimum replaced by mini-trees ~ 30 FWC 22-1568 (c-lg)
Net balance of Significant Tree Retention required by FW Code ~ 30
As satisfaction of absolute minimum:
EXHIBIT~
EXHIBiT Ð-5
PAG E~ OF --Ï-
'... ,
é
Trees Retained in Open Spaces 20 FWC 22-1568 (c-lc,d)
Trees Retained in easements or house lots 10
Surplus of Significant Trees retained above absolute minimum of30 = zero, i.e. Virtual Clear-cut.
8) It appears that such a virtual clear-cut could be done without technical violation of:>resent FW City
Code even though the spirit and intent of the code would, I believe, be violated. Extensive tree removal
could increase rwlOff into the detention pond, destabilize the slope and be inconsistent with the esthetic
character of existing contiguous subdivisions already surrounding Ventara.
9) From a non-resident developer perspective, the above is a good plan for the stripping of big, tall trees
that could get in the way of construction and pure sight-lines ITom 18 of the 25 lots narrow view lots
having widths of 75 feet or less. Such narrow lots make tree retention increasingly difficult as the large
houses and three car driveways, appropriate for such prime land, will consume much of the lot space. Such
severe cutting of trees could, however, actually lower the market value of the proposed 25 lots below that
achievable with an open forest theme offering views between stately mature trees interspersed among the
houses and along streets meandering (FWC 20-186c) around Significant Trees of special character or size.
10) If the City of Federal Way really wants to retain some of the ecological character and ambiance that
graces one of it's remaining second growth tree stands ofièred for residential development, the Community
Development Department and Public Works Department should re-reviewthis Ventara Plan from the larger
and holistic point of view of the community at large and that of contiguous neighborhoods, not just press on
with the expedient desires of the developer. Federal Way needs to exercise some real control over this
particular project's tree retention plan including insisting on seeing plans now, that show what significant
Trees are left over after the houses are built and the three car driveways are in place on such narrow lots.
II) I suggest the following: Retaining a meaningful number of these magnificent mature trees will require a
strong desire to do so by both the Wellington Morris Corporation (developer) and the City of Federal Way
Departments' of Community Development and Public Works. Agreeing on a concept that includes
meaningful numbers of Significant Trees being incorporated into the design of residential lot landscaping
and the orientation ofhouseldriveway footprints on those lots will be a necessary part of achieving the
desired tree retention even if tree retention criteria has to be included in the subdivision covenants.
12) Only through finding a commonly acceptable development theme and concept that retains many more
of the Significant or unique trees than those allowed by statutory minimums, will the city retain some of it's
natural treasure and Ventara residents enjoy the special character of a neighborhood growing out of this
unique tall tree building site. One such concept could incorporate an "open forest view" design where
residents look through tall Significant Trees in the foreground as they enjoy a scene that includes the distant
waters of Puget Sound and sunsets over the Cascade Mountains. Such a concept could balance the
economic value and tax base realities of view property, together with the city's desire, (and that ofnearby
subdivision residents) to preserve their pacific northwest tall tree heritage. If you don't like this concept,
come up with another one, but keep trees in the concept de/ails,
13) MY APPEAL is that project designers and marketing people together with city departments !ill make a
concerted effort to find ways to retain existing Significant Trees by including them in the overall concept,
on each housing lot and along streets that are laid out to meander if necessary to make room for these
giants. Since planning is only in the preliminary stage, the time to act is now. To do othelWise would, in my
view, be a travesty of administrative neglect by the city, and missed marketing opportunity for the
developer. ~- # //~p' /~HIBIT \ ~-fk- æ
Sincerely, / ¿"--~R~n) C~ij¡./ L.^
EXHIBIT 1)-5
PAGE~OFÏ-
;"
.
.
/
To: Li sa Read
Federal Way City Engineer
Jan. 6 98
RECEIVED BY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Subject: Preliminary Storm Drainage Design
Project: VENTANA
Location: Lakota Beach Area, (S.w.30Sth and 26th Ave S.WJ
JAN 0 7 1998
Upon review of the above Storm Drainage Plan i want to inform you about our
serious concernslfears regarding this Plan.
I do not bel ieve the existing 26th Ave S.W runoff ditch and detention system
adjoining my property could handle any significant increase in flow withQut serious
problems to any adjoining and some downstream properties.
The existing system is MARGINAL and We've had flooding problems in the past. We
have spent many hours and lots of money keeping our property some what dry.
We question any increased of Runoff Flow to the existing system and do not agree
with the report that states: Runoff from the Westerly portion of the Droposed
Development flows to the existing 26th Ave. S.W. ditch.
There is very little, if any runoff from the proposed project site, the major
source of water in the existing system is from the paved portion of 26th Ave.S.W.
Since my property is below and exposed to any added surface or runoff waters We
must object and repeat our concerns regarding increased Runoff Flows, open ditches
and Questionable Downstream Analysis statements, such as;
Runoff dischar ed from the western ortion of the site will enter the existin
roadside ditch on the east side of 26th Ave. SWJ
(The resence of the dis ersal trench could not be determined and the direction of
flow from this point was not evident.).
Please record my objections not only to the City Planners but also to Wellington
Morris (VENTANA), and Mr. Miller at Pinnacle Engineering.
30444 28th Ave. S.W.
Federal Way, Wa. 98023
253-838-3446
Thank You
Dean J. Condos
~ J (!~.JilBIT
EXHIBIT 1)-lo
PAGE-LOF J
~~E
!r";~" " ..,"...
I
t .. (;)\.! Ð m -CC.-1f\ J'lj- _C2 LL C;JiKbL-
lIH¿; -:PIN /Ý4CL~ .£ At (;.1 N£~R/jv&-
d
;-f?L A-JV~
.; ,.,'" "
;:;."'~
.
}='Ot<-,
'...
J;5UJ L. bIN 6-
'---
ff/Ý.þ
DE. V£-Lò'"?ING- Tßç__~__.._-_.-
------------------ -
f-1< ð <T E c. L_W bS
IVE AI/ANÆ-
I
I
YSí DT fJ1~£T
ì
i
¡ A11==' K <CD D 4- ~.
-"---"-~.n___..-
tv (iH_- (y\ 1-
.:¡: ~ ~a's,,_~
LÞ£ L 0 cD
~lli~_- &JI~_____~
~c§¿~
-fI~~£_L__.__- .--
----.- .....-- '-. _... "'-'--
--- - "-'-'-"'~-
....--.--..-----..-. -- --REGIËIVEB---
"- "----JAN1'51998'---'
-.. -"------. -..--
-"CITY OF FEDERALWAÿ------
BUILDING DEPT.
EXHIB'lrt"Dõ~B-~e_-__-
EXlifB1rJ]- - 7
"'PAGE-LOF 1~h;_-7
.-..--........-.,...
/'
--
Donald and Marilyn Bunger
2220 S. W. 306th Place
Federal Way, WA 98023
3 May 98
.
RECEIVED BY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARn~ENT
¡"'Wi - b 199Q
Deb Barker, Associate Planner
City of Federal Way
. 33530 First Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003
ref. Notice of Revised Land Use Application for Vantana Subdivision
Dear Associate Planner Barker:
My wife and I have some serious questions about the water drainage consequences for our property
that will occur if the Ventana Subdivision is built as planned. We are already experiencing run off
problems because of the nature of the glacial till and hard pan characteristics of the soil on the hill
behind our house. We note that the plan calls for a detention pond to the north of lot 28. This is
fine for the lots that drain to the west. Has the city of Federal Way determined that water will also
run east and south from lots 1-15 & lots 19-20? -
The north west Detention Pond will be above a road that has a ditch whereas lots 1-8 will front back
yards of houses that have basements. What is the estimate of the total water runoff from roof sur-
faces of all of the house lots that I have mentioned? Please reconsider installing a detention pond for
Lot 8 and for part of Lot 1. Are you aware that the house just east of my house is in the middle of a
recently active stream bed and is placed on pilings?
Thanks for your consideration, .
~/t(~~ ~
Donald M. Bunger & Marilyn J. Bunger
EXHIBILL~ H.f~_~
EXHIBIT J- 8
PAGE-LOF I
/
,.
.
pr:-~--,,"-~..
CO I"
MMU~""'n.'1
, :io-~.;
i /99D
MAY07,1998
MR. GREGORY MOORE, AICP
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
33530 1ST WAY SOUTH
FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003-6221
DEAR MR. MOORE
AS PROPERTY OWNERS AND VOTERS OF FEDERAL WAY WE WISH TO
EXPRESS OUR DEEP CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROPOSED EXTENTION OF
25TH SW FROM THE VENT ANA DEVELOPMENT INTO VIEW CLIFF _THERE
BY DOING AWAY WITH CUL-DE-SAC. WE ARE AGAINST THIS AS THIS
WILL OPEN OUR AREA TO HEAVY TRAFFIC WHICH WE HAVE BEEN PRO-
TECTED AGAINST UP TO THIS TIME.
WE BUILT IN THlS AREA IN 1973 BECAUSE OF THE QUIET SITTING AND
BOTH ROADWAYS ENDED WITH CUL-DE-SAC'S. THIS PEACE AND QUIET
WILL BE DESTORYED BY OPENING THIS AREA UP TO TRAFFIC FLOW
WHICH IS NOT NECESSARY. YOU DO NOT GAIN ANYTHING BY DOING
THlS DESTRUCTION OF THE CUL-DE-SAC. YOU WILL DO AWAY WITH
SAFETY THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED FOR OUR CHILDREN THAT LIVE
IN THIS AREA BY INCREASE IN TRAFFIC. THIS AREA HAS BEEN POSTED
ON 304TH AS "NO OUTLET" AND THIS HAS PREVENTED UNWANTED
VEHlCLES CRUISING OUR AREA.
WHEN FEDERAL WAY WAS PUSHING TO BECOME A "CITY" IT WAS PUSHED
"VOTE TO BECOME A CITY AND BE ABLE TO HAVE A "VOICE" IN THE
PLANNING OF THE "NEW CITY". OUR EXPERIENCE SO FAR IN DEALING
WITH "CITY HALL" HA.S BEEN VERY DISAPPOINTING. YOU CARE LESS
ABOUT THE VOTERS AND T AXP AYERS OF FEDERAL WAY AS TO THEIR
FEELINGS AND SAFETY OR THEIR RIGHTS TO PEACE AND QUIET.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT 98% OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE SIGNED
THE PETITION AGAINST THIS MOVEMENT AND SO FAR THE CITY HAS
INDICATED THAT THEY DON"T CARE THAT YOU ARE GOING TO DO WHAT
EVER YOU WANT. VOTERS DO GET THEIR REVENGE AT THE POLLS.
EXHIBIT t -6b~ ~E.
EXHIBIT J)- c¡
PAGE-LOF --L-
'~
.
8)
To: Lisa Read
Deb Barker
Federal Way City Engineering & Planning Dept.
5~10-98
Subject: Preliminary Storm Drainage Design Rev. 3-2ô-98
Project: VENTANA
Location: Lakota Beach Area, (S.w.30Sth and 26th Ave S.W')
RECEIVED BY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MAY 1 1 1998
Upon review of the above Storm Drainage Plan It is evident the plan considers only
costs and one of the many adjoining property owners. The revised report does
change the downstream flow from the Detention Tank ;)11 SW 305:11 and adds piping
to the property owner giving the drainage pipe easement, but still exposes many
other properties to added surface water, infiltration and possible flood damage.
I do not believe the existing Detention Tank is capabie of handilng the flows that
wili occur, and not comfortable with the statement Ii': the ,'"port (Appendix 0
Offsite Detention Tank Analysis) that states [The reason the analysis preformed
shows the tank to be in the state of overflow is due to differences in modeling
procedures]. Please clarify.
The existing open ditches and culverts on SW 3[5:n (;:or-Iva:e roaD '.v:th easement)
are at risk of overflowing and will increased if'1f 'trat on çf t~,e soil area around liS,
thus creating problems with adjoining and lower elevation properties. ref.( Photos
#2 thru 6)
The new proposed Westerly outfall to the 28tr, Þ..ve S'N catcc,JaSin seems Inade~ua:e
and subject to overflowing, The rev. proposal intends to a::: a ¡ 2" Inlet pipe to the
existing catchbasin that aiready has (2)12" inlet ~:;:Jes plus ~~f S_"'2ce,vate:'
runoff from 28th Ave SW into the basin. P,ease note; the p~()Pcsej òutiet design :s
only 12" dia., as are the (2) culverts across 28t:1 A'Je, SIN 'JO ::;;t think the ouTlet
size pipes will be adequate 7
As stated in my original letter of concern We've had flGod:ng problems in the past.
and have invested much time and money In developing QUI' propeny.
Since our properties are below and exposed to these added waters We must object
and repeat our concerns regarding increased runo!f/inf¡itratiûn, ooen ditches and
questionable Downstream Analysis. '
ExaIBrt~J~=,-
PAGE-LOF ;L
/'
, ' OJ'
.".- ,.'
8"
.
page 2
To protect our properties We request the following;
Add piping to existing open ditches on SW 305th Ave.
Re-evaluate analysis on the existing detention tank and change if required.
Revise outlet size of catchbasin and culverts on 28 Ave.SW as required
Please advise what effect the Ventana development Detention pond and
Bioîiltration system will have on My existing Water Rights and property,
also what plans have been made to protect them?
Please note and file our objections with the people at FWCity Hall and notify
Wellington Morris (Ventana), and Mr. Miller (Pinnacle Engineering).
. I would also like to inform Tri-County Land Surveying Co., Pinnacle Eng. Inc. and
We II i ngton Morr i s Corp. that any easement agreement made with the property owner
of Lot 3 does not consider the agreement We have with them pertaining to the
adjoining property lines. Note; the original Plat of Lakota surveyed around 1917
had many errors and omissions that has created some lot line problems, one of them
is the property line the proposed outfall pipe would follow. After reviewing the
Ventana drawing # 97021 sht. 3 of 6 I can see a conflict with my property line and I
request they investigate this problem area and please contact me so that we may
work out an a agreeable pipe line location.
cc
Q. Morris
M.Condos
G. Woods
M. Francis
B. McHenry
V. Chai jaroen
III. Fû¡JK..
Thank You
Dean J. Condos
253-838-3446
SJ~ g (!~
EXHIBITJ4~bLt
EXHIBIT ~
PAGE~OF :L
/
.
.
COMMUNI~~PV~IVED BY
L -toPMEN; DEPARTMENT
tliflY ~ 11998
May 5. 1998
Mr. Gregory Moore. AICP
Director of Community Dev. Services
33530 1st Way So.
Federal Way. WA 98003-6221
Dear- Mr. Moor-e,
I'm writing to yOU in regards to the Ventana Plat development currently
under consi derat i on by the ci ty of Federal Way. I am opposed to the
stated requirement of connecting 25th Ave SW from the ViewCliff side to
the 25th Ave SW in Ventana. I'm sure a variance could be eñvoked by the
city in this matter.
The ViewCliff neighborhood has been established for over thirty years and
at no time has the configuration of the streets posed a threat to the
safety of the residents. I implore you to keep the integrity of ViewCliff
intact.
Respectfully.
~~
2405 SW 301st Pl.
Vi ewe 1 i ff
Federal Way. WA 98023
tl-.E
EXHIBIT ~
PAGE-LOF --1-
EXHIBIT
/
)
.
RECEIVED BY
COMMUNri i C;::VELGc,/.êIH no'" OTI 'Fin
~:,~,J
29824 24th Avenue Southwest
Federal Way, W A 98023
Mr. Gregory Moore, AICP
Director of Community Development Services
33530 last Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6221
Dear Mr. Moore:
I oppose the proposed connection of Ventena development and the 25th Avenue S.W.
cul-se sac in View Cliff
There will be a negative impact on this small neighborhood of 52 residences as linking
View Cliff and Ventena development will increase the traffic and the potential for crime.
It is my understanding that the rationale for this change is to increase access for
emergency vehicles. However, the incidence of emergency vehicles is very low in this
small neighborhood and doesn't warrant loss oflivability of the area.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
~#
Betty Huff
EXHiBILJ~~ ~g--
EXHIBIT D-13
PAGE--L OF -L-
/~
)
.
Robert F. Jones
29847 24Th. Ave. S. W.
Federal Way, WA 98023-2300
r:OMMUNfJ$~?EIVED BY
ELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
f.f¡F¡ "-! 'in9°
Ii] lJ
(253) 838 1625
76627,3233 @Compuserve.Com
May 06, 1998
Mr. Gregory Moore, AICP
Director of Community Development Services
33530 1st Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6221
VENT ANA SUBDIVISION/REVISED LAND USE APPLICATION
Dear Mr. Moore:
In comparing the Preliminary Plat of Ventana dated
September 1997 to the Plat attached to the revised Land Use
Application of April 1998, the following was noted:
On the April 1998 plat 25Th Avenue SW in Ventana is
shown connecting into 25Th Avenue SW in the existing View
Cliff development. The September 1997 plat was drawn with
25Th Avenue SW ending in Ventana and not connecting into View
Cliff .
As you know, on March 3, 1998 the View cliff residents
presented to the Federal Way City a petition signed by 97.67%
of the View Cliff residents requesting 25Th Avenue SW not be
connected into View Cliff. We are still firm in that desire.
View Cliff has been in existence since 1960. Access has
always been from SW 304Th Street ONLY and has never been a
problem. Access for emergency vehicles to View Cliff is not
a concern. There has been no access problem with only one
entrance for approximately 38 years and we have no concern
with it remaining so.
Being a city was proposed to the voters as giving us
more control over our lives. I ask you to please do not
connect 25Th Avenue SW from Ventana into View Cliff. This
would be an excellent time to demonstrate to the citizens we
DO have some control over our lives and property-
ones l
EXHIBIT~-lk \;\-,e .
EXHIBIT --.l2:lL
PAGE-LOF --L-
Comments.Doc
I.
.
Frank and Janie Lutje
2302 S.W. 306thPl.
Federal Way, W A 98023
RECEiVED BY
~OMMUNITY DEVELOP¡,,!ENT DEPAR11,=¡,r,
0 ! í;Jgj
May 5,1998
Deb Barker, Associate Planner
City of Federal Way
33530 First Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003
Re: Notice of Revised Land Use Application ( Ventana Subdivision)
Dear Associate Planner Deb Barker:
After reviewing the Land Use Application we are quite concerned as to the potential drainage
problems the development would add to an already bad situation. On more than one occasion I
have been called home ITom work to redirect (by siphoning) the rising water, caused by rain, ITom
the back of our house to the ITont and into the storm drain. Our property slopes up ITom the back
of the house to the Northwest corner, this corner is approximately 40 feet ITom the Southeast
corner of the Ventana Subdivision.
In the project description is the mention of "detention ponds" yet as we look at the drawings sent
for our review we find only one such pond. And that is in the fur Northwest corner of the 10 acre
lot. Our concern is, how will this one detention pond help contain any additional drainage run off
caused by the development in the Southeast corner?
What we are asking for is that all issues are considered and in your review hearing someone asks
the question. "Are the property owners located adjacent to the Southeast corner, protected ITom
additional run off caused by this development?" If the answer to this is yes then we would feel our
concerns have been addressed.
~:r\ ~~
Fnmk """ J"uti..;,
EXHiBiT J~~ ~~f___-
EXHIBIT V-15
PAGE-LOF I
/
.
RECEIVED BY
('_UNITY DEVELOPMENT rJ~D< "" .~.-
'Ww, 1 'i 1991':
May 10, 1998
Director of Community Development Services
33530 First Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003
Dear Sir:
Upon reviewing the subdivision VENTANA, which is across the
street from my residence, I was pleased with the layout and
thought it would be a welcome addition to this quiet (almost
rural) Adelaide neighborhood. The revised proposal however, has
left me disillusioned and confused. The original plat plan
states, "Open Space Required--64,751 Square Feet". As I read the
revised plan it appears to me that the open space now proposed is
10,284 Square Feet. How can you allow less that the required
open space?
In paraphrasing the information I received after talking with
your office, I understand that you can "buy off" the open space
issue. This sounds an awful lot like what I would refer to as a
"payoff!" If indeed that is allowed in the city of Federal Way,
tell me how that benefits our immediate neighborhood by dollars
going into the parks department. Don't get me wrong. I indeed
support parks within the city. However, Federal Way was
incorporated because too many of we citizens were unhappy with
King County allowing too many buildings and no open spaces. Our
open space requirements were designed to protect us from that.
Now the city can choose to allow the developer to buy it off??
By whose authority? Don't we as citizens of Federal Way have any
say? I am indeed confused and disillusioned.
How can the planning commission decide what is best for a
neighborhood? Let's go by the REQUIREMENTS! Why set
requirements if we have no intent to use them? Or were they set
up as a revenue stream for the city parks department? I'm
confident that was not the intent of the original "open space"
requirements.
As a bit of history, It is my understanding that this parcel of
property was selected by King County and money appropriated to
purchase the whole said piece of property for open space. The
city of Federal Way chose to use that appropriated money to
assist in purchasing Palisades Retreat. Now we have digressed to
a mere 10,000 sq. ft. The size of one building lot. A good
example of our government working for us?
I welcome Ventana in it's original plan.
me.
Please don't disappoint
1
.j
;~
....
.~
'"
.
.
Mr. Gregory Moore, AICP
Director of Community Development Services
33530 1st Way South
Federal Way, Washington 98003-6221
May 9, 1998
;OMv'UNJFJ~pËIVED
"V£U)PI,r£NTßY
. IJ£P4FiTM"NT
)~~?í398 c
Subject:
Ventana Development Eliminatiin of the 25th Ave. S.W.
Cul-De-Sac in view Cliff.
Dear Sir:
We are long time residence of View Cliff, one of the three original
families near the Cul-De-Sac on 25th Avenue S.W., over 30 years ago.
One of the factors in selecting this location was the added privacy
of the View Cliff development. Along with our neighbors, we are
concerned about the opening up of 25th Avenue S.W. into the Ventana
development. The gain of additional access to and from our home is
not preferable to our loss of privacy.
In addition, we are very concerned about lo§§ of some safety and
. security by any added access to the neighborhood. This is a major
concern to us because of a recent experience.
We are the parents of the Des Moines police sargent and family
residing in Federal Way whose home was invaded, family threatened
at gun point and robbed by juveniles in February. We have first
hand experience of the tramaand anxiety suffered by a family under
those circumstances.
Until our society, law enforcement and judiciary do a better job of
protection, especially in our homes, we believe that the opening up
of access to our street would significantly reduce the safety and
security to ourselves and neighbors.
We respectfully request you reconsider and cancel the plan to open
up 25th Avenue S.W. Cul-De-Sac into the Ventana development for the
reasons stated above.
Sincerely,
æ4l~
Á~C~
Robert & Betty Collins
30235 25th Avenue S.W.
Federal Way, Wa. 98023-2316
(253) 838-0764
cc: Robert Jones
29847 24th Avenue S.W.
~=c'Federal Way, Wa. 98023
E~Hlls~lt11tt ie,
PAG E-L OF I
/'
.. 'r¡"U/lI!.!;WQ~~~~9TêX,"TU~'1T
.
;~i,;Ar i If 1996
May7,1998
Mr. Gregory Moore, AICP
Director of Community Development Services
33530 I" Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6221
Dear Mr. Moore:
We are writing this in response to the proposed Ventana development. We moved into
this area from Brown's Point five years ago. When we were driving around looking at
different areas, we immediately fell in love with the Viewcliff area. It is quiet and
protected. We wanted to raise our children in a neighborhood where they could rIde their
bikes and cross the street to play at their friends' houses. We waited for a house to go on
the market so we could move into this area. It is quiet and protected, and we enjoy living
here. We can see the water and all the birds, and eagles fly over our house regularly.
Up until recently, we have had no problems. We had someone break into one of our cars
and a few other suspicious things go on that have given us some concern. We feel by
opening up our street with another development and all the extra cars and exposure will
only increase the crime in this area.
We are also concerned for our children. Our neighborhood is not one that is necessarily
suitable for fences the way the lots are laid out, etc. It will be dangerous for them to play
outside with all the extra traffic.
Wc strongly oppose this development connecting to our neighborhood. Please do not
allow this to happen.
Sincerely, ,..,
/ ¡"--f-,
t!1c- ~h/
~~
Chris and Barbara Castrow
2324 SW 300'" Street
Federal Way, WA 98023-2324
253-838-0371
EXHIBIT \ ~& ~,-Ë
EXHIBiT -D- 18
PAGE-LOF --L-
/'
.
--
William E. Price
9645 S.W. Ventura Court
Tigard, OR 97223-9168
May 14, 1998
Dear Mr. Watkins,
I am writing to you in your role as Chairman of the Land Use Planning Committee. There are
several comments in regards to the Ventana Subdivision that I feel are pertinent as you review this
project.
+
Equitable Distribution of Traffic - The proposed development allows access to
21st Avenue S.W. ITom both 306th and 304th. It is essential to maintain this to
dissipate traffic as widely as possible. The appearance of elitism is prešent when
residents of306th try to retain the status of a dead-end street while expecting the
rest of us to absorb the impact of growth and traffic.
+
Proper Land Use - Land UwPlanning literature urges cities to avoid extensive use
oflarge cuI de sacs and dead-end streets. Any changes to the proposed
development cower alter this concept.
I purchased my home on 305th in 1978 and although I have since relocated I look forward to
returning to Federal Way. In 1978 the outlet for the proposed connection of 24th avenue and
S.W. 306th was present, I know having walked the neighborhood. Twenty years ago I believed
someday this road will have to be used when what is now the Ventana site is developed, a belief!
hold now more than ever. I find it hard to believe any resident of306th could have bought their
home not knowing additional access was a possibility.
Since the opportunity to acquire this parcel as open space slipped through the hands of
govcrru-nent several years ago, piease make sure the burden of growth is spread equitably.
Sm~. di
/Jditl[ rM
William. Price
cc: Deb arker, Associate Planner
City ofFederai Way
EXHIBIT
I Db-ru W'-t
"iECEI'/ED BY
:r'ÊXBISïT '1)-\9
p A;lif.£ ~cqH:' 0 F I
. r\ u ,----L
I-
/
.
. RECEIVED BY
~I1IAMIJNITV no' '0' 'C',"ONT f1FP~R11-^ENT
'i'ß.'i2 2. 1998
Mr. Gregory Moore, AICP
Director 'of Community Development Services
33530 1st Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6221
VENTANA SUBDIVISION/REVISED LAND USE APPLICATION
Dear Mr. Moore:
As a property owner, taxpayer and voter residing in view
Cliff I object to the connection of 25Th Ave SW from the
proposed Ventana Subdivision with 25Th Ave SW in View Cliff.
25Th Ave SW in View Cliff is a low traffic street with
only local traffic which affords quiet, a measure of privacy
and security. For many residents the fact View Cliff has
-2nly one entry point was a great factor in moving here.
The View Cliff owners petition presented to the city
Council on March 03, 1998 reflected 98% of the View Cliff
residents do not want the street connected from Ventana into
View Cliff.
We respectfully request 25Th Avenue SW be allowed to
remain a cul-de-sac in View Cliff and ~ be connected with
25Th Avenue SW in Ventana.
Sincml~~
JOdi 7 d/fì'i ~J' 0
~¿¿;d
lUll- í '¡O~3
EXHIBITJ.1D~ It,r
EXHIBITD- ~O
PAGE-LOFI
/
.
,~,,!!;W£~IVED BY
, C, .n"CMTn"D^~T"""~
ti199P,
Mr. Gregory Moore, AICP
Director of Community Development Services
33530 1st Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6221
VENTANA SUBDIVISION/REVISED LAND USE APPLICATION
Dear Mr. Moore:
As a property owner, taxpayer and voter residing in View
Cliff I object to the connection of 25Th Ave SW from the
proposed Ventana Subdivision with 25Th Ave SW in View Çliff.
25Th Ave SW in View cliff is a low traffic street with
only local traffic which affords quiet, a measure of privacy
and security. For many residents the fact View Cliff has
only one entry point was a great factor in moving here.
The view Cliff owners petition presented to the City
Council on March 03, 1998 reflected 98% of the View cliff
residents do not want the street connected from Ventana into
View Cliff.
We respectfully request 25Th Avenue SW be allowed to
remain a cul-de-sac in View Cliff and not be connected with
25Th Avenue SW in Ventana.
Sincerely,
wß S't~oj\JGt.ý ã¡ð/,OS¡; 1717:= c..O/llNß.cJ7tJ/V ðF- ;J 5171 /9 UE.s w
-(0 t7+-t: UßN f?1-7v,4 Ju..ß ,crv/J/O/V<7'
~.£- 13ß- ¿,//2c/ /3 SEct-< l'{)rY ,( / 4:"u/Ll- ,IS ß
COJ'..1~AOPVlIS /;:,?J
;/:::.
,;;;L577/ /l9u/3 SW /5 l .l.Å. tI
EXHIBIT ~ U2- trf:.
fff-;e t/'£ ,,/1/'r /V /9 d CÆ 15 a.v ¿,:r / t7 r. #
~£fLw4
C a J1iIJ/ IV /3. c. 7F £J
. - R.
07JJ
;-ð'
"
f.
.
.
5-2 ~iS>
';n'\lMUN/~~y¥I,Y~D By
NT r¡~P4r¡TMtNì
Mr. Gregory Moore, AICP ~'
Director of communit'y Development Services ' ' ,(,2 7998
33530 1st Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6221
VENTANA SUBDIVISION/REVISED LAND USE APPLICATION
Dear Mr. Moore:
As a property owner, taxpayer and voter residing in View
cliff I object to the connection of 25Th Ave SW from the
proposed ventana Subdivision with 25Th Ave SW in view C!iff.
25Th Ave SW in View Cliff is a low traffic street with
only local traffic which affords quiet, a measure of privacy
and security. For many residents the fact View Cliff has
only one entry point was a great factor in moving here.
The View Cliff owners petition presented to the City
Council on March 03, 1998 reflected 98% of the View Cliff
residents do not want the street connected from Ventana into
View Cliff.
We respectfully request 25Th Avenue SW be allowed to
remain a cul-de-sac in View Cliff and not be connected with
25Th Avenue SW in Ventana.
Sincerely,
EXHIBIT~~t
EXHIBiT 1)- ~d-
PAGE-LOF~
As
~K$TD IJE
~JJ ~ ~
s,
qgo¿>
22.W S w .3ùQTI-1
fÐ?~ WAI, W A
A HOVEbuJNff- ANn Q. p^~s wìm
~T CótJCEf4...¡ 11) U,Ç, A c.:rY-to.J6t1..r 'ii'AvE
A lET7üL- ~íÁJb nn5 "+- 8ïì LL- F~é-L- 7Mí;
./
>ÀM~. WE OLE Tf-tt Pf:.iVAO¡ -A,J.{) -n-tt S'Uu{i¡Tý /7nS
J.fÌ6Hðc»z'(i1:JmQ ()fFÐ='-s CUe..... f7J..Micy. -/.-'Þ-1 SuIZ-E ¡:¡.-([: PElJlPc¿-
,\ç ìõL-1r: UPIA ,ÇuL3 ö~vL<;¡w WòUL,Q U á auE- LEss f--)('¡-, ('"¡yJ
5
òF
CH.ìUJIl8V TH5
fJeÐA()ù6i...,
~ÐtJT
-EìJT.E.A¡.J ce- 'AS j é LL . ) ìtt ~, j ,-5 A IJ 0 f-.£À 5JtJ ~ 7
.AKJy ðDE ìtJ THC fJC'YJ SUðD/VJSI ù-J8" WÙUI..LJ US¿: ~s'
/15 A OJ! The..U,::IT L;JÒULD ßE òLJ7 ~F ~ìK.
WAY TD 60 77tR-V ò!?- AeòwJO èVL N6~-
/1-fc'Y bòtJ T (-t7:l~ l-tvtU.t--S Tttc72£-- Lùrt'A7 POSs./ B( >-
.", .c:-.., 6cI OLf'l OF ¡ ï .?
L òU l£) f 't1 L 1
þ ~ 5 E f7\ rJ:.. au L [2.t Úl\M IU ~ A Ii ()J.j ,S
5Ðz;¡ðJ5Ll¡/ Wi: S77Z01\J&'1 Qy:>rù..s(; BE
Cò/JAJE CTL---.zJ j() T7fi s: 5uôDìvì STeW) 7,
A. c U) M P L; S M Ð fJ Ò ""Tf-F; N {" F" 0 S ì ¡) vt '/D '7t--it.
ú!>MMUAfì Jì1 ' :Jù5T UP.sE/ ;AND / ÁféðrJvFt::AJC.('- 7IJ
ALL òF U5 V¡t;;vV CliFF t:--c-SC'¡::Jt-ì-J1S.
~ r- '-{ w Fi3IL '1 OJ (L ----r: Ivt ~
ADD
CQ) I\J S ( 0 e-e-Aì'\ ~ )
\
S I ~ u:-¡¿ ~
e>¡¿) ~
EXHIBIT t ~--fk-, H-£ -
EXHiB~T -.J)-ca..
PAGE~OF J-
/~
.
-.
Mr. Gregory Moore, AICP
Director of Community Development Services
33530 1st Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6221
VENTANA SUBDIVISION/REVISED LAND USE APPLICATION
Dear Mr. Moore:
As a property owner, taxpayer and voter residing in View
cliff I object to the connection of 25Th Ave SW from the
proposed Ventana Subdivision with 25Th Ave SW in View ~liff.
25Th Ave SW in View cliff is a low traffic street with
only local traffic which affords quiet, a measure of privacy
and security. For many residents the fact View Cliff has
only one entry point was a great factor in moving here.
The View Cliff owners petition presented to the City
Council on March 03, 1998 reflected 98% of the View Cliff
residents do not want the street connected from Ventana into
View Cliff.
We respectfully request 25Th Avenue SW be allowed to
remain a cul-de-sac in View Cliff and not be connected with
25Th Avenue SW in Ventana.
Sincmly 'Áj ~
EXHIBIT
\ ~~ (}E~-
RECEIV-O Ry
r,OMMUNI"'YOOlJç¡Op.7EI'_uO- E
- '- :,,'! P~RTME~T
'~A't' 26 1998
EXHIB~T 'ù-~
PAGE-LOF ---1-
~
.
.
~:~)L51'1;Y
Mr. Gregory Moore, AICP
Director of Community Development Services
33530 1st Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6221
VENTANA SUBDIVISION/REVISED LAND USE APPLICATION
Dear Mr. Moore:
As a property owner, taxpayer and voter residing in View
Cliff I object to the connection of 25Th Ave SW from the
proposed Ventana Subdivision with 25Th Ave SW in View C;iff.
25Th Ave SW in View cliff is a low traffic street with
only local traffic which affords quiet, a measure of privacy
and security. For many residents the fact View Cliff has
only one entry point was a great factor in moving here.
The View Cliff owners petition presented to the City
Council on March 03, 1998 reflected 98% of the View Cliff
residents do not want the street connected from Ventana into
View Cliff.
We respectfully request 25Th Avenue SW be allowed to
remain a cul-de-sac in View Cliff and not be connected with
25Th Avenue SW in Ventana.
Sincerely,
~~
/!iT ~
EXHIBIT. ) 1-fk t+,E --
EXHIBrlfy-d-,Y
PAGE-LOF -L-
fV\ 1'1A ,^^'/ f.
701- () {
/¿UI.J ("/'){i4E6/~}/G,A..l¡
'- 'if<-.. (~S;L.J r~
6./~
Kevin K & Mary Margaret L King
30201 24th Ave SW
Fede, a: Ivay, WA 98023-2345
.....-
.
RE~IVED BY
COMMUNITY CWOPMENT nFP~PTlAFMT
¡~.p;i ? '! 1998
Mr. Gregory Moore, AICP
Director of Community Development Services
33530 1st Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6221
,rC.~~'~I.;-
VENTANA SUBDIVISION/REVISED LAND USE APPLICATION
Dear Mr. Moore:
As a property owner, taxpayer and voter residing in View
Cliff I object to the connection of 25Th Ave SW from the
proposed Ventana Subdivision with 25Th Ave SW in View Cliff.
25Th Ave SW in View Cliff is a low traffic street with
only local traffic which affords quiet, a measure of privacy
and security. For many residents the fact View Cliff has
only one entry point was a great factor in moving here.
The View Cliff owners petition presented to the City
Council on March 03, 1998 reflected 98% of the View Cliff
residents do not want the street connected from Ventana into
View Cliff.
We respectfully request 25Th Avenue SW be allowed to
remain a cul-de-sac in View Cliff and not be connected with
25Th Avenue SW in Ventana.
Sincerely,
f1~ P 7;
EXHIBITl.% -1k.. t\.-,t-
EXHIBIT ~- as
PAGE--LOF ~
~
.)
.
RECEIVED BY
COMMUMTY nEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
í~~AV
! í99¡l
Mr. Gregory Moore, AICP
Director of Community Development Services
33530 1st Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6221
VENTANA SUBDIVISION/REVISED LAND USE APPLICATION
Dear Mr. Moore:
As a property owner, taxpayer and voter residing in View
Cliff I object to the connection of 25Th Ave SW from the
proposed Ventana Subdivision with 25Th Ave SW in View Çliff.
25Th Ave SW in View Cliff is a low traffic street with
only local traffic which affords quiet, a measure of privacy
and security. For many residents the fact View Cliff has
only one entry point was a great factor in moving here.
The View Cliff owners petition presented to the City
Council on March 03, 1998 reflected 98% of the View Cliff
residents do not want the street connected from Ventana into
View Cliff.
We respectfully request 25Th Avenue SW be allowed to
remain a cul-de~sac in View Cliff a.nd~no~be ,connected ~with
25Th Avenue SW l.n Ventana. f;;2L¿~-<'/ ~ t?J ~' .
Sincerely, '
~/~ 4~~
q4 ~ ß-e -:;¿¿}
300 So
EXHIBILL1~ ~ ,C
EXH~BIT D-:;lto
PAGE-LOF I
~
.
.
{'OM RECEIVED BY
'. MUNITY DEVEtOPMENT J)EPAR'n!~MT
IMÞY 21 199B
Mr. Gregory Moore, AICP
Director of Community Development Services
33530 1st Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6221
VENTANA SUBDIVISION/REVISED LAND USE APPLICATION
Dear Mr. Moore:
As a property owner, taxpayer and voter residing in View
Cliff I object to the connection of 25Th Ave SW from the
proposed Ventana Subdivision with 25Th Ave SW in View CLiff.
25Th Ave SW in View Cliff is a low traffic street with
only local traffic which affords quiet, a measure of privacy
and security. For many residents the fact View cliff has
only one entry point was a great factor in moving here.
The View Cliff owners petition presented to the City
Council on March 03, 1998 reflected 98% of the View Cliff
residents do not want the street connected from Ventana into
View Cliff.
We respectfully request 25Th Avenue SW be allowed to
remain a cul-de-sac in View cliff and not be connected with
'5Th menue ~ in ~ntan~ince~'Y~~
U ~GJ~
EX~@!O (õD-k [4- ,r
EXH I B IT D- d-.l-
PAGE-LOF I
----
-
.
Mr. Gregory Moore, AICP
Director of Community Development Services
33530 1st Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6221
VENTANA SUBDIVISION/REVISED LAND USE APPLICATION
Dear Mr. Moore:
As a property owner, taxpayer and voter residing in View
Cliff I object to the connection of 25Th Ave SW from the
proposed Vent ana Subdivision with 25Th Ave SW in View ckiff.
25Th Ave SW in View Cliff is a low traffic street with
only local traffic which affords quiet, a measure of privacy
and security. For many residents the fact View Cliff has
only one entry point was a great factor in moving here.
The View cliff owners petition presented to the City
Council on March 03, 1998 reflected 98% of the View Cliff
residents do not want the street connected from Ventana into
View Cliff.
We respectfully request 25Th Avenue SW be allowed to
remain a cul-de-sac in View Cliff and not be connected with
25Th Avenue SW in ventana.
Sincerely,
ç¿f # tUe- ~ &u-
LJ-e ~~
EXHIBIT---L~ ¡t-¡;-,---
EXH!BIT -~8
PAGE-LOF I
/
~
.
Mr. Gregory Moore, AICP
Director of Community Development Services
33530 1st Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6221
VENTANA SUBDIVISION/REVISED LAND USE APPLICATION
Dear Mr. Moore:
As a property owner, taxpayer and voter residing in View
Cliff I object to the connection of 25Th Ave SW from the
proposed Ventana Subdivision with 25Th Ave SW in View Cliff.
25Th Ave SW in view Cliff is a low traffic street with
only local traffic which affords quiet, a measure of privacy
and security. For many residents the fact View Cliff has
only one entry point was a great factor in moving here.
The View Cliff owners petition presented to the City
Council on March 03, 1998 reflected 98% of the View Cliff
residents do not want the street connected from Ventana into
View Cliff.
We respectfully request 25Th Avenue SW be allowed to
remain a cul-de-sac in view Cliff and not be connected with
25Th Avenue SW in Ventana.
Sincerely,
.¿¿( 1-0./1-. /Y~
3óO/7 :l Y -x:!. ~, 5:lJ
f~pJ~/(/1t ffCJ2-J
ExH~t,l-:Q& Id->t;-
COMMUNITY o:~
ExA1YBfT~J)- a 9
PAGE-LOF I
~,
.)
.
Mr. Gregory Moore, AICP
Director of Community Development Services
33530 1st Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6221
VENTANA SUBDIVISION/REVISED LAND USE APPLICATION
Dear Mr. Moore:
As a property owner, taxpayer and voter residing in View
cliff I object to the connection of 25Th Ave SW from the
proposed Ventana Subdivision with 25Th Ave SW in view Cliff.
25Th Ave SW in View Cliff is a low traffic street with
only local traffic which affords quiet, a measure of privacy
and security. For many residents the fact View Cliff has
only one entry point was a great factor in moving here.
The View Cliff owners petition presented to the city
Council on March 03, 1998 reflected 98% of the View Cliff
residents do not want the street connected from Ventana into
View Cliff.
We respectfully request 25Th Avenue SW be allowed to
remain a cul-de-sac in View Cliff and not be connected with
25Th Avenue SW in Ventana.
Sincerely,
(ÍÌ¡ cM.!lvtt I ~
]blS 2> )(V> Au~ JW
~&NJ. l.J+r ¡Vii 7tð):¡
ff ';¡Çl f?3{¡ cr//3
(,v d ('] r17 OJI! X )L(f
EXH:BIT_lib~ þL~~_-
RECEiVED BY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
IEXH tSl~ 1998 Ù- 30
PAGE-LOF I
/"
ì
.
.
Mr. Gregory Moore, AICP
Director 'of Community Development Services
33530 1st Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6221
VENTANA SUBDIVISION/REVISED LAND USE APPLICATION
Dear Mr. Moore:
As a property owner, taxpayer and voter residing in View
Cliff I object to the connection of 25Th Ave SW from the
proposed Ventana Subdivision with 25Th Ave SW in View ~liff.
25Th Ave SW in View Cliff is a low traffic street with
only local traffic which affords quiet, a measure of privacy
and security. For many residents the fact View Cliff has
only one entry point was a great factor in moving here.
The View Cliff owners petition presented to the City
Council on March 03, 1998 reflected 98% of the View Cliff
residents do not want the street connected from Ventana into
View Cliff.
We respectfully request 25Th Avenue SW be allowed to
remain a cul-de-sac in View Cliff and not be connected with
25Th Avenue SW in Ventana.
~ r/,,&,&- ¡lrh)
'--'j1;~~ J~i dYC:' 5'. r(
h-dJ?4()l V'þ'1, t/YÆ r r¿1v?3
Jir?((Ç )ltoe ) 7)/
he' c...
COMMlINFYDE':ë:"':"
'l,eX~eui 0-3/
PAGE-LOF -1-
~Xr;18[T _J_-%-~~£__n
.'v
'~PARTMENT.
~"
..
.
RECEiVr::C BY
('.{)!!,!!,!;:;lTY ~~'J~LOPME!;: DEPARTMENT
Mr. Gregory Moore, AICP
Director of Community Development Services
33530 1st Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6221
,di-
, 19ge
VENTANA SUBDIVISION/REVISED LAND USE APPLICATION
Dear Mr. Moore:
As a property owner, taxpayer and voter residing in View
Cliff I object to the connection of 25Th Ave SW from the
proposed Ventana Subdivision with 25Th Ave SW in view C!iff.
25Th Ave SW in View Cliff is a low traffic street with
only local traffic which affords quiet, a measure of privacy
and security. For many residents the fact View Cliff has
only one entry point was a great factor in moving here.
The View Cliff owners petition presented to the City
Council on March 03, 1998 reflected 98% of the View Cliff
residents do not want the street connected from Ventana into
View Cliff.
We respectfully request 25Th Avenue SW be allowed to
remain a cul-de-sac in View Cliff and not be connected with
25Th Avenue SW in Ventana.
Sincerely,
/~
/\ '\ I
i
n )¡',.///
1\' -
,'J".: ~ i
I,,\((! Ie
H! \ l (VI G\;-\
, ^,
0 '. , .-I-iTy'(\:~~(.u2t~1'VV.<---
. .' ,\/ Vv.. \..,"'" .
t~ ¡', ¡.f" t:k r+ì) I may\
EXHiBIT \ ~~ ~f/
EXHIBIT Ù-3;L
PAGE-LOF I
.~
,,¡
tp
CO! RECE1\i.'-
AMUNITYOEVELOPi.1E' ,~'....
,1TMENT
¡UN
! ¡99E
Mr. Gregory Moore, AICP
Director of Community Development Services
33530 1st Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6221
VENTANA SUBDIVISION/REVISED LAND USE APPLICATION
Dear Mr. Moore:
As a property owner, taxpayer and voter residing in View
Cliff I object to the connection of 25Th Ave SW from the
proposed Ventana Subdivision with 25Th Ave SW in View cliff.
25Th Ave SW in View Cliff is a low traffic street with
only local traffic which affords quiet, a measure of privacy
and security. For many residents the fact View Cliff has
only one entry point was a great factor in moving here.
The View Cliff owners petition presented to the City
Council on March 03, 1998 reflected 98% of the View Cliff
residents do not want the street connected from Ventana into
View Cliff.
We respectfully request 25Th Avenue SW be allowed to
remain a cul-de-sac in View Cliff and not be connected with
25Th Avenue SW in Ventana.
Sincerely,
&~'-- Q~
EXHIBIT \ D1~ li-¡::
EXHIB~~33 --
PAGE-LOF I
/~..
-ì
"1"'\1",fJEC.O BY
'-','1 -,;-;1, V DEVElOPMENT DEPARTMHIT
'~WZ f! î99ß
Mr. Gregory Moore, AICP
Director of community Development Services
33530 1st Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6221
VENTANA SUBDIVISION/REVISED LAND USE APPLICATION
Dear Mr. Moore:
As a property owner, taxpayer and voter residing in View
cliff I object to the connection of 25Th Ave SW from the
proposed Ventana Subdivision with 25Th Ave SW in View CLiff.
25Th Ave SW in view cliff is a low traffic street with
only local traffic which affords quiet, a measure of privacy
and security. For many residents the fact View Cliff has
only one entry point was a great factor in moving here.
The View Cliff owners petition presented to the City
Council on March 03, 1998 reflected 98% of the view Cliff
residents do not want the street connected from Ventana into
View Cliff.
We respectfully request 25Th Avenue SW be allowed to
remain a cul-de-sac in View Cliff and not be connected with
25Th Avenue SW in Ventana.
Sincerely,
~~~
0- '3D~S ó1-6t!1 ~ ~W
Fedevz&.. LOO-t{ lJjh- 98023>
EXH/ÇIT -1~ ~~
1'S: (tL CI- ~~ a.t ~ Ie r ~ ~ ~ '
l) l) ~ ~"'-- OL òì51k ~ ~W
'1ktlõ ~ ~ 'D
Þdù 0 ~ wiJ-t -~ ~ (jY\.. ~ ~ '
~~ ~ ~.Mili J.« ~ ~
~ . , \...),';'h.. ~ ŒJ- ~ r~
~ \..V..Ø.L~ \\1) ~ . IE: \-f IUi Ð [Q2 n . . ])-34
~ ~ ~ (t'W.. ;th.ut~ ~ § jjL -
~ ~. PAGE..LOF I
~-
.
. ~ECEIVED BY
(;¡)!"MUI-!iTY OEm OPMENT DEPARTMENT
[\,w 2 8 1998
Mr. Gregory Moore, AICP
Director of Community Deveopment Services
33530 1st Way South
Federal Way, Wa 98003-6221
VENT ANA SUBDIVISION/REVISED LAND USE APPLICATION
Dear Mr Moore:
As property owners, taxpayers and voters residing in View Cliff, we
object to the connection of 25th Ave SW from the Ventana
subdivision to 25th Ave SW in View Cliff.
25th Ave SW in View Cliff is a quiet street with low traffic,
mostly local, which affords some privacy and security. The fact
that there was only one entry point, was for most homeowners, a
strong reason to move here. Connecting 25th Ave SW in Ventana with
25th Ave SW in View cliff will seriously change the makeup of the
neighborhood.
98% of View Cliff residents signed the petition presented to the
City Council on March 3, 1998 stating they do not want the
connection from Ventana to View Cliff.
We respectfully request that 25th Ave SW be allowed to remain a
cul-de-sac in View Cliff and not be connected to 25th Ave SW in
Ventana.
~
Gerald S. Kur
Íi {LJ~
fo Ann Kure
EXHIBIT lik fi-,f___n
EXHU8~r 1)-35
PAGE-LOF I
..-/' ,-
.
- RECEIVED BY
~O:\'MUNiTY DEVElOPMENT DEPARTMENT
f'ilf{{ 28 1998
Mr. Gregory Moore, AICP
Director of Community Development Services
33530 1st Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6221
VENTANA SUBDIVISION/REVISED LAND USE APPLICATION
Dear Mr. Moore:
As a property owner, taxpayer and voter residing in View
Cliff I object to the connection of 25Th Ave SW from the
proposed Ventana Subdivision with 25Th Ave SW in View Cliff.
25Th Ave SW in View Cliff is a low traffic street with
only local traffic which affords quiet, a measure of privacy
and security. For many residents the fact View Cliff has
only one entry point was a great factor in moving here.
The View Cliff owners petition presented to the City
Council on March 03, 1998 reflected 98% of the View Cliff
residents do not want the street connected from Ventana into
View Cliff.
We respectfully request 25Th Avenue SW be allowed to
remain a cul-de-sac in View Cliff and not be connected with
25Th Avenue SW in Ventana.
Sincerely,
~...J CJ aX
LJ~~15 5w 3C(ST PL
k~ /..¡jt4j,I.<-'I'1 9YO.13
EXHIBIT~-4~_~'(
!EXH~B~r _'D-3~
PAGE--LOF --1--
~
~ RECEiVED BY
':!1,IAMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTME'f'
July18,1998
Stan Wade
30328 19th Place SW
Federal Way, W A 98023
.JUt 2í 1998
Deb Barker
City of Federal Way
33530 First Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003
Subject: Ventana Residential Project, widening 304th.
Dear Ms. Barker,
As a neighbor of Adelaide school, I have some concerns regarding the widening of SW
304th St. from 19th PI SW to the parking entrance to the school as follows:
]) The proposed pedestrian path along the south side of the street and adjacent to the
side of my property on the north side of the street will increase the impervious surface
area on a street that is inadequately designed to handle large amounts of surface water
that drains to the north. It is obvious that the path needs to be on the south side for the
safety of the children walking directly to the school, however, it seems that 8 feet of
walkway is excessive in a residential area where the standard walkway in most cities is 5
ft. Consideration should be given to reduce the widtb of the path to perhaps 6.5 ft.,
which is not uncommon, along 304th from 19th because of runoff problems, especially
since you will be reducing the width in other areas.
2) More critical than the runoff from surface water with the street widening is the
possibility of massive runoff from the school parking area if the present drainage system
is altered. Years ago water would run off the school lot and erode my property. A survey
showed that the county had built the stonn drain 3 to 4 feet on my property (see attached
PLS survey report), I allowed them to leave the pipe in place rather than impact the
public with the cost of reconstruction if they would take care of the water problem. They
did this by placing an asphalt benn along my property and installing two catch basins,
recently labeled # I and #2 by Wellington-Morris survey crews. Also the School District
added another on their property When installing the catch basin on the school property,
which drains to the two on 304th, the contractor built an extruded concrete curb to catch
the flow from the lot. The curb was deliberately built without an opening to allow the
curb to act as a weir when the inlet plugs,allowing clear water to flow to the downstream
basins. It does not take long. howcvcr. to plug Catch Basins #1 and #2. From the above
description, it is critical how the pedestrian path is designed to tie into the school without
allowing water to flow down 304th to my property and then other neighbors to the west.
Long tenn solutions would require a bettcr system to handle the water on the parking lot.
lIo""""'y.""o',,',, "',"""0 poo' wpold b""Io;=I. EXH I B IT. t ~ ~J3(~~-
EAH~~
P!-\GE--LOF 3
~
~
~ 1 "RECEIVED BY
Cul"MU;\ITY DEVELOPMENT DEPÞRTM¡:frr
JUL 2 í í998
3) Because of the site distance problem traveling f<%"m the east to the west at the
intersection of 18th PI and SW 304th, I believe a stop sign should be placed on the
northeast comer.
Your attentión to these matters would be appreciated. I would like to be a party of record
on future decisions. Also, I believe because of my understanding ofthe problems in the
area and the fact that I am an engineer with the City of Kent responsible for these kinds
of challenges, I would be happy to meet on site or otherwise assist the city or developer's
engineer with possible solutions.
cc. Gregory 1. Sahar, VP
Wellington-Morris
enclosure
EXHIBIT 11t~' \A-,~--
EXHH3~1.ï J)- 37
PAGE~OF ~
-1
u.'
i
1
r
f
T. _I
In ~
S;! I
l .1
.
<: '
~ é
~,
À""'~ ~.~
\:) ;) ~~ ,~
I'I-t ""t
~~; ~
~~~~
. ~ '-'
" .
"
\.
'i\
'. \
""..""+,,,~
{~~¿~'~'~~~~:~~;\
¿~:;:o-~~?, ....;_.~
<."".~ ~-'}fC ¡-
\.u,i(.éJ<.; :l~~".
"....,.;.,"...'f¿;.'}~"'.;f.., .
,..~~~~
c ~
~ g
:¡, ~
t ....
'"
.~
-';0
""0
""'"
~ m
",;0
","'"
~ V>
->
~o
.r-
v>m
? :z::
l!-
T,>
~~
~g
:e:..
m Z
::en
:e'
>
't
, ~
'<> .
~
'"
~
~I
~
..
0(
~ <
II> z
. "
.... z
to c:
'" ~
.'i~. !;:
" c
" "
< >
;; ~
.. z
c ..
0(
~
j:)
2./ll_/lYE,~W
" ",RECEIVED BY
co",MUN,TY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
JUL 2 i 1998
-t
<>
:-.
~
I .
~
I
NO'OS.Z"'I"J
19 = PL. SIN
~~::T
l.>
"
I
'<:
CO
...
3. "
9: ,~-2- ~.
:,' v. . . 7
. --- .Þ
¡~",,~:~:~~~.
:¡, '=
,} o.
- - ---
l.,
't
't,
\>¡!
,.,,':~
;~
""
1"'.
I
žl
:,
"
it
; ~
.... ; ~
't ~ ~
~ :~
'" ., <
"~
It- zf
. ".
.' i-
. T
,
~~
~~.
I'-
CèI
...,
;'"
'"
~
'"
\0
" .
'<'I.>
!-- 't
Iv 't'
'" "-
'"
..;
:);:.;
'"
<
,
,
~
'<
"
~
~ I
'!:
I~
VI
:-j
~
.. 30.(JO' " .
'n,..."" -, of
87,36'
NO'OB'Z,.'L./
--
~ ~ ~. ~ ~
~~~Er--~
~ ~ " '. ~ -;;
\o~ '>
.,." :::<:",'
~:".:o~
, ~ ~ " ... '.
'<> \ .. ~
C) ~ ~ ..
~ ~ ~ '"
~ .... , è
:¡ ~ t : EXHIBIT t ~~~
.. ...
~ EXHIBIT ~ '0-37
PAGE~OF .3
-
z-
0
.
:-.
.
b.
L
~
-/
.r.
-.
c
c
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
16018 Mill Creek Boulevard. Mill Creek, Washington 98012'(206) 775-1311 FAX(206)338.7066
December 23, 1998
Deb Barker
City of Federal Way
33530 First Way South
FederalVVay, VVashington 98003
Dear Deb:
I have reviewed the information you sent to me concerning the development proposal for tax
parcel # 122103-9022. and have the following comments to offer.
If the City of Federal Way is considering protecting the species discussed in these documents
(bald eagles, goshawks, Cooper's hawks, pileated woodpeckers, etc.) and-the mature forest
habitats they use, it is important to determine to what extent they are using this site. This is
impossible to establish without field surveys done according to scientific protocol. A thorough
site review for wildlife usage has apparently not been performed to date. Regarding northern
goshawks in particular, reports of their use of this site may possibly be erroneous, but goshawk
presence has been documented in the Puget Sound UIban area. Anyone with a simple bird
identification book and a pair of binoculars can, with practice, become quite adept at bird
identification, and it would thus be inappropriate to dismiss the reports as misidentification of
Cooper's hawks as goshawks if the mature forest habitats goshawks use are present on the site.
If the City of Federal Way wishes to limit degradation of the mature forest habitat now covering
the site, and limit impacts to the species discussed in these documents, the best way to do so is to
retain as many mature trees on the site as possible. The great majority ofthe "significant" trees
on the site are slated for destruction because they are in future right-of-way, building pads, and
utility easements. As mitigation, I or 2 Douglas fir or.grand fir trees would be planted per site.
First, it is difficult to believe that a development plan with 28% !ill!ù impervious surface area
would require the destruction of88% of the existing significant trees (210 out of239). An on-
site, tree-by-tree review may help to clarifY the actual extent of "necessary" tree removal.
Second, if "replacement" trees are used, significantly larger ones could certainly be planted, and
would provide more wildlife benefit in less time. The stipulations now call for small trees (4-6
feet) to be planted, and only 1 or 2 per site. This would provide as few as 28 non-significant
trees as replacement for 210 existing significant trees, which clearly constitutes a great
diminishment in habitat value for the wildlife individuals currently using rxfflBn --1 tb-A£'"
RECEIVED BY
~E\fELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
co
EXHIBIT
PAGE-LOF
1998
-,
c
c
Perhaps the most important long-term step the City ofFederai Way can take is to establish which
habitats and species it will protect, and to what level. Hopefully the sample of items fium fish
and wildlife ordinances throughout the state you recently re.quested from WDFW will be of
assistance in formulating a fish and wildlife ordinance.
To this end, WDFW also strongly recommends adoption of the Priority Habitats and Species
program. This program is centered around a list of fish and wildlife habitats and species WDFW
considers management priorities because of their population status, their vulnerability, or their
recreational, commercial or tribal importance. It is designed to help guide growth in a manner
that will preserve the best and most important habitats for a broader range of fish and wildlife
species. WDFW feels strongly that adoption of this program is the best and most practical way
to maintain the health and viability of the complete spectrum offish and wildlife re.sources. It
provides protection for important and vulnerable wildlife species that are often not otherwise
protected, such as great blue herons and cutthroat trout. WDFW maintains a computer database
of PHS species, and will be glad to offer technical assistance and management recommendations
regarding protection of priority habitats and species.
Our rationale for recommending this is that endangered, threatened, and sensitive species
represent mistakes that have already happened or lack of adequate consideration in land use
changes that have already occurred. A focus on just these categories of wildlife is a reactive
mode of planning that only addresses ways to mend past neglect and mismanagement. A
wildlife protection program for only the most imperiled species is like navigating down a
highway by looking in the rearview mirror; we need to be looking at what the headlights are
showing us.
It is also contrary to the principles ofland use planning. The true spirit of planning anticipates
potential conflicts and responds to these in a pro-active manner before they become real
problems. Therefore, effective planning for wildlife must include consideration of those species
that are currently being pushed in the direction of endangered or threatened status. Waiting until
a species becomes precarious before taking any action will ensure that protection plans will be
costly, surrounded by controversy, and less likely to be successful than preventative measures.
WDFW strongly encourages the City of Federal Way to incorporate the PHS program in its
Comprehensive Plan or Critical Areas Ordinance with language such as the following:
Habitats or species that have been identified as priority species or priority habitats by the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species Program should not be reduced and will be
preserved through regulation, acquisition, incentives and other techniques. Habitats and species onocal
importance will also be protected in this manner. The City will detennine which habitats and species are of
local importance. (The criteria for this designation should be deemed in the Comprehensive Plan or fish
and wildlife ordinance.)
EXHIBIT~----
EXHIBIT 1<.
PAGE ¿.,. OF ô
..
f
E
I hope this information is useful to you. If you have any questions, please feel fÌ'ee to call me at
425-379-2308.
Sincerely,
'h1~ .,ð~
Mark Goldsmith
Habitat Biologist (priority Habitats and Species/Growth Management)
Enclosures
cc: Ted Muller, Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife
Millard Deusen, Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife
Shane Hope, Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development
EXHIBIT ( <J ~
EXH~
PAGE~OF 2>
c:
c
(253) 661-4000
FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003-6210
MITIGATED ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Ventana Preliminary Plat
Federal Way File No: 8EP97-0036, Related File No: 80097-0003
Description of
Proposal:
Proposed subdivision of a 9.9 acre lot int028 single family lots.
Proponent:
Wellington Morris Corporation
10335 Main Street, Suite 8
Bellevue, W A 98004
(425) 455-2929
Contact: Greg Sahar
Location:
Property is located between SW 304th and SW 306th Street, at 24th
Avenue SW and 25th Avenue SW as extended.
Lead Agency:
City of Federal Way
City Contact:
Deb Barker, Associate Planner, (253) 661-4103
The Responsible Official of the City of Federal Way hereby makes the following Findings of
Fact based upon impacts identified in the Environmental Checklist; the Final Staff Evaluation for
Environmental Checklist; Federal Way File No. SEP 97-0036; Conclusions of Law based upon
the 1995 Federal Way Comprehensive Plan; and other policies, plans, rules, and regulations
designated as a basis for exercise of substantive authority under the Washington State
Environmental Policy Act Rules pursuant to RCW 43.2IC060.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.
The proposed action is to subdivide a 9.9 acres into 28 single family lots. There are steep
slopes in the western portion of the site.
. " rY>-lIRlT I r<1-- ~ ¡+-ê
The 1990 King County Surface Wafer Design Manual wIll applYlo'deslgn-arid';;'~tlctlOn--- --.
of 0"';" d,m"" r'd];';" ~y 'pero",d ",","œ, " mo¡~~ ::aIL~.;¡--
2.
(
c
MDNS
V entana/SEP97 -0036
Page 2
3.
A October"17, 1997 (revised August 14, 1998), Preliminary Storm Drainage Report
prepared by Pinnacle Engineering, Inc., addressed existing conditions and provided drainage
system design recommendations for the proposed development. The report was reviewed by
the Federal Way Public Works Department to verify the proposed drainage system will be
designed in accordance with all applicable Core and Special requirements outlined in the
1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM).
4.
The site is located in the Central Lower Puget Sound drainage basin. There are four distinct
drainage basins on the subject site. In a September 15, ! 998 letter, the applicant requested a
modification to divert portions ofthe basins. This request was reviewed as a complex
variance request by the Surface Water Division for compliance with the KCSWDM
standards, and approved subject to conditions in an October I, 1998, letter fTom-the Public
Works Director.
5.
This project will be required to construct roadway improvements for SW 304th Street, 24th
Avenue SW, and 25th Avenue SW as per the 1995 Federal Way Comprehensive Plan
(FWCP) and as per the Federal Way City Code (FWCC). Pedestrian connections fTom the
subject site to Adelaide Elementary School will be installed along the south side ofSW
304th Street in accordance with FWCC Section 22-156(a).
6.
The February 27, 1988 ( revised August 17, 1998), Geotechnicíal Report, prepared by Terra
Associates, Inc., contains specific recommendations and conclusions for the proposed
development, including site preparation and grading of the subject site. In an August 18,
1998 letter, the applicant reiterated the importance of a balanced cut and fill program
through mass grading of the subject site. Supplemental geotechnicial analysis and
recommendations may be required by the Public Works Director or Building Official, as
allowed by the FWCC, during development of the site.
7.
The subject site contains 239 significant trees, 210 of which are proposed to be removed
with the grading of the subject site for the installation of roadways and utilities. Trees
proposed for retention should be protected by placement within a Native Growth Protection
Easement (NGPE).
8.
There is an eagle nest approximately 2,000 feet north of the subject site. Eagles have been
observed perching in trees at the subject site, and would be expected to continue using the
site, according to a March 19, 1998, report prepared by Terra Associates. One or two
replacement trees, four to six feet in height, are recommended to be planted in each lot as
part of the landscaping scheme for the developme!]t.
EXHTI B¡f~£
PAGE.k-OF ~
(
c
MDNS
VentanalSEP97-0036
Page 3
9.
The applicant will dedicate 10,284 square feet of land for constrained and buffer open space,
and will provide a fee in lieu of to address the balance of the required open space. The fee
shall be paid before the final plat is approved.
10. The applicant requested mass regrading of the subject site for lot development to achieve a
balanced cut and fill program and to reduce construction related vehicular traffic impacts.
Without the mass grading, building sites would be broken up, access would be awkward,
and off-site construction traffic would increase. The request was approved subject to
engineering plan review.
11. The final staff evaluation for Environmental Checklist, Federal Way Application Number
SEP97-0036 is hereby incorporated by reference as though set forth in full.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
NEPI: Protect and restore environmental quality through land use plans, surface water
management plans and programs, comprehensive park plans and development review.
NEP56: The City should preserve and enhance native vegetation in riparian habitat and wherever
possible.
NEP57: The City should encourage residents and businesses to use native plants in residential
and commercial landscaping.
The lead agency for this proposal has determined that the proposed action does not have probable
significant adverse impact on the environment, and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is
not required under RCW 43.2 I c.032(2)(c), if the following conditions are met. This decision
was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with
the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request.
CONDITIONS
I.
One or two Douglas Fir or Grand Fir trees,a minimum of six feet in height at the time of
planting, shall be installed in each building lot before final building inspection shall occur;
or,
~~~I~~ -'
PAGE10F ~
(
MONS
Ventana/SEP97-0036
Page 4
2.
In lieu of planting the trees within individual lots, the same number and type of trees shall
be installed within an area, such as an open space or detention tract. The trees shall be a
minimum of six feet in height at the time of planting, and shall be installed before the final
plat is approved.
This MDNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal
for 14 days from the date of issuance. Comments must be submitted no later than 5 :00 p.m. on
October 30, 1998. Unless modified by the city, this determination will become final following
the above COIIU11ent deadline.
Any person aggrieved by the city's final determination may file an appeal with the city within 14
calendar days of the above comment deadline.
Responsible Official:
Gregory D. Moore, AICP
Position/Title:
Community Development Services Director
Address:
33530 First Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003
Date Issued:
October 16.1998
Signature:
~~
EXHIBITl1 ~ (J- ,t
UPRMSYS\DOCUMENT\SEP97_00 "\MONS DOC
EXHIBIT -.E
PAGE~OF ~
(
c
2
, \J BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
EVAlUATION FOR
AGENCY USE O~'L Y
A. BACKGROUND
1. Nvne of proposed project, ¡fapplicable:
VENTANA
2.
Name.of applicant:
WELLINGTON-MORRIS CORPORATION
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person'
10335 Main Street, Suite 8
Bellevue, WA 98004
Greg Sahar (425) 455-2929
,4. Date checklist prepared:
Revised July 9, 1998
5.
Agency requesting checklist:
City of Federal Way
6
Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, ifapplicable):
Commence clearing, grading and utility construction in the fall
of 1998 through the summer of 1999.
7.
Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or
connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
No.
((i\ List any environmental infonnation you know about that has been prepared, or will be
V prepared, directly related to this proposal.
None at this time.
OH!ßII \ ~flu. &{-.L
H t: V 1š1ãÑ15ÄfE'
'S'C..~'1'ì - Oa~b .
JUL f 0 1998 F
EXHIBIT
PAGELOF .1L
"".. '0""7
!l't. 14:"~ F.U ~UUU"'41~"
~ln VI' fEUEIIAL WAY
~UUJ
c
('
J
9.
Do you know whether applications are pending for govenunental approvals of other
proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
No.
10. List any government approvals or pennits that will be needed for your proposal, if known.
.Preliminary Plat Approval
,Engineering Approval
Final Plat Approval
NPDES Permit (7.2 acres Disturbed Area)
I L Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of
the proje~( and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe
certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page.
Develop a 9.9 acre site into 28 single family residential lots.
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient infonnation for a person to understand the precise
location of your proposed project, including a street address, ifany, and section, township,
and range, if known If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or
boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal de~cription, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic
map. if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you
are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submined with any permit applications
related to this checklist.
See attached Exhibit A .
EXHIBIT \ øiflurt-t:-
EXHIBIT 1="
PAGEZ-OF .J.C
, --- .,.-- """ ._--v....q
~U. v. . ~~~".,~ "."
'i!J VV4
(
c
b. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
I EARTH
8. General description of the site (circle one): flat, rol1ing~eep slop5lmountainous,
other.
b.
What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
100% along west property line (created by contruction
of 26th Avenue s.W.)
c.What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat,
mulch)? If you know. the classification ofagriculturalsoils, specifY them and note any
prime farmland. .
Gravelly, sandy loam
d,
Are there surface indications or lústo¡y of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so,
describe.
No.
Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading pro-
posed. Indicate source offill.
Cut: 21,059 cu. yds.
Fill: 19,545cu. yds. (on site source)
Striping: 11,150 cu. yrds.
f
Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally
describe.
Localized erosion could occur during clearing and
construction activities.
ExHlimJ íb.{le.. ¡Æ:
EXHIBIT
PAGE.2.- OF -1L
U9i!6'9ì Tl'E 14:U2 F.U 2U66614129
CITY OF FEVERAL WAY
~U\IÓ
c
f
g,
About what percent of the site will be covered with impervIOus surfaces after project
construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
28%
2.
Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any.
Erosion and sedimentation control measures consisting of filter
fencing, temporary ditching, and either a sediment pond or trap
for each basin will be in place during construction activity.
Earthwork activity will consist mostly of road construction and
. lot grading. .. All erosion control measures will be maintained
during the construction period until the permanent storm sewer
system is in place and all disturbed areas are stabilized.
AIR
a. What types of emissions to the air would result fTom the proposal (i.e, dust, auto.mobile.
odors, industrial, wood smoke...) during construction and when the project is com-
plete~? ¡fany, generally describe and give approximate quantities ¡fknown.
h.
Ordinary emissions and dust from construction activity
will occur during construction. Acceptable emissions
will occur after completion.
b,
Are there any off.site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so,
generally describe.
None known at this time.
c.
Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any
Emissions will be controlled as enforced by State and
Federal regulations.
EXHIBIT-l 6bfu bit- .f:
EXHIBIT ~
PAGE~OF JL
"" v. . ---""- "."
c
(
"" "''O
6
WATER
a, Surface.
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including
year-round and seasonal strealIl$, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe
type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into.
No
2) Will the project require any work over, in. or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the
described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans.
No
3) Estimate the amount offill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed
from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be
affected. Indicate the source offill material.
None
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general
descriptio", purpose, and approximate quantities if known,
No
5) Does the proposal lie within a rOO-year floodplain? If so. note location on the site
plan.
No
EXHIBIT \ '1,~£
EXHIBIT, ~
PAGE£OF If
u9¡lij¡97 HiE 14.,U3 FAX 2Uijijij14129
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
I(1 UU7
(
(
7
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? Ifso,
describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
No.
b.
Ground.
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to groundwater? Give
general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
Infiltration of storm water runoff from rooftops will
be proposed for a íIIajority of the Bastern Basin of- the
developed plat. Quantities will be determined at final
engineering.
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground £rom septic tanks or
'other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, contairúng the
following chenúcals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system,
the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the
number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.
None.
"'-
c. Water Runoff (including storm ""'ter)
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and
disposal, if any (include quantities, ifknown). Where will this water flow? Will this
water flow into other waters? If so, describe.
WESTERN BASIN: Storm water runoff from developed portion of the site will
--coIlected and conveyed to an open water pond and discharged II I,
through a grass-lined swale to an existing culvert along the ,west ~ C~
property line. The pond will be sized using the 2 and 10 year
7 day events. The biofiltration swale will be sized using King
County standards (see the Preliminary Storm Drainage Report for ~\J
calcs.) --
EASTERN~ Storm water runoff will be collected from lot 1-8,12-15, £011
as conveyed to an underground infiltration tank placed in the --
gray sand as depicted in the Geotech Report by Terra Assoc. ... Some 1. ..!
area will be diverted from the southeast corner of the site to )MC <3
the Infiltration Tank. However, some developed. flow from mostly LIJ Cl
backyards will be allowed to sheetflow offsite to match pre-
developed flow rates (see t~z Preliminary Stc~m Drainage Report).
~
co
:I:
><
lJ.J
~
. .... -""-U...
"" V. '~ULML ".'1
<iú UUo
(
c
2)
Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.
Generally fertilizer from yards and petroleum products from
roads.
d.
Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if
any.
Construct a storm water facility for storm water runoff
control for both the western and eastern storm drainage
basins.
.4,
PLANTS
Check or circle types ofve elation found on the site.
XU deciduous tree' 'alder ma Ie spen, other
XU evergreen tree: fir cedar, pine, other
XU shrubs X~ gnlSs 0 pasture 0 crop or grain
0 wet soil plants: cattail. buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other
0 water plant: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
0 other types ofvegetation
b.
What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
Trees and brush will be removed for roads,- utilities, and lot
grading. (Approximate area of clearing = 7.2 acres) Approx.
217 significant trees will be removed from the total of 239
trees presently on the site.
List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
None known.
EXHIBIT I Vb~¡.J-e
EXHIBIT f
PAGELoF "
/09'16/97
Tl1E 14'03 FAX 2066614129
CITY OF FEDERAL WA\
c
('
"",vv.'
9
d.
Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance
vegetation on the site, ¡fany
Open space will be designated in the SW portion of the site.
Trees and vegetation will be preserved in the open space as
well as selected areas throughout the site as designated on
the clearing plan. Due to topography and the existing points
of connection, road meandering would not be useful to retain
significant trees.
s
ANIMALS
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known
to be on or near the site.
birds: hawk, heron,~ngbír~ other
mammals: deer. bear, elk, beaver, other
fish: bass, salmon, trout, herTIng, shellfish, other
b.
List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
A bald eagle nest has been sighted approximately 2,000 feet
north' of the site as stated in the Terra Assoc. letter.
c.
Is the site part ora núgration route? Ifso, explain.
Yes, Pacific Flyway Migratory Route.
d.
Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, ifany
Open space with existing trees will be setaside within the
development. Refer to the response letters by Terra Associates
for details concerning preseration of vegetation and eagle habitat.
EXHIBIT~t-\-,t-
EXHIBLT r
PAGE..LOF .J.L
c
(
10
6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet
the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating,
manufacturing, etc.
Electricity and natural gas.
b.
Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so,
generally describe.
No.
c.
What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this propòsal?
List ~ther proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any.
Conservation features may be selected as part of the
residential home construction.
7.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEAL 1H
a Are there any envirorunental health hazards. including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk
of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of tlús
proposal? If so, describe.
Some hazards may occur (fire, explosion, spill) during
construction.
I) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
Mostly fire and medical aid.
EXHIBIT_I &{~t-t-~
EXHIBIT F
PAGE~ OF --11-
/
09116/97 Tl'E 14:04 FAX 2066614129
CITY OF FE!iER.~L WAY
(,
14i01l
(
11
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control envirorunental health hazards. ¡fany.
Compliance with state and federal standards.
b.
Noise.
I) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example:
traffic, equipment operation, other)?
None known at this time.
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on
a short-term or long-term basis (for example: traffic. construction operation, other)?
Indicate what hours noise would come nom the site.
Short term construction (7AM-7PM) and long term traffic
during normal traffic hours.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, ¡fany.
Compliance with local, state, and federal standards.
8
LAND AND SHORELINE USE
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
The site is undeveloped, bordered by residential property.
EXHIBIT~_ltt_-
EXHIBIT F
P AGE JiL 0 F .....lL-
c
b
Has the site been used for agricultUre? If so, describe.
No.
c.
Describe any structures on the site.
None
d
Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
N/A
e,
What is the CUITent zoning classification of the site?
9,600
f
What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
Federal Way Comprehensive Plan 1995
Land Use designation is "Residential"
£.
12
g
Ifapplicable, what is the CUITent shoreline master program designation of the sire?
N/A
E~~~81~_~ fÁ-~-
Ëj(FfIBI~-~, '----
PAGEilOF II
IJ~" 16,' 97
TrE 14'04 F.U 206661412~
un of FEDERAL WA\
"" U!.,
(
(
13
h
Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so,
specify
Yes, there are environmentally sensitive areas on the site
per the Sensitive Areas map on file with the City of Federal Way
as well as per the Geotechnical Report prepared by Terra Assoc.
for the project. The Geotechnical Report addressed slope
stability, erosion, and seismic hazards.
I.
Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
Approximately 80 people would reside
j
Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
None
k
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, ifany.
N/A
Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land
uses and plans. if any.
Comply with current city codes and ordinances.
9
HOUSING
a Approximately how many units would be provided. if any? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low-income housing.
28 mid-high income uni ts.
EXHIBIT l6b ---rLe- f.}t(
EXHIBIT F
PAGE f2.OFlr
c
£
14
b.
Approximately how many UlÚts, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether rugh,
middle, or low-income housing.
None.
c.
Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any.
Compliance with local, state and federal codes.
10. AEsTIiET!cS
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is
the principal exterior building matcrial(s) proposed?
2 story wood framed structures
b.
What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
Some views from homes along the south property line, currently
facing into the site, may be altered by removal of trees and
construction of homes. In some cases, views may be enhanced.
c.
Proposed measures to reduce or contraJ aesthetic impacts, if any.
Compliance with local regulations.
EXHIBIT ~ afÇ .
EXHIBIT ~
PAGEAOF I"
Ú9'IU'97 Tl;E 14:US FAX 2U66614129
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
(;
~l">
c
15
II. LIGHT AND GLARE
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly
occur?
Evening lighting from single family homes & street lights.
b
Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views?
No.
c
Wh~,t existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
None.
d.
Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any.
Compliance with local and state codes
12 RECREATION
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?
Local parks, puget Sound
~~HTIB:~Eß t-
PAGER OF tt
(
(\
16
b.
Would the proposed displace any exJsting recreational uses? 1fso, describe.
No.
c.
Proposed measures to reduce or colltrol impacts on recreation, including recreation
opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any.
Compliance with City ordinances.
13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, nation, state, or local preser-
vation registers known to be on or next to the site? 1fso, generally describe.
None known at this time.
b.
Generally describe any landmarks or evidence oflústoric. archaeological, scientific, or
cultural impor1ance k11own to be on or nex;t to the site.
None known at this time.
c.
Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any.
N/A
*¥Á-'£
EXHIBIT -, ~
EXHIBIT ~
PAGE ~ OF
09'16'97 TLIE 14:05 FAX 2066614129
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
!ØUI7
c
(
17
14, TRANSPORTATION
a. IdentifY public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the
existing šireet system. Show on site plans. ifany,
The site will have internal public streets that will connect
to 24th Avenue S.W., S.W. 304th St., and 25th Avenue S.W.
b.
Is the site cun-ently served by public transit? Ifnot, what is the approximate distance to
the nearest transit stop?
No.
Nearesi Bus stop is located at the intersection of
Dash Point Road and S.W. 312th st., approximateÏy
3,400 ft to the southeast.
c
Ho'Y many parking spaces would the completed project have7 How many would the
project eliminate?
Private on-lot parking (garage, driveways) None eliminated.
d
Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to e"isting roads or
streets, not Including driveways? Ifso, generally deseribe (indicate whether public or
private)
A public sub-collector and sub-access road will be
constructed. An 8' wide pedestrian path will be constructed
from the N.E. corner of the site to Adelaide Elementary School
along the south side of 304th street.
e.
Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transporta-
tion? If so, generally describe.
Seatac Airport is within 10 miles.
l M ~ bt:--,~
EXHIBIT.___~---~
EXHIBIT. F
PAGEk OF ~
c
n ._-_..,"~ "n,
c
"" ')1.,
18
f
How many velUcular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If
known, indicate when peak volumes would occur.
Per the ITE Land Use Code 210,268 trips/day would be generated.
Peak volumes would occur at 7-9 AM (21 trips/Hr) and 4-6 PM
(28 trips/Hr.)
g.
Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any.
'Compliance with city, state and federal codes.
15 PUBLIC' SERVICES
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire
protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? Ifso, generally describe.
Public services will be necessary for the proposed
project, including fire, police, health and schools.
b
Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, ¡fany
Compliance with local codes.
EX H I B ! T_l~JI--~--
EXHIBIT F"
PAGE~OF -11-
OP'ltl'P7 nlE H:Otl F.Ü 20tlUU1412P
un IJf FEtJERAL II."
"" V",
('
('
19
16. UTLLlTŒS
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site:
(êlëëïñëítyXnatural Ras~efuse servlce;ltelephone:fsanitary sew~septic system,
other (please list).
b.
Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project. the utility providing the service,
and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which
might be needed.
Electricity (puget Power), Natural Gas (WNG), Water & Sewer
(Lakehaven), Telephone (GTE), Refuse (Rabanco) is proposed.
All utilities are available from adjacent plats.
C. -SIGNATURE .
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead
agency is relying on them to make its decision.
"
SIGNA1URE;
.f2
- Wellington-Morris Corp.
DATESUB~: -<?Etober 17, 1997
I /1 we:
EXH\B\T~
EXHIBIT F
PAGEl!-OF ,š-
Exhibit G - Preliminary Plat of Ventana
Letters received following notice of Environmental Determination
G-l
G-2
G-3
G-4
G-5
Dale Kure, Dianne Ray and Robert Jones
Patrick and Sean Redmond
Gary and Julie Gillespie
Richard Leisy
David Whiteside, Florence Larson, Louise Uhlman, Melody Bullock, Theodore
Ulmer and Eve Fey
James Craig
Chris Carrell
Betty Huff
Duane John
Margaret and Ronald Edmondson
Robert and Betty Collins
Patricia Clark
Dean and Joyce Condos
G-6
G-7
G-8
G-9
G-IO
G-ll
G-12
G-13
###
\
EXHIBIT~-
EXHIBIT G-
PAGE--.LOF
.
.
29847 24th Avenue SW
Federal Way, WA 98023
October 26, 1998
Mr. Gregory O. Moore, AICP
Community Development Services
City of Federal Way
33530 First Way Ssouth
Federal Way, WA 98003
Director
RECEIVED BY
COMMUNllY DEV8.OPMENT DEPARTMENT
OCT 2 7 1998
MITIGATED ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
(MONS)
Ventana preliminary Plat
Federal Way File No: SEP97-0036, Related File No: SUB97-0003
Dear Mr. Moore:
The homeowners of ViewCliff do hereby appeal paragraph 5 of
the City of Federal Way's MDNS, dated October 16, 1998.
Our specific objection is to what the MDNS refers to in
paragraph 5 as "roadway improvements for 25th Avenue SW." We
do not consider connecting 25th Avenue SW from Ventana to
View Cliff to be an improvement or desirable and appeal this
decision in the strongest manner.
Connectivity of neighborhoods was not the reason the majority
of owners in ViewC1iff had as a priority when we purchased
our property & many of the owners have been here since the
early 1960's. Conversely, security, privacy, quiet, a safe
neighborhood for children & limited access were some of our
reasons for establishing homes in Viewcliff. Connecting
25th Avenue SW from Ventana to Viewcliff will destroy the
very atmosphere we came here to enjoy.
Within the past month a Meth house was discovered eight
blocks directly south of Viewcliff. We have no desire for
additional connectivity and strongly oppose it. Connectivity
will reduce our neighborhoods liviability & we do not desire
more circulation of traffic in our small neighborhood.
As you know, we filed a petition with the Federal Way City
Council on March 03, 1998 and made an oral appeal at that
meeting. We have met with Ms. Deb Barker, Assistant Planner,
Mr. Rick Perez, Traffic Engineer, Mr. Cary Roe, Public Works
.Director in several meetings at City Hall with our protests
& appeal. Our objection to the connection of 25th Avenue SW
is strong and ongoing. ... ,,' ~,. ¡.}~
EXHIBIT - -----
EXHIBIT -
PAGE-LOF d-
.
.
(2 )
We ask for relief of imposition of the Federal Way city Code,
section 20.151, Subdivision design. Specifically, we ask
that the existing 25th Avenue SW cul-de-sac in viewCliff be
made permanent. We additionally ask that SW 304th street
never be extended from 24th Avenue SW to 25th Avenue SW on
the ViewCliff-Ventana border & wording to that effect be
placed in the City's records.
Mr. Rick Perez, Traffic Engineer mentions extending SW 304th
street is a possibility in his review of our petition sent to
Ms. Deb Barker on March 09,1998. He lists this on page two
of his review under section 20-151, Subdivision design,
paragraph (f).
Mr. Perez closes his review of our petition with this
summary: "The proposed street layout of the Ventana
subdivision is consistent with existing codes and
Comprehensive Plan goals and policies."
As stated 97% of the residents of ViewCliff do not want this
connectivity into Vent ana on 25th Avenue SW & we ask for
relief of the existing codes, Comprehensive Plan goals and
policies which were written after Federal Way became a city.
When ci tyhood was being pushed we were told if we became a
City we would have more input into how our lives and property
would be governed. We now have Cityhood and we ask the City
Council to make good on that promise to respect our wishes
and we ask for relief on the 25th Avenue Connection with the
Ventana subdivision, as well as never extending 304th SW from
24th Avenue SW to 25th Avenue SW between ViewCliff and
Ventana.
~~
~~
Dianne Ray ~
(For
copy:
Ron Gintz
Michael Park
Kenneth Nyberg
Jeanne Burbidge
Jack Dovey
Mary Gates
Linda Kochmar
Phil Watkins
Mayor
Deputy Mayor
City Manager
city Council
city council
ci ty council
city Council
city Council
file:
Appeall.doc
ËXH'Bk~~ I"
PAGE2-0F cA.
-
.)
.
Patrick Redmond
Sean Redmond
30423 23rd Ave SW
Federal Way 98023
October 23, 1998
Gregory Moore
Community Development Services Director
33530 First Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003
RECEIVED BY ,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT'
OCï 27 1998
Mr. Moore, this letter is in response to :MPNS Yfi!ntana Sept97-0036. There are several
areas of concern 'regårdirig':t1ié propQsed projeCt.,"" ,
i.
When this project was first p~e~1~'ted to thiU:ommunity it was for considerably
fewer homes with expressed concéins for þ'reserving as much of the present
ecosystem and greenbelt in the proposed ,¡Juilding site as possible. It now is being
presented as a basic clear cut of the existíng woodland with little or no regard to the
present environment It also appears to hàve lead to the ill-advised placement of
eight homes along the narrow and steep: western edge of the site.
2.
, .
Our property is on the wesìerrì'side of the,proposed building site and we have grave
concerns regarding the"clrajrìage frem the 'new building site. Our house is built on
the area that your plan rEi~t¡o as 'a drainage easement What appears to be the
addition of eight building sites on the western side of the site is going to cause
problems for the residents who live below grade of the proposed sites. These are
small lots and when houses are built on these sites there will be very little available
drainage to handle the runoff'Most-of the hómes bordering the western edge are
split level homes with the lower levels below ground. Who is going to be responsible
for any drainage damage to the existing homes now and in the future? As the City
of Federal Way is determined to push this project through, does this mean that the
City is going to accept any liability for damage now and in the future?
3.
In respect to the possible fence encroachment, I have been lead to believe that this
fence line was established by the original contractors who developed Adelaide Párk
and thus should have been inspected and approved by the county. If the fences are
to be removed who is going to be responsible for removal and replacement of the
fånces?
I find it hard to believe that any assessment could possibly lead to the conclusion
that removing 88% of the existing trees and replacing them with one or two 6 foot
Douglas Firs per lot resembles in any way, an attempt to preserve what little of the
ecosystem and greenbelt that remains in the Federal Way areq. This proposallÌas
4.
,¡ EXHIBIT (;- - 2
EXH B/T~PAGE-L-OF d--
.
.
expressed concern for a nesting pair of eagles in the area, which is commendable,
but it has ignored the rest of a diverse ecosystem that exists in this building site.
We understand that growth in the Federal Way area is inevitable, but squeezing every
last bit of possible space out of every existing site is irresponsible and the impact on
the community will be irreversible. The contractor's desire to obtain the maximum
possible return on this project must be weighed against the needs and concerns of the
community and the City. In balancing these two positions your department must be
forward looking and not concentrate on short term gains. When this project is complete,
the local residents and the City of Federal way will be left with any negative
consequences which result from this proposal if it is accepted as presented. Federal
Way is growing at a rate well beyond the ability of its infrastructure to support the
growth and we strongly recommend that the Department of Community Development
Services take the time to reconsider this proposal. We will all have to live with this
decision for a long time.
Sincerely,
Patrick Redmon~
Sean Redmoný¡{
t ö1 ~Æ::-
EXHIBIT G - :2
PAGE20F d-
EXHIBiT
(
Gary and Julie Gillespie
29844 24th Ave. SW
Federal Way, W A 98023
(253) 661-1583
October 28, 1998
(
(
FILE
Mr. Gregory D. Moore AICP
Community Development Services Director
City of Federal Way
33530 First Way South
Federal Way, W A 98003
Re: Mitigated Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS)
Ventana preliminary Plat
Federal Way File No : SEP97-0036, Related File No: SUB97-0003
Dear Mr. Moore:
We are extremely concerned about the quality of life in Federal Way being lessened drastically by both
increased traffic and destruction of wildlife habitats. A prime example of this is the building proposed in
the Ventana area. -
We are opposed to the destruction of an oasis for wildlife in this area. The proposed replanting of some
.. six foot high evergreens does not come close to what is needed to sustain the present animal populations-
fox, owls, and other indigenous animals cannot relocate in an area of pavement and houses. The nearby
bald eagles cannot rest upon a six foot high Douglas fir, nor find food in that suburban setting. Once the
bulldozing is done, we have lost those treasures forever. It is disturbing to see that money is setting the
fate for us, rather than foresight, futuristic planning, and reasonable environmental awareness.
Not having the power to stop this development, the next concern is the connection of 25th A venue SW
from Ventana to View Cliff. As concerned citizens, living in the View Cliff area, we have signed
petitions to not let that street be joined. Aren't we, the people, supposed to be able to effect decision
making in our city? Those of us who reside here are well aware of increased traffic problems with the
few new homes which have recently been built near here. With the new development being one of many
houses being built close together, the population density is going to cause many problems which will
need to be faced, including security, congestion, and safety for our children.
There is environmental significance to this development project. There is significance to the effect on
quality of life in Federal Way. We hope that our city leaders will reconsider the cutTent plan regarding the
Ventana development.
Sincerely,
cc:
Ron Gintz, Mayor
Michael Park, Deputy Mayor
Kenneth Nyberg, City Manager
Jeanne Burbridge, City Council
Jack Dovey, City Council
Mary Gates, City Council
Linda Kachmar, City Council
Phil Watkins, City Council
COMMUN~ ~tCEIVED BY
HOPMENT ÐE:PARTME:NT
OCT 3 0 1998
EXHIBIT \ 1 ¡J'L_-
EXHIBIT G - 3
PAGE.LOF --L-
~
)
..¡
'>
October 29,1998
Mr. Gregory D. Moore, AICP
Community Development Services Director
City of Federal Way
33530 First Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003
Ref:
Ventana Preliminary Plat
Federal Way File No: SEP 97-0036
Related File No: Sub97-0003
Dear Mr. Moore
My purpose in writing to you is to object, in the strongest possible terms, to
connection of the Viewcliff neighborhood to the new Ventana development
through 25th AVE SW.
I can find no advantage in extending a dead-end street two blocks to another
dead-end. A modification which is opposed by 97% of neighborhood residence.
It seems that this plan to destroy the Viewcliff neighborhood, as we know it, is
being pursued to satisfy a "post city-hood" regulation which was written without
regard for the uniquely individual character of neighborhoods like Viewcliff.
Rather than retaining this character, this regulation destroys neighborhoods and
promotes the urban sprawl we all want to avoid. Is the mindless destruction of
neighborhoods like Viewcliff really what being a city is all about? I think not!
May I suggest an altemate course? Make the existing cul-de-sac at the end of
25th AVE SW a permanent feature of the Viewcliff neighborhood. In addition,
wording should be added to city records such that SW 304th will never be
extended from 24th AVE SW to 25th AVE SW on the Viewcliff-Ventana border.
These changes will promote security, safety, privacy, and help to limit the
continuous circulation of traffic. In short, these changes will help retain the
RECEIVED BY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
EXHIBH'"30 jqQf:J(¡-Y.
"' PAGE-.L. ",)F 2
EXHIBIT
\ 6i ~~
')
']
livability of the Viewcliff neighborhood, In my humble opinion, that is what being
a city is all about.
Respectfully,
wc./ .
Richard A. Leis~
30234 25th AVE SW
Federal Way, WA 98023
CC: " Ron Gintz
Michael Park
Kenneth Nyberg
Jeanne Burbidge
Jack Dovey
Mary Gates
Linda Kochmar
Phil Watkins
Robert Jones
~~~~
30234 25th AVE SW
Federal Way, WA 98023
Mayor
Deputy Mayor
City Manager
City Council
City Council
City Council
City Council
City Council
Viewcliff Res.
EXHIBIT_l ~ t\-É
EXHIBW"T (j -4
PAGE_~ \OF :L-
1
.
.
J
October 29, 1998
To: Gregory D. Moore, AICP
The City of Federal Way
Community Development Services Director
33530 First Way South
Federal way, W A 98003
Subject: Mitigated Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance
Reference: Ventana Preliminary Plat Objections:
Federal Way file No. SEP97-0036, Related File No.: SUB97-0003
The resident neighbors to the development project described in the subject proposal would
like to raise an objection to the subject proposal. Changes have been have been made
which are significantly different fÌ"om the subject proposal. Additionally other
environmental issues are not acceptably addressed. The following are some, but not all of
the objections we are hereby presenting.
1. The Findings of Fact item number 7 in the present proposal is significantly different
than that was previously identified and documented by the City of Federal Way. There
was a requirement to retain 25% of the evergreen trees on the plat. The present change
allows for a retention of only 12% of the significant trees. Concerns were originally
presented to the Community Development Services Department questioning whether
the 25% figure would be adequate due to environmental impacts. It is again reiterated
that this area is located on a bluff and that removal of these evergreens increase
potential property and bodily harm fÌ"om falling trees. Planting one or two trees, six foot
in height per plot hardly offers any kind of a buffer zone for 15 or 20 years.
2. There is concern that adequate protection will not be provided for the number of
Eagles seen perching if not nesting on the site. Additionally there are several old
growth trees which can never be replaced if removed.
3. Improvements to only 304th Street and 25th Avenue SW are identified. There is concern
that other streets in the neighbor will be affected by the change, but will not receive any
compensation. This would include 306th PI. and 24th Avenue SW.
Sincerely,
d' ¿¿)~ EXHi~lì - I £b I-+t
~ --7 '. æ~. -~
~- ~ COMMUNITYDEVELOPI
4~~' OCT3/1998
/~~ ¡:: ¡¡ß~ EXHIBIT ()- -5
~ Cf¡ ~ PAGE-.L OF I
Local Residents:
-,~_._~~~~~.-
/'
,. -~=---_.__..~--- -... -'-
.
.
Mr. Gregory D. Moore
Community Development Services Dir.
City of Federal Way
Dear Mr. Moore:
Attached find a copy of a letter mailed to you on May 10,
1998, Since I have not received a response to my comments,
and the fact that the proposed revision seems to have been
ok's by the city, I am again asking you to consider my
letter of concern.
Respectfully,
~i~
30254 24th Ave. S.W.
Federal Way, WA. 98023
cc:
Ron Gintz
Michael Park
Kenneth Nyberg
Jeanne Burbidge
Jack Dovey
Mary Gates
Linda Kochmar
Phil Watkins
Mayor
Deputy Mayor
City Manager
City Council
City Council
City Council
City Council
City Council
.1 ~ "~)\'
?>" . "-"
\\j~\)- ~ 'i)<.?F
~~C,~ r?"¡,,,-I-< ,<
"",-' _c'~f'Ç\\I\~\~;: ,-"
r"'" .~i',j \\' -' .
~...' \' , '0'
r' ~ \-
EXHIBIT l Db l+~
EXHIBIT G - <0
PAGE-L OF J-
.
.
May 10, 1998
Director of Community Development Services
33530 First Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003
Dear Sir:
Upon reviewing the subdivision VENTANA, which is across the
street from my residence, I was pleased with the layout and
thought it would be a welcome addition to this quiet (almost
rural) Adelaide neighborhood. The revised proposal however, has
left me disillusioned and confused. The original plat plan
states, "Open Space Required--64,751 Square Feet". As I read the
revised plan it appears to me that the open space now proposed is
10,284 Square Feet. How can you allow less that the required
open space?
In paraphrasing the information I received after talking with
your office, I understand that you can "buy off" the open space
issue. This sounds an awful lot like what I would refer to as a
"payoff!" If indeed that is allowed in the city of Federal Way,
tell me how that benefits our immediate neighborhood by dollars
going into the parks department. Don't get me wrong. I indeed
support parks within the city. However, Federal Way was
incorporated because too many of we citizens were unhappy with
King County allowing too many buildings and no open spaces. Our
open space requirements were designed to protect us from that.
Now the city can choose to allow the developer to buy it off??
By whose authority? Don't we as citizens of Federal Way have any'
say? I am indeed confused and disillusioned.
How can the planning commission decide what is best for a
neighborhood? Let's go by the REQUIREMENTS! Why set
requirements if we have no intent to use them? Or were they set
up as a revenue stream for the city parks department? I'm
confident that was not the intent of the original "open space"
requirements.
As a bit of history, It is my understanding that this parcel of
property was selected by King County and money appropriated to
purchase the whole said piece of property for open space. The
city of Federal Way chose to use that appropriated money to
assist in purchasing Palisades Retreat. Now we have digressed to
a mere 10,000 sq. ft. The size of one building lot. A good
example of our government working for us?
I welcome Ventana in it's original plan.
me.
Please don't disappoint
Sincerely, EXHIBIT l6b tI--.f"
/Z~ /A~IT 6 -lo
. Tn~~ PÄGtf~ OF Å
,'.
"
~.
c
. ,
.J
Chris Carrel (
3023424thAve.S.w. FederalWay, WA 98023
Phone: (253) 874-8270 Fax: (253) 874-8599
Email: ccarrel@wo.lfenet.com
October 30, 1998
Gregory D. Moore, AICP
Community Development Services Director
33530 First Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003
. Dear Mr. Moore:
I am writing in response to the Mitigated Environmental Determination of
Nonsignificance for the Ventana Preliminary Plat, Federal Way File: SEP97-
~ -
I find fault with the decision of nonsignificance for the Ventana Plat. The area
is characterized by mature and old growth trees and composes high-quality
habitat for indigenous lowland forest species. As noted in the determination
letter, the site is presently used by eagles for roosting. A pair of red pileated
woodpeckers also forage in the site and may nest there. I've frequently
observed a breeding pair of northern goshawk foraging on the site. I
frequently hear owls hooting from trees within the Ventana site. The site is
also home to a healthy population of Ensatina salamanders.
These are just species that I've identified from casual observation.
Undoubtedly, others would turn up from a systematic biological survey.
The presence of these species suggests that the site is high-quality forest
. habitat, an increasingly precious resource in Federal Way these days.
City Policy NE-1 aims to "protect and restore environmental quality through
land use plans, surface water management plans and programs,
comprehensive park plans, and development review."
Policy NE-2 aims to "preserve and restore ecological functions and enhance
natural beauty by encouraging community development and site planning
that maintains and complements natural land forms."
. The Ventana subdivision decision does not reflect these policies as the
subdivision would almost entirely eliIIÚnate the present forest habitat. While
it's not possible to develop the plat and preserve the forest's eço~~ED BY
functions, more can and should be done to preserve SO~MD.@$W'ß:whabitarARTMENT'
for a range of species within the development. OCT 3 0 1998
EXHIBIT
l~~
EXHIBIT ~. .
PAGE-L OF ~
Ventana Subdivision C'
G
October 30, 1998
Because of the presence of a number of state candidate species (red pileated
woodpeckers and northern goshawks), the Ventana Plat merits attention as a
Priority Habitat under the state's Priority Habitat Program. This is a voluntary
program through which the state Department of Fish and Wildlife make
available their biologists and expertise to help local governments protect
wildlife habitat in developments such as this',
Preserving some of this habitat .is especially important since the Ventana plat
sits between the forested wetland in Poverty Bay Park to the North and an
unnamed wetland to the northeast on the corner of S. 304th Street and 21st
Avenue Southwest. Maintaining a strip of habitat between the two sites
would preserve a travel corridor for species using the two wetlands.
The City proposes an alternative tree planting scheme that would concentrate
planting of young trees 4 to 6 years old in a strip along the site's northern
. edge. This is a well-intentioned idea, but doesn't go far enough and likely
won't have the intended effects. The trees are intended to serve as roosting
areas for bald eagles, but adult eagles certairùy won't use such small trees. It
would be a matter of decades before those young trees reach the size and
structure that would afford eagle roosting.
Mature trees must be retained if they are to be of any perching use for bald
eagles; the same goes for northern goshawks.
'.
The City has chosen to accept payment from the developer in lieu of
, requiring the full fifteen percent open space requirement for the subdivision
(per Section 20-155, subsection B, subdivisión design). I strongly disagree with
this decision and believe it's not in the best interest of the surrounding
neighborhoods. This forest has served as open space, providing recreational,
esthetic, and wildlife habitat for this community since its inception. I know
this fact well, since my family was the first to move into the View Cliff
neighborhood and I've lived my entire life here. There's no escaping the fact
that the Ventana development will greatly change the nature of the area.
Retaining the full measure of open space targeted under the city code, will
. help lessen the negative impacts on the surrounding community, though.
Moreover, by retaining the full fifteen percent in open space, preferably as an
intact bloc of habitat in its natural state, the development would provide for
some wildlife habitat and lessen the impact on surrounding wildlife. This
effect would be enhanced if the open space were concentrated against the
unimproved right-of-way at the site's northern end.
I object to the proposed cormection of the Ventana Subdivision to 25th
Avenue Southwest. Many of the residenç; ofYiew Cliff are already concerned
about traffic, crime, and safety and feel that connecting Ventana to View Cliff
through 25th Avenue Southwest will only exacerbate these problems, '
threatening the quality of life we enjoy in this neighborhood. ( ~ t-J-tf
2 EX¡;.U3IT G - 7
PAGE 'L OF ~.
. Ventana SubdiTJÎSion ('
(
October 30, 1998
A majority of residents on 24th Ave Southwest have already petitioned the
City's Traffic Engineer for speed bumps because of our concerns about
speeding cars and the threat they pose to children walking and bicycling along
the street. To date, there's been no action Qn this request. Connecting Ventana
through 25th Avenue Southwest will unavoidably exacerbate the speeding
problem. .
The City's policy of favoring connectivity, like any policy, must make sense
on the ground. Here, it simply does not. :rhe streets in View Cliff are old
streets designed under obsolete pre-city design standards. There are no
sidewalks, two blind curves, and a smallrul1 that partially obstructs vision.
Traffic engineer Rick Perez in ills review of the residents' petition opposing
the 25th Avenue Southwest connection concluded that View Oiff's streets
could "handle up to 1,500 vehicles per day" and that that volume wouldn't be
reached even with the connection to Ventana.
. Having lived here for 34 years and having used these streets both as a child
riding his bicycle and a parent teaching ills children to ride their bicycles, I feel
this calculation has little basis in the daily reality of the neighborhood. Most
parents I know in View Cliff already have great concerns about the safety of
their clúldren walking or riding bicycles on the two streets as they are today. I
doubt that any of the residents believe wEfhave to reach 1,500 vehicle trips a
day on the streets before we cross into dangerous territory.
While the traffic engineer concludes that co~cting Ventana via 25th
Avenue Southwest will erase the non-co.nIoi'mance of the cul-de-sac, it does
nothing to deal with the non-conformançe of the View Cliff streets to
modern street design codes. In fact, it would increase the dangers by adding
more traffic to poorly designed streets.:,
For the same reasons as stated above, I strenuously object to the paragraph in
Mr. Perez' March 9, 1998 review of the residents' petition that suggests
connecting S 304th Street from 24th Avenue Southwest to 25th Avenue
Southwest.
I ask that the determination of non-significance be reversed based oil the fact
. that the proponents have failed to identify the presence of hawks, red pileated
woodpeckers, owls, and Ensatina salamanders on the site, and the lack of
mitigation for these species.
I ask that the allowance of reduced open space percentage be reversed, and
that the full fifteen percent of the land base be required and placed into one
large strip of undisturbed habitat, preferéjbly along the unimproved right-of-
way, to serve as a wildlife refugia and corridor.. I also request the city enlist the
help of the Priority Habitats program at the ståte Department of Natural
. , . EXHIBIT l ~¡¡.C
3" EXHIBIT - - I
PAGE~ OF Ï-
.'
..
Ventana SUbdiJ;sion (.
October 30, 1998
c
Resources for desigrùng IIÚtigation that protects the important species
associated with the forest on the Ventana site. "
Finally, I ask that the City reverse its decision to require connecting the
Ventana subdivision to 25th Avenue Southwest, based on the impacts
identified above.
Thank you for your attention.
Sã~' cd
Chris Carrel
".
4
EXH!BIT l ~ trt
EXHIBIT G -{
PAGElOF ~
RECEIVED B~.
COMMUN\1Y DEVELOPMENT D.fMENT
.
OCT 3 0 1998
2982424th Ave SW
Federal Way, WA 980023
October 30, 1998
Mr. Gregory D. Moore, AlCP
Community Development Services Director
City of Federal Way
33530 First Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003
Dear Mr. Moore:
As a homeowner in ViewclifE; I am appealing for relief of imposition of the Fedëral Way
City Code and asking that the existing 25th Avenue SW cul-de-sac in Viewcliffbe made
permanent and that SW 304th street never be extended ITom 24th Avenue SW to 25th
Avenue SW on the ViewcliffVentana border.
We purchased property in Viewcliff in 1965 because it was a secluded area with privacy;
I urge you to reconsider your application of this code and allow the area to keep the
existing street configurations.
I would appreciate your careful consideration of this request.
.~'?
Sincerely,
~
EXHIBIT~ -6"þ \-r~
EXHIBIT G- - 8
PAGE-L o~-1-
..-
.
.
,¡
October 29, 1998
Mr. Gregory Moore, AICP
Community Development Services Director
City of Federal Way
Dear Mr. Moore:
As a homeowner in the ViewCliff development, I try to keep myself informed as to how the
Vantana plat plan is proceeding. I read the recent correspondence sent to you by Robert Jones,
Dale Kurr and Dianne Ray regarding this issue. I agree that connecting 25 Avenue SW from
Vantana to ViewCliff and extending SW 3O4th Street from 24th Avenue SW to 25 Avenue SW is
not an improvement to our neighborhood.
We bought our house in ViewCliff because the limited access provides pòvacy and it is safe
place for our children to play. We agree that the proposed changes would have an adverse
affect on this privacy and safety.
In addition, I am concernad about the percentage of land that is being set aside for parks in the
Vantana development and the benefits to our neighborhood.
Respectfully,
Duane John
30244 24th Avenue SW
Federal Way, WA
RECEIVED BY
CðMMllNTTY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
OCT 3 0 1998
E~HmlT,.c,L!)).rré
EXHIBIT G -,
PAGE-LOF I
7-
.
J
.
Robert F. Jones
29847 24Th. Ave. S. W.
Federal Way, WA 98023-2300
(253) 838 1625
76627,3233@Compuserve.Com
October 28, 1998
To:
All ViewC1iff residents
From:
Robert Jones, Dale Kure, Dianne Ray
Ventana preliminary Plat and comments to City Hall
regarding Ventana and specifically retaining the
Cul-de-sac at the south end of 25th Avenue SW in
viewCliff. -
Subject:
On October 27th we delivered the enclosed letter to City Hall
for Mr. Gregory Moore, the city Manager and all members of
the City Council.
We ask that you please send comments to Mr. Moore at City
Hall with your comments should you feel aggrieved by the
city's determination that they ARE going to connect 25th
Avenue SW into Ventana against our wishes.
Also, please note your comments must be at City Hall no later
the 5:00 pm on October 30,1998. This is our last chance to
be heard before the earth movers arrive!
Thank you for your support!
p..¿..-.
,oW r ¡rk ¡(".A,if
è-::> ....,,~;r 0..-
Con C- ..?C/'-
///7
/./' CA./
h "'-"V (....- ~ '-.? .,/
~/I-,/7',--rJ ~-<-
,V/<- r./ c/.'!j J/#'" ~ I ç r.3
~.(
...-4.(;S',dc:-......:í..{ If
-- ~ECEIV!:D sv '-. .¡:;-!:t "...db.)
COMMIINr7YJF'I:'LOP',Ii:NTOI:PARTMENT I 'd1 ~E ,. ~ 4/<. . -- ~ J><.V
OCT 3 0 1998 EXHIBIL.\...~.e"~-~-~""-f:--r<~,~>~ /-/../
EXMI.BIT G - I Ó ~~,7'-o
. .3 ;5CJPtP/- 2-YAJ"~ S'ev
PAGE-LOF - /~d. lJ,/, / tJ'(, 98ífz/
.
@
.
29847 24th Avenue SW
Federal Way, WA 98023
October 26, 1998
Mr. Gregory D. Moore,
Community Development
City of Federal Way
33530 First Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003
AICP
Services Director
MITIGATED ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
(MDNS)
Ventana preliminary Plat
Federal Way File No: SEP97-0036, Related File No: SUB97-0003
Dear Mr. Moore:
The homeowners of viewCliff do hereby appeal paragraph 5 of
the City of Federal Way's MDNS, dated October 16,1998.
Our specific objection is to what the MDNS refers to in
paragraph 5 as "roadway improvements for 25th Avenue SW." We
do not consider connecting 25th Avenue SW from Vent ana to
View Cliff to be an improvement or desirable and appeal this
decision in the strongest manner.
Connectivity of neighborhoods was not the reason the majority
of owners in viewCliff had as a priority when we purchased
our property & many of the owners have been here since the
early 1960's. Conversely, security, privacy, quiet, a safe
neighborhood for children & limited access were some of our
reasons for establishing homes in viewcliff. Connecting
25th Avenue SW from Ventana to viewcliff will destroy the
very atmosphere we came here to enjoy.
Within the past month a Meth house was discovered eight
blocks directly south of Viewcliff. We have no desire for
additional connectivity and strongly oppose it. Connectivity
will reduce our neighborhoods liviability & we do not desire
more circulation of traffic in our small neighborhood.
As you know, we filed a petition with the Federal Way City
Council on March 03, 1998 and made an oral appeal at that
meeting. We have met with Ms. Deb Barker, Assistant Planner,
Mr. Rick Perez, Traffic Engineer, Mr. Cary Roe, Public Works
Director in several meetings at City Hall with our protests
& appeal. Our objection to the connection of 25th Avenue SW
is strong and ongoing:
EXHIBIT I ~£
EXHIBIT - I 0
PAGE ~ OF 3
.
(§
.
( 2)
We a~k for relief of imposition of the Federal Way city Code,
Sect~on 20.151, Subdivision design. Specifically, we ask
that the existing 25th Avenue SW cul-de-sac in ViewCliff be.
made permanent. We additionally ask that SW 304th street
never be extended from 24th Avenue SW to 25th Avenue SW on
the ViewCliff-Ventana border & wording to that effect be
placed in the City's records.
Mr. Rick Perez, Traffic Engineer mentions extending SW 304th
street is a possibility in his review of our petition sent to
Ms. Deb Barker on March 09, 1998. He lists this on page two
of his review under section 20-151, Subdivision design,
paragraph (f).
Mr. Perez closes his review of our petition with this
summary: "The proposed street layout of the Ventana
subdivision is consistent with existing codes and
Comprehensive Plan goals and policies."
As stated 97% of the residents of ViewCliff do not want this
connectivity into Ventana on 25th Avenue SW & we ask for
relief of the existing codes, Comprehensive Plan goals and
policies which were written after Federal Way became a city.
When ci tyhood was being pushed we were told if we became a
City we would have more input into how our lives and property
would be governed. We now have Cityhood and we ask the city
Council to make good on that promise to respect our wishes
and we ask for relief on the 25th Avenue Connection with the
Vent ana subdivision, as well as never extending 304th SW from
24th Avenue SW to 25th Avenue SW between ViewCliff and
Ventana.
Respectfully,
Dale Kure
Robert Jones
. (For view Cliff Residents)
Dianne Ray
copy:
Ron Gintz
Michael Park
Kenneth Nyberg
Jeanne Burbidge
Jack Dovey
Mary Gates
Linda Kochmar
Phil Watkins
Mayor
Deputy Mayor
city Manager
City Council
City Council
city Council
City Council
city Council
file:
Appeall.doc
I6bUf
EXHIBIT G- \0
PAGElOF ~-
EXHIBIT
.---
.
Mr. Gregory D. Moore, AICP
Community Development Services Director
City of Federal Way
33530 First Way South
Federal Way, Washington 98003
.
j
October 29, 1998
Subject: Ventana Development Elimination of the 25th Ave
S.W. cul-de-sac in ViewCliff
Dear Mr. Moore:
We understand that the City of Federal Way is not going to honor
the requests of the ViewCliff residents to maintain the 25th Ave
S.W. cul-de-sac. We have previously expressed our concerns in
the enclosed letter. We have some first hand personal security
concerns because of our son's family recent home invasion here
in Federal Way.
,We are very disappointed that our city management is not listen-
ing to specific neighborhood requests. We have not been shown
why it is necessary for big brother to impose on our neighborhood
and change which has been working well for over 30 years. This
is another example why citizens can be disenchanted with govern-
ment bureaucracy ignoring their requests.
Respectfully,
~~
d-~ ~~
Robert & Betty Collins
30235 25th Ave S.W.
Federal Way, Washington
(253) 838-0764
98023
copy:
Ron Gintz
Michael Park
Kenneth Nyberg
Jeanne Burbidge
Jack Dovey
Mary Gates
Linda Kochmar
Phil Watkins
Robert Jones
Mayor
Deputy Mayor
City Manager
City Council
City Council
City Council
City Council
City Council
Enclo~\3¡;WNITY~~t~IWDE~RTM~Ore, same subject, May 9, 1998
OCT 3 0 1998 EXHIBIT
'fDHf
EXHIBIT G -II
PAGE-LOF ~
!\'JI"~~~
~'
'i~¡" .,
'"
'~L ':
i"""" .
,;,§~~,~~.}
,'"
¡(~
¡ "
~\
;:',.
rt
I
Jr.,
, "
,-,
. -. ..-------..=
.
.
May 9, 1998
Mr. Gregory Moore, ~ICP
Director of Community Development Services
33530 1st Way South
Federal Way, Washington 98003-6221
Subject:
Ventana Development Eliminatiœn of the 25th Ave. S.W.
Cul-De-Sac in View Cliff.
Dear Sir:
We are long time residence of View Cliff, one of the three original
families near the Cul-De-Sac on 25th Avenue S.W., over 30 years ago.
One of the factors in selecting this location was the added privacy
of. the View Cliff development. Along with our neighbors, we are
concerned about the opening up of 25th Avenue S.W. into the Ventana
development. The gain of additional access to and from our home is
not preferable to our loss of priv~cy. -;
In aqd~tion, we are very concerned about loss of some safety and
security by any added access to the neighborhood. This is a major
concern to us because of a recent experience.
We are the parents of the Des Moines police sargent and family
residing in Federal Way whose hõme was invaded, family threatened
at gun point and'r,obbed by juveniles in February. We have first
hand experience of the trama and anxiety suffered by a family under
those circumstances.
Until our society, law enforcement and judiciary do a better job of
protection, especially in our homes, we believe. that the opening up
of access to our street would significantly reduce the safety and
security to ourselves and neighbors.
We respectfully request you reconsider and' cancel the plan to open
up 25th Avenue S.W. Cul-De-Sac into the Ventana development for the
reasons stated above. .
Sincerely.,
æ,w,~
Á><>y C ~
Robert & Betty Collins
30235 25th Avenue S.W.
Federal Way, Wa. 98023-2316
(253) 838-0764
cc: Robert Jones.
29847 24th Avènue S.w.
~s:~ederal Way, Wa. 98023
EXHIBIT l1(~-~
EXH~
PAGE~OF '<9-
- -:.--
~
.
" ((2@ ~1f
October 26, 1998
City of Federal Way
Dept. of Community Development
33530 1st Way, South
Federal Way, Washington
98003
Subject:
File #
SEP 97-0036
SUB 97-0003
Proposal: Subdivision of a 9.9 acre Lot in 28 Single Family Lots.
Property between SW 304th and SW 306th Streets, at 24th Ave. SW Avenue
and at 25th Avenue SW.
For Those Concerned:
In this letter I would like to pass along information I received from
Marie Reed (now deceased). who had gathered much information of early
history here in the Federal Way area.
Talking with her about the Burt House Plat, which borders our neighbor-
hood, she once told me that there were burial plots in the Burt House Plat.
She thought they were burial plots of the family that originally owned the
land, or could eVen be Indian burial sites.
Because the land is thickly covered with trees, making it a water shed
source, and a protection for land erosion, does stripping the land create
an underground water seepage problem for homes located below the development?
EXtending 25th Avenue SW into the development will cover underground
electrical, television and telephone cables that come up from the Lakota
area. .
It is sad that the last remaining stand of virgin trees here in Fedezral
Way xs coming to end with this beautiful gift from Nature.
In sadness, .
~~U.~
Patricia H. Clark
;:~E"'::"'"D¡h' '..
ç,'~"V\. "'¡"".;<.cc".-.,',rŒ:p4'<n.,nil'
Ex~l~h~
EXHIBIT G- - \;)....
PAGE-L OF ..-L /
I
----
<,
II
cc
Cc
To: Cary M. Roe P.E. PW Director. Ci r, Of Federal Way
Jeff Pratt SWM Manager
Fei Tang SW Engineer
Deb Barker A~.soc. Planner
RECElvËd ã\f-98
roMWMTY OEVElO?MENï DEPARTMENT
Nay 2 1998
RE: Vantana Pre! im. Plat, SUB97-000S
Downstream Analysis I Storm Drainage PLan
I again wish to have my objections noted regarding the downstream drainage of
the Vantana Prelim. Plat.
After reviewing theCompfex Variance Request and the Storm Drainage Plans, I
sti II have concerns that have not been addressed or explained.
1. When the existing open ditches on 26th ave SW, and SW 30Sth PI. overflow, where
wi 1/ these waters go? If it is diverted as has been in the past, away from m)!
property this would be acceptable, any flow to the South or West would not.
2. Ihe added 12" overflow pipe from the existing 30Sth Detention Tank to 28th SW
aiso seams to jepordize the culverts. pipes and ditches downstream.
3. We are also concerned about what the City, and the Developer plan for the
western boundry of the platÎ it appears that open space tract #995 and the west
boundry of lots 20 and 21 will have no improvements, and the high bank along 26th
ft..V':: SWwil remain. I would hope the Cjtywou!d require improvments, as this
street is access for us downstreamers. The high bank has sluffed in the past, and is
a hazard. We find no indication in the pian that this problem was reviewed.
As stated in my past letters. We've had flooding problems in the past, and have
invested quite allot of effort and money in the improvment of our property for many
years. ("We are concerned" )
Lam also upset with the methJ~ ::Je City has responded to our concerns, none of
my past letters or questions have ùeen answered, or even acknowledged. We do not
have that confident feeling tr,û: :;-'{, City is :aking care of us or our property.
Sincerely,
Dean and Joyce Condos
Æl:"~IT I /If
EXHIBIT G - 13 .
PAGE~OF~ ..
Exhibit B - Preliminary Plat ofVentana
Director Response Letters to SEP A Comments
H.l
H.2
H-3
H-4
H-5
H-6
H-7
H-8
H-9
H-I0
H-ll
H-12
H-13
Dale Kure, Dianne Ray and Robert Jones
Patrick and Sean Redmond
Gary and Julie Gillespie
Richard Leisy
David Whiteside, Florence Larson, Louise Uhlman, Melody Bullock, Theodore
Ulmer and Eve Fey
James Craig
Chris Carrell
Betty Huff
Duane John
Margaret and Ronald Edmondson
Robert and Betty Collins
Patricia Clark
Dean and Joyce Condos
EXHIBIT . l ~ ?Ie
EXHIBIT ~
PAGE-LOF I
FILE
(253) 661-4000
FEDERAL WAY. WA 98003-6210
October 30, 1998
Mr. Dale Kure, Ms. Dianne Ray and Mr. Robert Jones
29847 - 24th Avenue SW
Federal Way, WA 98023
.,- .
/t{~..\. .;;:"»75)w}
~n ._1 U- ì1
RE:
SEP 97-0036, Preliminary Plat of Ventana,
Comments to the Mitigated DetenninaJion of Nonsignijicance
Dear Mr. Kure, Ms. Ray and Mr. Jones:
Thank you for your comment letter dated October 26, 1998 regarding the city's environmental
determination for the preliminary plat of Ventana.
As was previously discussed with you in meetings with staff, and in a written response from
Rick Perez, dated March 9, 1998 (enclosed), the proposed subdivision does meet the
comprehensive plan requirements for street connectivity and access. Connectivity was also
considered with the approved plat of Viewcliff No.2, and 25th Avenue SW is identified on the
approved plat with a "temporary tum-a-round to become void on extension of 25th Ave SW".
. The city has taken your comments into consideration. However, your letter dated October 26,
1998, does not raise any new information indicating the proposal's probable significant adverse
environmental impacts that were not previously disclosed. As the City's responsible
environmental official, I have determined that your comments have been adequately addressed
by the environmental checklist and the City's evaluation. Therefore no modifications to the
current mitigated determination of nonsignificance are warranted at this time.
The initial Mitigated Determination of Non Significance (MONS) is now the city's [mal
decision. Any person aggrieved of the City's final determination must me an appeal with the
City by 5:00 pm, November 13, 1998, pursuant to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) section
18-51 (enclosed). Appeal provisions for the above referenced State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) are outlined in the enclosed handout. SEPA appeal fees are $70.00 and are
nonrefundable.
Your letter dated October 26, 1998 stated that "the homeowners of Viewcliff hereby appeal
paragraph 5 of the City of Federal Way's MDNS". Please be advised that to consider your
letter a valid appeal by code, the provisions of FWCC Section 18-51 must be met. Please refer
to the appeal handout and the process ~V handout for requirements.
If you have any questions or would like additional information, please don't h~itate to ....,
EXHIBIT
EXHIBIT
PAGE-LOF ~
",:"",
\ \~.
. "@
)- -
)
October 30, 1998
Page 2
Rick Perez, Traffic Engineer, at (253) 661-4133 or Deb Barker, Associate Planner, at (253)
661-4103.
Sincerely,
~
Moore, AICP
0 Community Development Services
enc.
Copy of March 9, 1998 letter from Rick Perez
FWCC section 18-51
SEP A appeal handout
Process IV handout
c:
VÍ>eb Barker, Associate Planner
Rick Perez
Cary Roe
File
i: \subdivis\ ventana \seprespn. 00 1
EXHIBIT~ 1 ¡if:
EXHIBIT ~
PAGE ;;).. OF -~
~
')
)
FILE
(253)661-4000
FEDERAL WAY. WA 98003-6210
Patrick and Sean Redmond
30423 - 23rd Avenue SW
Federal Way, WA 98023
October 30, 1998
RE:
SEP 97-0036, Preliminary Plat of Ventana,
Comments on the Mitigated Detennination of Nonsignijicance
~ 'g: .~:' -- ,-, ,"7 '
Dear Patrick and Sean Redmond:
Thank you for your comment letter regarding the city's environmental determination for the
preliminary plat of Ventana. The following information is provided in response to the
comments and concerns expressed in your letter.
1.
Grading - The preliminary plat ofVentana was submitted on October 17, 19'98 as a 25
lot subdivision with four open space tracts. On March 28, 1998, the developer
modified the application to propose a 28 lot subdivision with one open space tract. The
balance of the open space is to be paid via fee- in-lieu-of providing the open space on.
site in accordance with the Federal Way City Code (FWCC) section 20-155(b)
(enclosed).
Mass grading is reviewed under the Federal Way subdivision code. In the case of
Ventana, the mass grading request presented by the developer is being reviewed by city
staff and if approved by City Council will be subject to engineering plan review. The
open space tract and other areas are to be omitted from the mass grading. Staff
considers some level of mass grading of the site reasonable because of the site's
topography, existing and proposed roadway configurations, location of existing and
proposed utilities, and to reduce construction related impacts. A reduced scale map of
the preliminary clearing and grading plan is enclosed.
2.
Drainage - To clarify, your property lies east of the proposed plat of Vent ana, in the plat
of Adelaide Park.
The proposed plat of Vent ana is required to be designed in accordance with the 1990 King
County Surface Water Management Manual (KCSWDM), and in conformance with
conditions imposed by the Public Works Director.
At this time, a surface water variance request to modify drainage basins has been granted
by the Public Works Director subject to conditions. Condition number 1 from the
approved surface water variance request states "The flow rates ftom the southeast basin,
northeast basin and northwest basin in the developed condition need to be analyzed. The
peak discharge rates ftom above three basins for the 2-year and lO-year 7-day design
storm events in the developed condition have to be equal or less than the peak discharge
EXHIBIT';$t~~~#..ç
EXHIBIT H - :¡.
PAGE-LOF 3
3 ...~) \ ~
')
)
I.
Redmond response letter
October 3D, 1998
page 2
rates in the existing condition for the same basin and the same design storm event. "
This condition is are-statement of the code requirement ITom the 1990 King County
Surface Water Management Manual as well as the Draft Executive Proposed Basin Plan
Hylebos Creek and Lnwer Puget Sound. Please be advised that the project is currently
being reviewed by the City's Surface Water Management Division for compliance with the
above condition as well as other requirements of the FWCC and KCSWDM codes.
Preliminary plat engineering plans prepared by Pinnacle Engineering dated July, 1998
depict a proposed 20' drainage easement on the east side of the site which would tightline
the storm water ITom the houses on lots 1 through 8 to the northeast corner of the subject
site into an underground infiltration system. A rockery is proposed on the eastern lot line
of the Ventana Plat with a maximum height of8 feet shown.
You query as to who is going to be responsible for any drainage damage to the existing
homes now and in the future. In response, the current condition of the drainage is that it
flows ITom the eastern side of the site in an easterly direction. The applicant will be
required to document that proposed drainage system discharges are equal or less than the
peak discharge rates in the existing condition for the same basin and the same design
storm event. The project must be constructed to meet the current Federal Way code
standards.
You also ask if the City is going to accept any liability for drainage now and in the future.
In response, the City ofFederai Way is the reviewing agency only. The developer is
proposing the project. The liability for the drainage presently is a civil issue between two
private property owners. The liability for the drainage in the future will also be a civil issue
between two private property owners.
3.
Fence encroachment - You ask who is responsible for removal and replacement of the
fence. In response, the fencing issue is again a civil matter as it (the fence) sits on
private property.
4.
Eagle perching/tree replacement - A June 26, 1997 Wildlife Study/Eagle Assessment
was prepared by Terra Associates. It indicated that eagles reside approximately 2,000
feet north of the subject site in the large unimproved park site. The study states that
eagles may perch in the trees of the subject site.
According to the Eagle Assessment dated July 9, 1998, retention and/or replacement of
significant trees and vegetation, as well as incorporation of street trees and buffer open
space into subdivision design, will help mitigate the introduction of human activities on
wildlife habitat. Open space provided for the site is in the form of 10,284 square feet of
constrained and buffer open space. :<~efin~ by the FWCC. XH1. ãïf~
,.,~"~ÜC, ~ ') OF 3
~HIBI(';7i;?,,~";: ..'[It::<.. AGE~
','"
-,
ì
)
,., '
Redmond response lelter
October 30, 1998
page 3
retained'in this tract will provide eagle perching..habitat as the subdivision vegetation
matures.
The report recommends that perch tree replacement be initiated through installation of
evergreen trees on each individual building lot. The condition is recommended as a
means to mitigate potential adverse impacts to eagle habitat. The report states that the
intent of the recommendation was not to provide immediate perch sites for eagles.
Rather the trees planted in lots would, over time, become large enough to serve as
potential perch trees for eagles. Copies of the report pages are enclosed.
The city has taken your comments into consideration. However, your letter dated October 23,
1998, does not raise any new information indicating the proposal's probable significant adverse
environmental impacts that were not previously disclosed. M the City's responsiblë
environmental official, I have determined that your comments have been adequately addressed
by the environmental checklist and the City's evaluation. Therefore no modifications to the
current mitigated determination of nonsignificance are warranted at this time.
The Mitigated Determination of Non Significance (MONS) is now the city's final decision.
Any person aggrieved of the City's final determination must file an appeal with the City by
5:00 pm, November 13, 1998, pursuant to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) section 18-51
(enclosed). Appeal provisions for the above referenced State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) are outlined in the enclosed handout. SEPA appeal fees are $70.00 and are
nonrefundable.
If you have any questions or would like additional information, please don't hesitate to call
Lisa Read, Consulting Engineer, at (253) 661-4109, Fei Tang, Surface Water Engineer (253)
661-4015, or Deb Barker, Associate Planner, at (253) 661-4103.
Sincerely,
~::J M?::::
Director of Community Development Services
enc.
Preliminary clearing and grading plan
FWCC section 20-155
Eagle assessment report
FWCC section 18-51
SEPA appeal handout
Process IV handout
l~UE
EXHIBIT~
PAG E~ OF ~~
EXHIBIT
c:
Lisa Read
Fei Tang
Jeff Pratt
Wellington Moms
i: Isubdiv is \ venlana Iseprespn. 002
(
(
FILE
(253)661-4000
FEDERAL WAY. W^ 98003-6210
November 10, 1998
Gary & Julie Gillespie
29844 - 24th Avenue SW
Federal Way, WA 98023
REo'
SEP 97-0036, Prelimina¡y PÚll of Ventana,
Comments on the MitigaJed Detennination of Nonsignificance
Dear Gary & Julie Gillespie:
Thank you for your comment letter regarding the city's environmental determination for the
preliminary plat of Ventana. The following information is provided in response to the
comments and concerns expressed in your letter.
1.
Grading and Wildlife - On March 28, 1998, the developer, Wellington Morris, Inc.,
submitted revised preliminary plat application materials for the 28-1ot subdivision. The
Ventana preliminary plat contains one open space tract, with the balance of the open
space obligation to be paid via fee- in-lieu-of providing the open space on site, in
accordance with the Federal Way City Code (FWCC) section 20-155(b) (enclosed).
Grading for the preliminary plat project is reviewed under the Federal Way subdivision
code. In the case of Ventana, a mass grading request presented by Wellington Morris is
being reviewed by city staff and if approved by City Council will be subject to
engineering plan review. The open space tract and other areas are to be excluded from
mass grading. Staff considers some level of mass grading of the site reasonable because
of the site's topography, existing and proposed roadway configurations, location of
existing and proposed utilities, and to reduce construction related impacts.
A June 26, 1997 Wildlife Study/Eagle Assessment was prepared by Terra Associates,
Inc. for the development. It indicated that eagles reside approximately 2,000 feet north
of the subject site in the large unimproved park site. The study states that eagles may
perch in the trees of the subject site. According to the Eagle Assessment dated July 9,
1998, retention and/or replacement of significant trees and vegetation, as well as
incorporation of street trees and buffer open space into subdivision design, will help
mitigate the introduction of human activities on wildlife habitat. Open space provided
EXHIBIT-.H -1
PAGE-LOF
EXHIBIT
(]~(
-'i!
i', "~ ~
(
'.
(
Gillespie response letter
November 10. 1998
page 2
for the site is in the form of 10,284 square feet of constrained and buffer open space as
defined by the FWCC. The 11 mature trees retained in this tract will provide eagle
perching habitat as the subdivision vegetation matures.
The report recommends that perch tree replacement be initiated through installation of
evergreen trees on each individual building lot. The condition is recommended as a
means to mitigate potential adverse impacts to eagle habitat. The report states that the
intent of the recommendation was not to provide immediate perch sites for eagles.
Rather the trees planted in lots would, over time, become large enough to serve as
potential perch trees for eagles.
Based on other comments from neighbors, the city has required the appliCR!lt to provide
a supplemental wildlife study to address the presence of goshawks, red pileated
woodpeckers, owls and Ensatina Salamanders. Once this information is received, the
city will again review the required mitigation for this project.
2.
Roadway Connection: Your letter indicates concern regarding the proposed vehicular
connection between Viewcliff and Ventana. As detailed in the March 9, 1998
memorandum from Rick Perez, Traffic Engineer, (enclosed), the proposed subdivision
does meet the comprehensive plan requirements for street connectivity and access. The
Federal Way Comprehensive Plan and the Federal Way Subdivision Code are
documents written and adopted by the Federal Way City Council within a public
process.
Street connectivity was also considered by King County with the 1964 approval of the
plat of Viewcliff No.2. The face of that plat identifies 25th Avenue SW with a
"temporary turn-a-round to become void on extension of 25th Ave SW".
The city has taken your comments into consideration. However, your letter dated October 28,
1998, does not provide any new information indicating the proposal's probable significant
adverse environmental impacts that were not previously disclosed. As the City's responsible
environmental official, I have determined that your comments have been adequately addressed
by the environmental checklist and the City's evaluation. Therefore, no modifications to the
current mitigated determination of nonsignificance are warranted at this time.
The Mitigated Determination of Non Significance (MDNS) is now the city's final decision.
Any person aggrieved of the City's final determination may file an åppeal with the City by
5:00 p.m., November 13, 1998, pursuant to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) section 18-51
(enclosed). Appeal provisions for the above referenced State Environmental Policy Act
EXHIBIT H -3
PAGE d..-OF 3
EXHIBIT~
(
(
Gillespie response letter
November 10, 1998
page 3
(SEPA) are oûtlined in the enclosed handout. SEPA appeal fees are $70.00 and are
nonrefundable.
Please be advised that the City has received other information related to potential impacts to
wildlife, habitat and cultural resources. The city will be reviewing this information in more
detail through studies provided by the applicant. Pursuant to RCW 197-11-340(3)(a)(ii), the
city will withdraw a DNS if there is significant new information indicating, or on, a proposals
probable adverse environmental impacts. Should the environmental decision be withdrawn, all
property owners within 300 feet of the subject site will be provided with the new
environmental determination for the project.
If you have any questions or would like additional information, please don't hesitate to calI
Deb Barker, Associate Planner, at (253) 661-4103.
Sincerely,
7{~M~
Gregory D. Moore, í\ICP
Director of Community Development Services
ene.
FWCC section 20-155
Eagle assessment report
FWCC section 18-51
SEPA appeal handout
Process IV handout
e:
Wellington Morris
file
i: lsulxIivis \ ventana lseprespn.003
EXHIB/T~( 1 f/£
EXHIBIT H - 3
PAGE~OF 3
. ._~-~c_".~~"'-,
(
(
FILE
33530 1ST WAY SOUTH
(253)661-4000
FEDERAL WAY. WA 98003-6210
November 10, 1998
Richard and Jacklyn Leisy
30234 - 25th Ave SW
Federal Way, WA 98023
RE:
SEP 97-0036, Preliminary Plat of Ventana,
Comments on the MitigaJed Dete171lÍ1UllÛJn of Nonsignificance
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Leisy:
Thank you for your comment letter regarding the city's environmental determú¡ation for the
preliminary plat of Ventana. The following information is provided in response to the
comments and concerns expressed in your letter.
Roadway Connection: Your letter indicates concern regarding the proposed vehicular
connection between ViewcJiff and Ventana- As detailed in the March 9, 1998 memorandum
from Rick Perez, Traffic Engineer, (enclosed), the proposed subdivision does meet the City of
Federal Way comprehensive plan requirements for street connectivity and access. The Federal
Way Comprehensive Plan and the Federal Way Subdivision Code are documents written and
adopted by the Federal Way City Council within a public process.
Street connectivity was also considered by King County with the 1964 approval of the plat of
Viewcliff No.2. The face of that plat identifies 25th Avenue SW with a "temporary turn-a-
,-round to become void on extension of 25th Ave SW".
The city has taken your comments into consideration. However, your letter dated October 29,
1998, does not provide any new information indicating the proposal's probable significant
adverse environmental impacts that were not previously disclosed. As the City's responsible
environmental official, I have determined that your comments have been adequately addressed
by the environmental checklist and the City's evaluation. Therefore, no modifications to the
current mitigated determination of nonsignificance are warranted at this time.
The Mitigated Determination of Non Significance (MONS) is now the city's final decision.
Any person aggrieved of the City's final determination may file an appeal with the City by
5:00 p.m., November 13, 1998"pursuant to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) section 18-51
(enclosed). Appeal provisions for the above referenced State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) are outlined in the enclosed handout. SEPA appeal fees are $70.00 and are
,nonrefundable. . ¡ 1 ft t'
EXHIBIT-
Please be advised that the City has received other information related to potential impacts to
EXHIBIT.Ji - L{
PAGE-LOF ~
c
r
Leisy SEPA comment letter
November 10, 1998
Page 2
wildlife, habítat and cultural resources. The city will be reviewing this information in more
detail through studies provided by the applicant. Pursuant to RCW 197-11-34Q(3)(a)(ii), the
city will withdraw a DNS if there is significant new information indicating, or on, a proposals
probable adverse environmental impacts. Should the environmental decision be withdrawn, all
property owners within 300 feet of the subject site will be provided with the new
environmental determination for the project.
If you have any questions or would like additional information, please don't hesitate to call
Rick Perez, Traffic Engineer at (253) 661-4133 or Deb Barker, Associate Planner, at (253)
661-4103.
Sincerely,
f(~~
Gregory D. Moore, AICP
Director of Community Development Services
enc.
Public WorlΠMemorandum
FWCC section 18-51
SEPA appeal handout
Process IV handout
c:
Rick Perez
Deb Barker
Wellington Morris
i: Isubdivis \ ventana lseprespn.OO4
t ~tbé
EXHIBIT H-Lf
PAGE d.- OF ;;)...
EXHIBIT
/.
._---~
c
(
FILE
(253) 661-4000
FEDERAL WAY. WA 98003-6210
David Whiteside
Florence Larson
Louise Uhlman
Melody Bullock
Theodore Ulmer
Eve Fey
2245 SW 306th Street
Federal Way, W A 98023
November 10, 1998
RE:
SEP 97-0036, Preliminmy Plat of Ventana,
Comments on the Múigated Detennituztion of Nonsignificance
Dear Lakota Highlands Residents:
Thank you for your comment letter regarding the city's environmental determination for the
preliminary plat of Ventana. The following information is provided in response to the
comments and concerns expressed in your letter.
1.
Grading and WiIdIüe - Your letter indicates that you feel that the MONS finding of
fact Number 7 addresses a different proposal than was presented with respect to tree
retention.
The preliminary plat ofVentana was submitted on October 17, 1997 as a 25-10t
subdivision with four open space tracts. The tracts were provided to meet the
subdivision code open space requirements in effect at that time.
The Federal Way City Council approved amendments to the City's subdivision code on
January 6, 1998. The open space requirement was modified to allow fee in-lieu-of
payment instead of providing all of the open space on site for all subdivisions
regardless of the lot size. Previously, lots over 5 acres in size were required to provide
on-site open space; fee-in-lieu-of payments were not permitted.
These amendments were passed by the city council in response to the inferior open
space areas which were being proposed by within subdivisions. These open space areas
tended to be small and difficult to maintain. Pooling the open space payments permitted
the Parks Department to acquire desirable open space areas which could be successfully
maintained. EXHIBIT. li #-t:
On March 28, 1998, the developer modified the subdivision layout to propose a 28-10t
subdivision with one open space tract. The balance of the open space obligation is to be
EXHIBIT -H -5
PAGE~OF 3
~
. ,
I)'. ,; ,.
(
(
Lakota Highlands Residents
November 10, 1998
Page 2
met via fee- in-lieu-of providing the open space on site in accordance with the Federal
Way City Code (FWCC) Section 20-155(b) (enclosed).
The subdivision code discusses tree retention and grading activities in several locations.
FWCC Section 20-179(b), Retention of Vegetation, states that preservation of the
significant trees pursuant to FWCC Section 22-1568 shall apply solely to the
development of each single family lot at the time at the time a building permit is
applied for. Grading for the preliminary plat project is reviewed under the FWCC
Section 20-179. In the case of Ventana, a mass grading request presented by the
applicant is being reviewed by city staff and if approved by City Council will be
subject to engineering design and review. The open space tract and other areas are to be
omitted from the mass grading. Staff considers some level of mass grading of the site
reasonable because of the site's topography, existing and proposed roadway
configurations, location of existing and proposed utilities, and to reduce construction
related impacts. A site that has mass grading approval will be required to implement
tree replacement for those significant trees not identified in roadways or utility
corridors.
2.
Eagles - A June 26, 1997 Wildlife Study/Eagle Assessment was prepared by Terra
Associates, Inc. for the development. It indicated that eagles reside approximately
2,000 feet north of the subject site in the large unimproved park site. The study states
that eagles may perch in the trees of the subject site. According to the Eagle
Assessment dated July 9, 1998, retention and/or replacement of significant trees and
vegetation, as well as incorporation of street trees and buffer open space into
subdivision design, will help mitigate the introduction of human activities on wildlife
habitat. Open space provided for the site is in the form of 10,284 square feet of
constrained and buffer open space as defined by the FWCC. The 11 mature trees
retained in this tract will provide eagle perching habitat while the subdivision
vegetation matures.
The report recommends that perch tree replacement be initiated through installation of
evergreen trees on each individual building lot. The condition is recommended as a
means to mitigate potential adverse impacts to eagle habitat. The report states that the
intent of the recommendation was not to provide immediate perch sites for eagles.
Rather the trees planted in lots would, over time, become large enough to serve as
potential perch trees for eagles.
3.
Street improv'ements - The preliminary plat depicts roadway connections from the
subject site onto 24th Avenue SW with extension of roadway, curbs, gutters and
sidewalks, Existing improvements meet current street standards for the neighborhood
classification and do not require additional improvement~Hî~rr¡<ing r~e_~
l~B( PAGE~OF 3
- EXHIBIT
!
I .
c
f
Lakota Highlands Residents
November 10, 1998
Page 3
be established &om 24th Avenue SW eastward along SW 304th Street to Adelaide
Elementary, &om which area students will benefit.
The city has taken your comments into consideration. However, your letter dated October 29,
1998, does not raise any new information indicating the proposal's probable significant adverse
environmental impacts that were not previously disclosed. As the City's responsible
environmental official, I have determined that your comments have been adequately addressed
by the environmental checklist and the City's evaluation. Therefore no modifications to the
current mitigated determination of nonsignificance are warranted at this time.
The Mitigated Determination of Non Significance (MONS) is now the city's final-decision.
Any person aggrieved of the City's final determination must file an appeal with the City by
5:00 pm, November 13, 1998, pursuant to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) section 18-51
(enclosed). Appeal provisions for the above referenced State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) are outlined in the enclosed handout. SEPA appeal fees are $70.00 and are
nonrefundable.
Please be advised that the City has received other information related to potential impacts to
wildlife, habitat and cultural resources. The city will be reviewing this information in more
detail through studies provided by the applicant. Pursuant to RCW 197-11-340(3)(a)(ü), the
city will withdraw the DNS if there is significant new information indicating, or on, a
proposals probable adverse environmental impacts. Should the environmental decision be
withdrawn, all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site will be provided with the
new environmental determination for the project.
If you have any questions or would like additional information, please don't hesitate to call
Rick Perez, Traffic Engineer at (253) 661-4133 or Deb Barker, Associate Planner, at (253)
661-4103.
Sincerely,
G:!::::f ~ t~
Director of Community Development Services
ene.
FWCC section 20-155
FWCC Section20-179
FWCC section 18-51
SErA appeal handout
Process IV handout
EXHIBIT
I~Hf
e:
Riek Perez
Deb Barker
Wellington Morris
EXHIBIT ~
PAGE~OF 3
i: IsubdivislvenllUUl Iseprespn.OO5
(
(
\.
FILE
(253) 661-4000
FEDERAL WAY. WI'. 98003-6210
Mr. James Craig
30254 - 24th Avenue SW
Federal Way, WA 98023
November 10,1998
RE:
SEP 97-0036, Prelimituuy Plilt of Ventana,
Comments on the MiJigated Determination of Nonsignificance
Dear Mr. Craig:
Thank you for your comment letter regarding the city's environmental determination for the
preliminary plat of Ventana. The following information is provided in response to the
comments and concerns expressed in your letter.
Your letter indicates your dissatisfaction with the open space proposed with the revised
preliminary plat of Ventana.
As we discussed in a phone conversation on November 2, 1998, the preliminary plat of
Ventana was submitted on October 17, 1997 as a 25 lot subdivision with four open space
tracts. The tracts were provided to meet the subdivision code open space requirements in effect
at that time.
The Federal Way City Council approved amendments to the City's subdivision code on
January 6, 1998 under Ordinance # 98-309 (enclosed). The open space requirement was
modified to permit fee in-lieu-of payments instead of providing all of the required open space
on the subject site for subdivisions regardless of the lot size. Previously, subdivision of lots
larger than 5 acres in size were required to provide all open space on-site; fee in lieu of
payments were not permitted.
The subdivision amendments were passed by the Federal Way City Council in response to the
inferior open space areas which were being proposed within subdivisions. These open space
areas tended to be small and difficult to maintain. Pooling the open space payments has
permitted the Parks Department to acquire desirable open space areas which could be
successfully maintained.
On March 28, 1998, the Ventana applicant modified the subdivision layout to propose a 28 lot
subdivision with one open space tract. The balance of the open space obligation is to be met
via fee- in-lieu-of providing the open space on site in accordance with the Federal Way City
Code (FWCC) Section 20-15~(b) (enclosed). Please note that funds acquired from this project
must be spent in the PARCS Comprehensive Planning Area for this property unless agreed to
by the applicant.
I ¿¡ J}r5 ~XHIBIT -H - ~
_EX_HIBIT~AGE-LOF ~
.. """'.'., ...
---
(
c
James Craig
November 10, 1998
Page 2
Your May 10, 1998 letter correctly identifies this particular site as selected by King County for
open space acquisition. Following incorporation, the City of Federal Way made several attempts
to purchase the lot for open space with no success. The City declined to condemn the site, and,
instead, with King County's approval, reallocated the funds to other open space purchases.
The city has taken your comments into consideration. However, your letter dated October 29,
1998, does not raise any new information indicating the proposal's probable significant adverse
environmental impacts that were not previously disclosed. As the City's responsible
environmental official, I have determined that your comments have been adequately addressed
by the environmental checklist and the City's evaluation. Therefore no modifications to the
current mitigated determination of nonsignificance are warranted at this time.
The Mitigated Determination of Non Significance (MONS) is now the city's final decision.
Any person aggrieved of the City's final determination may file an appeal with the City by
5:00 pm, November 13, 1998, pursuant to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) section 18-51
(enclosed). Appeal provisions for the above referenced State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) are outlined in the enclosed handout. SEPA appeal fees are $70.00 and are
nonrefundable. .
Please be advised that the City has received other information related to potential impacts to
wildlife, habitat and cultural resources. The city will be reviewing this infonriation in more
detail through studies provided by the applicant. Pursuant to RCW 197-11-340(3)(a)(ii), the
city will withdraw a DNS if there is significant new information indicating, or on, a proposals
probable adverse environmental impacts. Should the environmental decision be withdrawn, all
property owners within 300 feet of the subject site will be provided with the new
environmental determination for the project.
If you have any questions or would like additional information, please don't hesitate to call
Deb Barker, Associate Planner, at (253) 661-4103.
Sincerely,
K~M~
Gregory D. Moore, AICP
Director of Community Development Services
ene.
FWCC section 20.155
FWCC section 18.51
SEPA appeal handout
Process rv handout
Ordinance
il1lff
EXHIBIT H-lo
PAGE-20F d..
EXHIBIT
i: \subd i vis\ venlana \sepresp. 006
C'
c
FILE
(253) 661-4000
FEDERAL WAY. WA 98003-6210
November 10, 1998
Mr. Chris Carrel
30324 - 24th Avenue SW
Federal Way, WA 98023
RE:
SEP 97-0036, Preliminary Plal of Ventana,
CommelÚS on the M.,.tigated Detennination of Nonsignificance
Dear Mr. Carrel:
Thank you for your comment letter regarding the city's environmental determination for the
preliminary plat of Ventana. The following information is provided in response to the
comments and concerns expressed in your letter.
1.
WiIdlüe - Your letter asks that the determination be reversed based on the fact that the
proponents have failed to identify the presence of hawks, red pileated woodpeckers,
owls and Ensatina salamanders on the site and did not mitigate for these species.
The applicant has been advised of your observations, and is being required to
supplement the wildlife study to address the presence of hawks, red pileated
woodpeckers, owls and Ensatina salamanders on the site. The city, with assistance from
the Department of Fish and WIldlife will review this information. Pursuant to RCW
197-11-340(3)(a)(rl), the city will withdraw the Determination of Nonsignificance
(DNS) if there is significant new information indicating, or on, a proposals probable
adverse environmental impacts. Should the environmental decision be withdrawn, all
property owners within 300 feet of the subject site will be notified of the new
environmental decision.
As noted in your letter, the Washington State Priority Habitat Program is a voluntary
program. Neither the City nor the state can compel a property owner to participate in
this program.
2.
Open Space - The preliminary plat of Ventana was submitted on Oétober 17, 1997 as a
25 lot subdivision with four open space tracts. The tracts were provided to meet the
subdivision code open space requirements in effect at that ËmXH I B iT --.H- 1
",.;,.,.~,;:~""~",,,:,"'.,.;-. P'^GE I OF 3
.. -" ,-....,," M
EXHIBIT""" - --~
"".
~".;«ji
c
c
",
,,;
Chris Carrel
November 10, 1998
Page 2
The Federal Way City Council approved amendments to the City's subdivision code on
January 6, 1998 under Ordinance # 98-309. The open space requirement was modified
to permit fee in-lieu-of payments instead of providing all of the required open space on
the subject site for subdivisions regardless of the lot size. Previously, subdivision of
lots larger than 5 acres in size were required to provide all open space on-site; fee in
lieu of payments were not permitted.
The subdivision amendments were passed by the Federal Way City Council in response
to the inferior open space areas which were being proposed within subdivisions. These
open space areas tended to be small and difficult to maintain. Pooling the open space
payments has permitted the Parks Department to acquire desirable open sp,!ce areas
which could be successfully maintained.
On March 28, 1998, the Ventana applicant modified the subdivision layout to propose a
28 lot subdivision with one open space tract. The balance of the open space obligation
is to be met via fee- in-lieu-of providing the open space on site in accordance with the
Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Section 20-155(b) (enclosed).
If the applicant were to provide open space on the site, at least 10 percent of the 15
percent is required to be usable open space, considered for development as active
recreation areas pursuant to FWCC Section 10-155(a)(l).There are no minimums or
maximums of conservation open space. As stated in FWCC section 20-155(a)(2),
conservation open space and usable open space may be, but are not always, mutually
inclusive.
3.
Roadway Connection: Your letter indicates concern regarding the proposed vehicular
connection betWeen Viewcliff and Ventana. As detailed in the March 9, 1998
memorandum from Rick Perez, Traffic Engineer, (enclosed), the proposed subdivision
does meet the comprehensive plan requirements for street connectivity and access. The
Federal Way Comprehensive Plan and the Federal Way Subdivision Code are
documents written and adopted by the Federal Way City Council within a public
process.
Street connectivity was also considered by King County with the 1964 approval of the
plat of Viewcliff No.2. The face of that plat identifies 25th Avenue SW with a
"temporary turn-a-round to become void on extension of 25th Ave SW".
The city has taken your comments into consideration. While, your letter dated October 30,
1998, does raise new information, staff d~snot,have..informati~ ¡8ft: the H - 7
EXHIBIT,':"€'!f~/" .~ PAGE 2 OF 3
(
(
Chris Carrel
November 10, 1998
Page 3
proposal's probable significant adverse environmental impacts that were not previously
disclosed. As the City's responsible environmental official, I have determined that no
modifications to the current mitigated determination of nonsignificance are wananted at this
time. However, once we received the requested wildlife study, this decision will be reviewed
(see page 1).
The Mitigated Determination of Non Significance (MONS) is now the city's final decision.
Any person aggrieved of the City's final determination may file an appeal with the City by
5:00 pm, November 13, 1998, pursuant to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) section 18-51
(enclosed). Appeal provisions for the above referenced State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) are outlined in the enclosed handout. SEPA appeal fees are $70.00 and are
nonrefundable.
Please be advised that the City has received information related to potential impacts cultural
resources. The city will be reviewing this information in more detail through studies provided
by the applicant, as well as the wildlife study. Pursuant to RCW 197-11-340(3)(a)(ü), the city
will withdraw the DNS if there is significant new information indicating, or on, a proposals
probable adverse environmental impacts. Should the environmental decision be withdrawn, all
property owners within 300 feet of the subject site will be provided with new environmental
determinations for the project.
If you have any questions or would like additional information, please don't hesitate to call
Deb Barker, Associate Planner, at (253) 661-4103.
Sincerely,
K~ Mc~~
Gregory D. Moore, AICP t
Director of Community Development Services
enc.
FWCC section 20-155
FWCC section 18-51
SEPA appeal handout
Process N handout
i :Isubdi vislventanalsepresp.OO7
EXHIBIT_if/; ~----
EXHIBIT 1-1- I
PAGElOF 3
->--------A-
(/
c
FILE
(253) 661-4000
FEDERAl WAY. WA 98003-6210
November 10, 1998
Ms. Betty Huff
29824 - 24th Ave SW
Federal Way, WA 98023
REo'
SEP 97-0036, Preliminary P1ol of Ventana,
Comments on the Mitigated DetenninaJWn of Nonsignificance
Dear Ms. Huff:
Thank you for your comment letter regarding the city's environmental determination for the
preliminary plat of Ventana. The following information is provided in response Co the
comments and concerns expressed in your letter.
Roadway Connection: Your letter indicates concern regarding the proposed vehicular
connection between Viewcliff and Ventana. As detailed in the March 9, 1998 memorandum
from Rick Perez, Traffic Engineer, (enclosed), the proposed subdivision does meet the City of
Federal Way comprehensive plan requirements for street connectivity and access. The Federal
Way Comprehensive Plan and the Federal Way Subdivision Code are documents written and
adopted by the Federal Way City Council within a public process.
Street connectivity was also considered by King County with the 1964 approval of the plat of
Viewcliff No.2. The face of that plat identifies 25th Avenue SW with a "temporary turn-a-
round to become void on extension of 25th Ave SW..
The city has taken your comments into consideration. However, your letter dated October 30,
1998, does not provide any new information indicating the proposal's probable significant
adverse environmental impacts that were not previously disclosed. As the City's responsible
environmental official, I have determined that your comments have been adequately addressed
by the environmental checklist and the City's evaluation. Therefore, no modifications to the
current mitigated determination of nonsignificance are warranted at this time.
The Mitigated Determination of Non Significance (MDNS) is now the city's final decision.
Any person aggrieved of the City's final determination may file an appeal with the City by
5:00 p.m., November 13, 1998, pursuant to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) section 18-51
(enclosed). Appeal provisions for the above referenced State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) are outlined in the enclosed handout. SEPA appeal fees are $70.00 and are
nonrefundable.
Please be advised that the City has received other information related to potential impacts to
EXHIBIT c':>~~;.~C
EXHIBIT ~ - 8
P A G E.--:..L 0 F .;L
(
c
HuffSEPA comment letter
November 10, 1998
Page 2
wildlife, haliitat and cultural resources. The city will be reviewing this information in more
detail through studies provided by the applicant. Pursuant to RCW 197-11-340(3)(a)(ü), the
city will withdraw a DNS if there is significant new information indicating, or on, a proposals
probable adverse environmental impacts. Should the environmental decision be withdrawn, all
property owners within 300 feet of the subject site will be provided with the new
environmental determination for the project.
If you have any questions or would like additional information, please don't hesitate to call
Rick Perez, Traffic Engineer at (253) 661-4133 or Deb Barker, Associate Planner, at (253)
661-4103.
Sincerely,
K~ Nlc~
Gregory D. Moore, AICP
Director of Community Development Services
enc.
Public Works Memorandum
FWCC section 18-51
SEPA appeal handout
Process rv handout
c:
Rick Perez
Deb Barker
Wellington Morris
i: Isubdivis \ ventana Iseprespn. 008
EXHIBIT I ~ HE -----
EXHIBiT H - '8
PAGE~OF :L
"----.u_--~
c
(
FilE
. (253)661-4000
FEDERAL WAY. WA 98003-6210
November ~O, 1998
Mr. Duane John
30244 - 24th Ave SW
Federal Way, WA 98023
RE:
SEP 97-0036, Preliminary Plat of VenJana,
Comments on the MiJigaJed Detennination of Nonsignificance
Dear Mr. John:
Thank you for your comment letter regarding the city's environmental determination for the
preliminary plat ofVentana. The following information is provided in response10 the
comments and concerns expressed in your letter.
Roadway Connection: Your letter indicates concern regarding the proposed vehicular
connection between Viewcliff and Ventana. A1; detailed in the March 9, 1998 memorandum
from Rick Perez, Traffic Engineer, (enclosed), the proposed subdivision does meet the City of
Federal Way comprehensive plan requirements for street connectivity and access. The Federal
Way Comprehensive Plan and the Federal Way Subdivision Code are documents written and
adopted by the Federal Way City Council within a public process.
Street connectivity was also considered by King County with the 1964 approval of the plat of
Viewcliff No.2. The face of that plat identifies 25th Avenue SW with a "temporary turn-a-
. round to become void on extension of 25th Ave SW".
The city has taken your comments into consideration. However, your letter dated October 29,
1998, does not provide any new information indicating the proposal's probable significant
adverse environmental-impacts that were not previously disclosed. As the City's responsible
environmental official, I have determined that your comments have been adequately addressed
by the environmental checklist and the City's evaluation. Therefore, no modifications to the
current mitigated determination of nonsignificance are warranted at this time.
The Mitigated Determination of Non Significance (MONS) is now the city's final decision.
Any person aggrieved of the City's final determination may file an appeal with the City by
5:00 p.m., November 13, 1998, pursuant to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) section 18-51
(enclosed). Appeal provisions for the above referenced State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) are outlined in the enclosed handout. SEPA appeal fees are $70.00 and are
nonrefundable. .
Please be advised that the City has received other information relatèitttßl>bœfltiJi~~tÖ--
EXHIBIT \~ - J
PAGE-LOF ;L
(
c
John SEP A response letter
November 10, 1998
page 2
wildlife, habitat and cultural resources. The city will be reviewing this information in more
detail through studies provided by the applicant. Pursuant to RCW 197-11-340(3)(a)(ii), the
city will withdraw a DNS if there is significant new information indicating, or on, a proposals
probable adverse environmental impacts. Should the environmental decision be withdrawn, all
property owners within 300 feet of the subject site will be provided with the new
environmental determination for the project.
If you have any questions or would like additional information, please don't hesitate to call
Rick Perez, Traffic Engineer at (253) 661-4133 or Deb Barker, Associate Planner, at (253)
661-4103.
Sincerely,
-K~ fVL~-(r
Gregory D. Moore, AICP
Director of Community Development Services
enc.
Public Works Memorandum
FWCC section 18-51
SEPA appeal handout
Process N handout
c:
Rick Perez
Deb Barker
Wellington Morris
i: Isubdivis \ ventana lseprespn.OO9
EXHl8tT__L~HE ..
EXHIBIT H-4
PAGE~OF ;;L
-h__- -----. .._---_.~~
(
(
FILE
(253) 661-4000
FEDERAL WAY. WA 98003-6210
November to, 1998
Margaret and L. Edmonson
30001 - 24th Ave SW
Federal Way, WA 98023
REo'
SEP 97-0036, Preliminary Pkd of Ventana,
Commems on the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignijicance
Dear Margaret and L. Edmonson:
Thank you for your comment letter regarding the city's environmental determination for the
preliminary plat of Ventana. The following information is provided in response t(} the
comments and concerns expressed in your letter. -
Roadway Connection: Your letter indicates concern regarding the proposed vehicular
connection between Viewcliff and Ventana. As detailed in the March 9, 1998 memorandum
from Rick Perez, Traffic Engineer, (enclosed), the proposed subdivision does meet the City of
Federal Way comprehensive plan requirements for street connectivity and access. The Federal
Way Comprehensive Plan and the Federal Way Subdivision Code are documents written and
adopted by the Federal Way City Council within a public process.
Street connectivity was also considered by King County with the 1964 approval of the plat of
Viewcliff No.2. The face of that plat identifies 25th Avenue SW with a "temporary turn-a-
TOund to become void on extension of 25th Ave SW".
The city has taken your comments into consideration. However, your letter dated October 28,
1998, does not provide any new information indicating the proposal's probable significant
adverse environmental impacts that were not previously disclosed. As the City's responsible
environmental official, I have determined that your comments have been adequately addressed
by the environmental checklist and the City's evaluation. Therefore, no modifications to the
current mitigated determination of nonsignificance are WamlIlted at this time.
The Mitigated Determination of Non Significance (MONS) is now the city's final decision.
Any person aggrieved of the City's final determination may file an appeal with the City by
5:00 p.m., November 13, 1998, pursuant to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) section 18-51
(enclosed). Appeal provisions for the above referenced State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) are outlined in the enclosed handout. SEPA appeal fees are $70.00 and are
nonrefundable.. , ( i I:fE;:
Please be advised that the City has received other information relatJfoHb§iJntiai impacts to-
EXHIBIT --11-( a
PAGE-LOF d-
!j """,.
(
c
Edmonson SEP A comment letter
November 10, 1998
Page 2
wildlife, habitat and cultural resources. The city will be reviewing this information in more
detail through studies provided by the applicant. Pursuant to RCW 197-11-340(3)(a)(ii), the
city will withdraw a DNS if there is significant new information indicating, or on, a proposals
probable adverse environmental impacts. Should the environmental decision be withdrawn, all
property owners within 300 feet of the subject site will be provided with the new
environmental determination for the project.
If you have any questions or would like additional information, please don't hesitate to call
Rick Perez, Traffic Engineer at (253) 661-4133 or Deb Barker, Associate Planner, at (253)
661-4103.
Sincerely,
~~ ~:!::;Õ (;
Director of Community Development Services
enc.
Public Works Memorandum
FWCC section 18-51
SEPA appeal handout
Process IV handout
c:
Rick Perez
Deb Barker
Wellington Monis
i:\subdivis\ventana\seprespn.O 1 0
I~_._.
EXHIBI1í~-1- 10
PAGE. d- OF ;).
EXHIBIT
"'"
C'
r
FILE
(253)661-4000
FEDERAL WAY. WA, 98003-6210
November 10, 1998
Robert and Betty Collins
30235 - 25th Ave SW
Federal Way, WA 98023
RE:
SEP 97-0036, Preliminary PúzJ of Venlana,
Comments on the Mitigated Detennination of Nonsignificance
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Collins:
Thank you for your comment letter regarding the city's environmental determination for the
preliminary plat of Ventana. The following information is provided in response tõ the
comments and concerns expressed in your letter.
Roadway Connection: Your letter indicates concern regarding the proposed vehicular
connection between Viewcliff and Ventana. AJ; detailed in the March 9, 1998 memorandum
from Rick Perez, Traffic Engineer, (enclosed), the proposed subdivision does meet the City of
Federal Way comprehensive plan requirements for street connectivity and access. The Federal
Way Comprehensive Plan and the Federal Way Subdivision Code are documents written and
adopted by the Federal Way City Council within a public process.
Street connectivity was also considered by King County with the 1964 approval of the plat of
Viewcliff No.2. The face of that plat identifies 25th Avenue SW with a "temporary turn-a-
'round to become void on extension of 25th Ave SW".
The city has talcen your comments into consideration. However, your letter dated October 29,
1998, does not provide any new information indicating the proposal's probable significant
adverse environmental impacts that were not previously disclosed. As the City's responsible
environmental official, I have determined that your comments have been adequately addressed
by the environmental checklist and the City's evaluation. Therefore, no modifications to the
current mitigated determination of nonsignificance are warranted at this time.
The Mitigated Determination of Non Significance (MONS) is now the city's final decision.
Any person aggrieved of the City's final determination may file an appeal with the City by
5:00 p.m., November 13, 1998, pursuant to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) section 18-51
(enclosed). Appeal provisions for the above referenced State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) are outlined in the enclosed handout. SEPA appeal fees are $70.00 and are
nonrefundable. . 1 ~ t:
EXHIBIT_~_nfJ..
EXHIBIT H - II
PAGE~OF J-
(
c
Collins SEPA comment letter
November 10, 1998
Page 2
Please be advised that the City has received other information related to potential impacts to
wildlife, habitat and cultural resources. The city will be reviewing this information in more
detail through studies provided by the applicant. Pursuant to RCW 197-11-340(3)(a)(ii), the
city will withdraw a DNS if there is significant new information indicating, or on, a proposals
probable adverse environmental impacts. Should the environmental decision be withdrawn, all
property owners within 300 feet of the subject site will be provided with the new
environmental determination for the project.
If you have any questions or would like additional information, please don't hesitate to call
Rick Perez, Traffic Engineer at (253) 661-4133 or Deb Barker, Associate Planner, at (253)
661-4103.
Sincerely,
KætEuo~~
Gregory D. Moore, AICP
Director of Community Development Services
enc.
Public Works Memorandum
FWCC section 18-51
SEPA appeal handout
Process N handout
c:
Rick Perez
Deb Barker
Wellington Morris
i:\subdivis\ventana\seprespn.O11
EXHIBIT___1~~-
EXHIBIT JL:J.L
PAGE~OF- d-.
2.
"U - "----
c
FILC
(Ç(Q)~V
c.
(253) 661-4000
FEDERAL WAY. WA 98003-ó21 0
November 12, ,1998
Mrs. Patricia Clark
30255 - 25th Avenue SW
Federal Way, W A 98023
RE:
SEP 97-0036, Preliminary PlaJ of Venlana,
Comments on the MitigaJed Detennination of Nonsignijicance
Dear Mrs. Clark:
Thank you for your comment letter date October 26, 1998, regarding the city's environmental
determination for the preliminary plat of Ventana. The following information is pmvided in
response to the comments and concerns expressed in your letter.
1.
Cultural resources - The applicant has been advised of your conversation with Marie
Reed, and is being required to prepare a study to address the presence of cultural
resources on the site. The city, with assistance from the Washington State Department
of Archaeology and Historic Preservation will review this information. Pursuant to
RCW 197-11-340(3)(a)(ri), the city will withdraw the Determination of
Nonsignificance (DNS) if there is significant new information indicating, or on, a
proposals probable adverse environmental impacts. Should the environmental decision
be withdrawn, all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site will be notified of
the new environmental decision.
Grading - On March 28, 1998, the developer, Wellington Morris, Inc., submitted
revised preliminary plat application materials for the 28-10t subdivision. The Ventana.
preliminary plat contains one open space tract, with the balance of the open space
obligation to be paid via fee- in-lieu-of providing the open space on site, in accordance
with the Federal Way City Code (FWCC) section 20-155(b) (enclosed).
Grading for the preliminary plat project is reviewed under the Federal Way subdivision
code. In the case of Ventana, a mass grading request presented by Wellington Morris is
being reviewed by city staff and if approved by City Council will be subject to
engineering plan review. The open space tract and other areas are to be excluded from
mass grading. Staff considers some level of mass grading of the site reasonable because
of the site's topography, existing and proposed roadway configurations, location of
existing and proposed utilities, and to reduce construction related impacts. The
applicant will coordinate with utility providers to provide underground utility service
into the subject site. . ( {1 tf. 'E'.
EXHIBIT ~~------
EXHIBIT ~
PAGE-L OF d-
(
(
Clark SEP A response letter
November 12, 1998
page 2
The city has taken your comments into consideration. While, your letter dated October 26,
1998, does raise new information, staff does not have information at hand indicating the
proposal's probable significant adverse environmental impacts that were not previously
disclosed. As the City's responsible environmental official, I have determined that no
modifications to the current mitigated determination of nonsignificance are warranted at this
time. However, once we receive the requested cultural resource study, this decision will be
reviewed (see page 1).
The Mitigated Determination of Non Significance (MDNS) is now the city's final decision.
Any person aggrieved of the City's final determination may file an appeal with the City by
5:00 pm, November 13, 1998, pursuant to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) section 18-51
(enclosed). Appeal provisions for the above referenced State Environmental Policy-Act
(SEPA) are outlined in the enclosed handout. SEPA appeal fees are $70.00 and are
nonrefundable.
Please be advised that the City has also received information related to potential impacts to
wildlife and habitat. The city will also be reviewing this information in more detail through
studies provided by the applicant, as well as the cultural resources study. Pursuant to RCW
197-11-340(3)(a)(ii), the city will withdraw the DNS if there is significant new information
indicating, or on, a proposals probable adverse environmental impacts. Should the
environmental decision be withdrawn, all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site
will be provided with new environmental determination for the project.
If you have any questions or would like additional information, please don't hesitate to call
Deb Barker, Associate Planner, at (253) 661-4103.
Sincerely,
~==
Director of Community Development Services
enc.
FWCC section 20-155
FWCC section 18-51
SEPA appeal handout
Process N handout
c:
Deb Barker
Wellington Morris
file
EXHIBIT ~ H~ .
EXHIBIT 1-1- cr-
PAGE2-0F ~
i: Isulxlivislventana Isepresp.O 12
I
/
(:
(253) 661-4000
FEDERAL WAY. WA 98003-6210
December 4, 1998
Dean Condos
30444 28th Avenue SW
Federal Way, WA 98023
RE:
Ventana Prelinùnary Pial SUB97-0005: Downstream Analysis/Storm Drainage Plan
Dear Mr. Condos:
Thank you for taking the time to write and express your concerns about the dr.!lÎnage issues
associated with the development of what we are now calling the Ventana parcel. As the manager of
the City's Surface Water division it is often my task to oversee the review of difficult or complex
drainage proposals. The drainage associated with the Ventana plat is such a proposal and I can assure
you that it merits and has received the division's full attention.
As it is still early in the process of plat approval, specifics of the drainage proposal have not yet been
submitted, e.g., storm system layout, size, length, facility type etc. - this means that it is not yet
possible to answer the questions in your letter with specifics. To elaborate, a Technical Information
Report (TIR) which proposes a drainage system and investigates downstream surface water impacts
has been submitted. City Surface Water staff have reviewed the TIR and have several concerns which
have been passed on to the Plat's engineer. Included in our comments to the engineer are concerns
similar to those raised by you in comments # I and #2 of your November 12, 1998 letter.
Part of the City's Code requirements for this site demand that a thorough downstream impact analysis
be performed in accordance with strict standards and guidelines. All impacts determined by this
process will be addressed by the site engineer in detail before construction is allowed to proceed. At
this point the downstream analysis extends from the site to Puget Sound. The following general
drainage principles will be adhered to:
.
.
Discharge from the site will occur at its current natural location
Peak flows leaving the developed site will be less than or equal to those leaving the site under
existing conditions
Downstream conveyance systems will be designed to convey the 25-year storm event
An analysis of downstream systems in the 100-year event will be performed and any unsusual
circumstances will be addressed
Necessary drainage easements for the construction of any proposed solution will be obtained
. EXl!.!~!eBVEУ¥Jò()OC
COMMÎ IN/TV 'JEVELOPMENT DEPARTltENT
.
.
.
EXfnBI1P~
PAGE-LOF d-
(
,
C,;
,
\
At this point, the developer proposes to construct a pipe system in the vicinity of SW 305th Place.
The system is under review in accordance with the principles above. Therefore, in answer to your
question # I - should overflow occur, due to the occurence of an extreme storm event, the overflow
will go in the direction that it has gone in the past. Again, note that this is being addressed as a part
of the TIR - a copy of your letter will be provided to the site engineer.
In response to ydur concern that the proposed pipe leaving the SW 305th detention tank jeopardizes
the downstream systems I suggest that the TIR, in its final form, win address any impacts downstream
of the Ventana site.
The plans for the western boundary of the plat are incomplete. We have not yet received a
geotechnical report for review. Be assured that the stability of the slope will be addressed and that
we are fully aware of the sloughing problem. The engineer has suggested that rerouting the drainage
away ITom the top of the slope will provide sufficient protection. At this point, staff is not convinced
that this is a satisfactory proposal - we need the geotechnical report. This issue is not strictly a
surface water issue and will require the input of other Public Works divisions - but the slope stability
issue will be addressed.
I hope that this letter affords you some comfort in the City's drainage approach to the review of the
Ventana proposal. Should you have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call
me at (253) 661-4135.
_S~'.]' .
'<:ff I, .IE
Su ~ Water Manager
JP:kcm
cc:
Cazy M. Roe, Public Worl<s Director
Stephen Clifton, Development Services Manager
Deb Barker, Associate Planner
project file
day file
response file #85
K,\SWMlCmlENS\CONDOS.LTI>.
~~Hr-
EXHI'B~T--Þ-\- \3
PAGE d-- OF d--
I
r '
I
1
J
J
¡
I
.1
j
I
1.
/
b¡¿,h' ~
ÛPtj -
( ..eJurn -0 :
::p( ØlSe-
PRELIMINARY
STORM DRAINAGE REPORT
VENT ANA
~~
{,(,,~
41Oô
City of Federal Way Project No. SUB97-0005
PEl Project No. 97021
October 17, 1997
Revised: August 14, 1998
PREPARED FOR:
EXHIBIT ----- ("1 ~ ['
PREPARED BY:
Wellington Morris Corp.
clo Mr. Greg Sahar
10335 Main Street, Suite 8
Bellevue, Washington 98004
PINNACLE ENGINEERING, 1Ne.
Raymond E. Miller, P.E.
~q;)
EXAm trf ExCel/I:
PAGE-LOF 135
REVlSlb,..
Rf:\,;I:IVED
AUG 1 8 1998
PERMrT #
Vcn....
Job No. 9702\
~.'
. ~
. ;4i.,"tÎ....
,~,
I.
II.
.....
. -&...
J ;.,Î ; ~";
¡
t .
""" r""
~' .~..
TABLE OF CONTENTS
~"¡.
."J '.,.
0(
l
"
f\
~
~.."
*
{ J PRlJ~ '~~1~j
Figure 1 - Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Drainage Basin Map (USGS)
Figure 3 - Soils Map (USDA)
(
.
'~~"~.l.~: ,.
..."
-,.
DRAINAGE
. Existing Drainage
Figure 4 - Topographic Map
Figure 5 - Existing Northeast Drainage Basin Map
Figure 6 - Existing Southeast Drainage Basin Map
Figure 7 - Existing Southwest Drainage Basin Map
Figure 8 - Existing Northwest Drainage Basin Map
. Proposed Drainage
Figure 9 - Proposed Site Drainage Basin Map
'.. " . '........ r j
(;~ (, ,.
" .",
. .....
..
'... " .
-""',."""',., .."IÇ..
i""'\ ... ".J.
. ".". "..<,' IV.
v.
VI.
'~,
EROSION CONTROL
DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS
Figure 10 - Northeast Basin Downstream Drainage Map
Figure 11 - Southeast Basin Downstream Drainage Map
Photographs - I through 17
Figure 12 - Southwest Basin Downstream Drainage Map
REVIEW OF RESOURCES
Figure 13 - Drainage Basin Map of King COllllty
Figure 14. King County Community Planning Areas Map
Figure 15 - King County Sensitive Areas Map - Landslide
Figure 16 - King County Sensitive Areas Map - Seismic
Figure 17 - King County Sensitive Areas Map - Erosion
Figure 18 - King County Sensitive Areas Map - Wetland
DETENTION ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
. Detention Pond Design
. Water Quality Design
.:.'" ,,'.
"St".ingf...the Peak of Excellence"
EXHIB~1f T
PAGE~OF 135
:,'jJ',:::
i'ò:, ,': ' ,'I):',
1': é:~~H::.F'
Ventana
JohNo.97021
VIII.
APPENDICES
. Appendix A - West Basin, Detention Pond, Barker 7-Day Output
. Appendix B - On-site Basin Comparisons
. Appendix C - Offsite Conveyance Capacity Check (Southwestern
Basin)
. Appendix D - Off site Detention Tank Analysis
. Appendix E - Executive Proposed Basin Plan
. Appendix F - Core & Special Requirements Compliance
. Appendix G - Northeast Basin -Infiltration Tank - KCRTS
Calculations Output
I
1
J
J
¡
¡
¡
"Slrivmgfor ¡he Peak of Excellence"
)
EXHÜ~'j -~
PAGE-LOF 135
Vcnlana
Job No. 9702\
I. PROJECT OVERVIEW
PROJECT:
Ventana
LOCATION:
The site is located in Federal Way, to the
east of 26tb Ave. SW, to the south of SW
304tb St., and Y:. mile north of SW Dash
Point Rd. (see Figure 1). The site lies
within Section 7, Township 27N., and
Range 3E.
SOIL TYPE:
90% Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6%-
15% slopes, Hydrologic Group C; 10%
Alderwood and Kitsap soils, 25%-70%
slopes, Hydrologic Group C (see Figure 3)
SITE AREA:
9.91 Acres (+/-)
EXISTING LAND USE:
The site is currently unoccupied and
undeveloped. The land is densely
vegetated with large second-growth trees,
and thick underbrush. Four distinct
drainage basins are found on-site (see
Existing Drainage). Slopes range from 5%-
35% across the site.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Wellington Morris Corp. is proposing to
construct 28 new single-family residential
lots. Lot construction will include
approximately 1,300 LF of new roadway.
A detention pond with an approximate
volume of 48,954 CF and a biofiltration
swale is proposed on the western edge of
the site and an infiltration tank is proposed
in the northeastern comer of the property.
"S',ivingfo, 1M Peak of Excellence"
EXHIBIT I
PAGE-L OF
l3S
Ventana
Job No. 97021
~
II)
.J
,
J
¡
I
J
j
I
I
J
Figure I - Site Vicinity Map
(nts)
"Striving/., the Peak ./ Excellence"
EXHüsru I
PAGEÍ-OF l3S
Ventana
Job No. 97021
Figure 2 - Drainage Basin Map
USGS
"Strivingfor the Peak of Excelle"ce"
EXHBBB1' \
PAGE-LOF
\3~
Ventana
Job No. 97021
I
,]
]
<,
~l
...:J
J
J
)
J
Figure 3 - Soils Map
USDA
"St'i,'mgfo, the Peak of Excellence"
E'(' I
ø;;;;..L..
PAGE-LOF ßS
Velltan.
Job No. 91021
SECTION II
DRAINAGE
"Striving/or the Peak 0/ Excel/ence"
EXHiB~T :I
PAGE-x-OF 135
./
Venlan.
Job No. 97021
EXISTING DRAINAGE
I
¡
"I
]
J
The site is located within the Central Lower Puget Sound drainage basin. The property is
located on a ridge and contains four distinct drainage basins (see Figure 4). The basins
have been labeled as northeast, southeast, southwest, and northwest according to their
location within the property boundary. A description of each basin follows:
Northeast:
The northeast drainage basin is 0.90 acres of heavily vegetated area. Storm water runoff
currently sheet-flows overland to the east through the thick vegetation to the eastern
property boundary (see Figure 5). The runoff enters the backyard of the adjacent property
to the east and then continues in a northeasterly direction (see Downstream Analysis -
Northeast). The topography in the northeast drainage basin averages 10% slopes.
'1
r
Southeast:
I
The southeast drainage basin is comprised of 2.66 acres with densely forested conditions.
Currently, the runoff sheet-flows overland to the southeast and exits the property along
the eastern and southern property boundary lines (see Figure 6). Once off site, the storm
water continues to the southeast and then south (see Downstream Analysis - Southeast).
The topography in the southeast drainage basin averages 10% slopes.
1
tj
:J
I
J
]
Southwest:
The southwest drainage basin contains 5.47 acres of forest with dense undergrowth.
Storm water runoff generally flows to the west in the form of sheet-flow (see Figure 7).
The runoff collects along the western property boundary and either flows to the north
along 26th A venue SW or to the south along the private driveway to a common point (see
Downstream Analysis - Southwest). The topography ranges between 5% and 35%
slopes.
Northwest:
The northwest drainage basin is 0.88 acres of heavily vegetated area. Storm water runoff
currently sheet-flows overland to the west through the thick vegetation to the western
property boundary (see Figure 8). The runoff continues to the west and enters a large
draw that directs the runoff to the west and northwest (see Downstream Analysis -
Northwest). Topography in the northwest drainage basin averages 12% slopes.
"Striving/or the Peak 0/ Excellence'.
ì
EXHJu[¿;; . -L
PAGE~OF /35
Ventan.
Job No. 9702\
I ' I ,~--;" \'W, " sc.:!tr- \ \
I ' I ' ¡ , I I , \ II -, I \",..,l ~ I 'I /' _-=~=_ì ~"I/"
/ "'1, I, \\, --'/~r-~~~)h~\\( --k '~\\ ,
dll f " \ miTT }.~ ,I\\I'\\\;~ -- /' , \ " ~~ . ,
II, \\ /' \ ,'¥c"'-
II \ : \, (¡ (I , .::::'..LJ..J!'I::;8T'b"...'Å.\.\~,:\\\\ 1'- ~ : \ : II I'~-'¡Ì
1\ 11\11\1\~l"rJYT "I"1"ril'I'lil\"', I I/° I \ I '-,I
'/,11/'/1)/1//' 1IIIId'II\,\!/f I ,1r1\li/1
1,(/,1 )' /11111!ill/l ) \/{NO~E.ASI IIII
I III',' 111// I, BSlNI}JJII
II , I I I \ I} I I I I I I / "
I 1 I I I I I I 1 , . \ 1/ Ii} 11'I I' I I 1/ I ../
',II\I,IIII,:I/II/II/III/lill 1\1 'II1II
I ) \ \ \ I \ I I ) I ¿~~:::~_I /f/I'l//fllil { "" \ I \ /, 'I \ i \\(1
..J¡- '1\111\"r'/I«""'~"""--/I1I¡/llll/il \\\1 1,,111
, I1II I 11\IIII/¡í----IJIi(/111 \ \\ // III
\ ~ / I ) \ I I \ "ì{((~~~~~r:-~~'\'I//)\\ \ \ \ I : \ I I / 11/ //'J IIII /
fi:,,', 1 \ \ )/mllN;fl('-~\ Uf[I)II)\ \ \ //l///>/"IUj"
17 ~I ,ì! It \ I 1\ i \ Iglll\\\.... .J)) : Ii f I f I \ \ V / / / /// J ---j~~/ .J
1/111¡ill\II:\ltI,III\I\\\J\ f'lllll ",'I}I//('--~-;(/.......-
~1\\11111'1 111'1\-I\IIII",t 1,1 JI'//
~<'\ill" I¡IIJIIIII\\\" 111,/- -- III? 11//1
~- #11(\\1 ,(,!'IN,'\,';}I)'~,\,\<,>-,-- Irrll{(///--;/I /
1\ \I'\(I\\II~I'ljt/llí>;,\\\':::"<:'<',\ I:II)//I~///'/
/ IJ\I/III~'\~' ......','" / 11/(1111/ I
'...... '1\,/1 (111111 -~\\\""'\\" 111111,1 I I
I 1 I I I I I " I 1 I I / \ \' 'J. '\ \ I I ISólJilIi!=AÉIT I
)~à H-Ü \ (¡A¡(~(y?(f\ \\ //) ¿ <:. --- \ '; \~ ~/?~//~!f3I,II, N( ( ì',
I/)}'!\ ,.-//("11\11111" " \ \ _/11'1 1 \'
1(11\\t~)('("'III\\I\\ --,\~. í 111/ /}'"
\1\1~1\\\\\\:I:I)¡/II\\I\\;'\ ',0/ líl((1 \: I \'
¡]'\I\\II /1['\1(,\11\\\11""1 ,__-1/ }I)I\\ \I! I I
¡111"/II,IIII,'I\'\"¡ -I IIIJI/III I
1,lllllll/fl\\I\\\'~~\'\ ,1/ jtllill I, I I
III \ Ilf 111'111\\\""-'" v / / /1111 I J I \
I¡II"IIIIII\\\\\',', ',// ///1111111 'I
III}/)tll III\I'\"~\I\I', ~ /\ ////((1 / I I , ¡
/"1//11' /111)\\\,\,1\1\ '__I ,/' / 11,1/1 I I "'-
J)II!///)IJI)\I'I\I~,"""___--- // /1\1/ / / I "I
-1«(1/// f,'II/!II/}¡)\\----- / / /1 /11\\ \ 1 ( I
1111'111' Ill/,/ I',' 1/ I' I I
1 I III 'IJIIII////..J" -" /////__"./-,11 I I I
I_, ,- / I I
~ ,II} I 1 III¡ ,."",-, I I I '_//~) .....
111/11/1I"1£l1\~ ~ -/ I I r, -'" ',II .//
/// / , II //I~//!!//I( I___---/-J / '.) /_r-"i, (
Figure 4 - Topographic Map
"S¡,ivingfor the Peak of Excel/ence" .
EXH~[ÞL T
PAGE~OF \3')
I
I
.J
Ventana
Job No. 97021
-- \ /-
. - -=--=- -=--1 r... ....
( ",\{
~ \'\}
\ I \\~ I
'\ \ /~ ~~ ...
ì ~~ -::::.~ \
-- - -.-:
-l rl) L.-
I \ r (L-:"~Il
-L. \ - I I.
I \ \; I I I'
I I \ 1 I I I
I I t+
I j J ) J I
1// ~/
\ / / (
\ \ ( /
I \\ \ ( --
t-- \ \ \
J \ \ \ I
\
I I I )
- '/
r
I
J
J
r
/
"-.
"-.
\
\
r./
/
I \
\ \
l \
\ )
NORTHEkrr BASI~
AREA"{O.90 Ac I
) I
I \
k- \
\ \
\ \
I
.',
J
J
J
J
J
J
¡
I
I
\
\
....
SCALE: 18-50'
\
"-. \ ,
Figure 5 - Existing Northeast Drainage Basin Map
"Strivingfor the Peak of Excellence"
EXHIB~T T
PAGE-LLOF 135
Ventan.
Job No. 97021
í//U'; \ \\ \ \ /. i ) 11\\\
'1111/11,' \ // 111\
III I ,\ ///'1 \
I¡II/II II/I/y/'" IIII
I¡III 1\ /)11/ I(I/~/".. I/I¥/
. IIII 11/ )/I/I/í "..1111 \
1.J f' \ I ~ / '/-...../ I / / ) I I II .J
11(1 ,,'\, / / 7"1// ( ----:j~.t
.f 14' '"I ;111'1\...---'//1
III '- If( \)II,/II---~
I'" II I 11"'-1
,\.."""")"""'.......' 11({I¡ItII//,..-/jl
\..'../'....... "\ I I I 1//"'- "
"'\\ )1/1)11// /' 1",,/
, " ' '\ \ I ~I / /',..-/ /
... '-...,'\,\,\ / I, I
';:::-, \ \ \ \ \ ( ) I I )~Þ¡ I ~ 1 I
'... ,~ \ \ \ \ I / / j 1// ) J -;..... I
......... '\ \ \. \ / /~J I I I I r I -
'-~ \" 11/ II I I I I ' "
.......~ \ -11111' \ ) \,
--~'\ \/~ \-'/ / Á~-J.66 ~C 'f.... ...l "\,
'\ 11(1// ¡('I
_--1 11\\\\ III I'
I ) \ \ (I I I
1/11)/'1 I \
I /I I/I'X / f f I \
////111/ / I! \
//// /' / ( ( I I / / I '\ \'
/ / )'.... ) I r! I 'ì' / ~... )
/' / /1\ I I I I I
/ ./ , I \ \ ) ( I
/ // I I ' ) \ I I
.// /-_J, ll II I
' - / u- I
\... /"'-""tí ::;, } I""""'" / //
I \ "/ A /'
I ~ il /1 {
/ - -- \ /' \
\ \ SCALE: 1.-80'
\
Figure 6 - Existing Southeast Drainage Basin Map
"S"ivingfor the Peak of Excellence"
EXHIBIT I
P AGE..E:- 0 F ..ß.2-
)
¡
)
'I
]
."
Ventana
Job No, 97021
, , , I' I \ \' , ' I I ' '\ \ I
111/1,111 \ 11,1111». )'
'1\\ I ¡I'!/'" I IIIIIIII/~
I I . I I' \
,-I~llil/II //III IIIIIIIIII :
II )¡-+-, 111'11-T' IIII1I'I1III
I' )\',\(111 Ijl I JI II L.....J I I I I "
~ I I , \ I I I I J j -:-~~---./, /11//~¡l1 f / '"
~. '1,(, 1 lírllrr'/-""'-~/IIII/I/II' \
\ \1 / / \ 1/1 \ t \ }¿I¿J/I(:::"-:":-.;\//j(\! (U Il \
/1 \ I II \ I \ \ I\/r/I.f./.!f¡,(---,---¡ \///)\11111, I II
\. ,illlltl'ill;1 'II/II II \ J
I J ('<'-'\\11 I I )/I~II/IIII{(\ 111111;/;1/\ \ \ /'
Ir~'\'-IIII(III\\ III(I/IIJIIII'If+i-.'1 Iv /
I~\'I 1111/11\1""""// 111\' /
~¡I'\I\)JIII\I~ll/llt,\,\-./( Ilfl,I" II"
"- IIII I I 11111\" \ III,, +"
ffi III/~III II) IJI,II~II\\'I.....\ ~IIIIII\. (, I
~ ¡II \.. 'I'al}\\/"'-- 'I-' ,
'I ¡II,II \ \ I t /' 1 ( f I 1111/ II ~I '-\ \\ I, '-...J'" I
I¡'¡II/I Ilfl'llll '-\\ 1...'..(', \
...... I ilfv , ) I \ '..... \ I II_H /(1 II I II /~\ \ \ \ " ','\ \
. '.....1 II{~(/I\/II)'II 'I ~~/\\\~,'-..'-..',,\\\ /
'-.. III, Ilf \ /,11// ff // "'\\\"~'\\'\\I
II1I \ \ \ '.....Ll. I 1 I I II I II /(/ ./- \ \ \ \ "I \ \ , '-
., I~' \ \ \ I lll.ital.!:J.jJ.&¡4j.,(c ì \ \... '\ ,\ \
SCALE: 1 -SO \~ì - +-\ I ~ \ I I I "f'J rt:!/,'ji \ I "t' / / I ....... \ \ \ \
\~)~II II\.! ~))/¡:¡J\I\((/\I/II ,\ /./ (',-~.:-- I ", ~
. (//;//)'-1//\1\11\( , ~ \
I(((! ¡¡ \ I í ) (\. \~I ~I¡I I \ '\ '\ '--, \v~ r-
,tlllllllill \\\f!/I'/fII(/ I\II\ \\ \ ,\
\ I --!o---'- I (, I I \ \ \ \ ,... --1 \
II:IIIII~ \'lillllllll\I\~\ \11- / I
//,1 I J \ \ I 1'/[II\\II\\I,..v\\ \\ '\ I -- / I
III Ii III \\\~\\, ,,1/ I
l'ill!ll\ :\1\1\\\\\\\\,\\\'" v././ .//.
Illi/JII, II\\I\\\\\'\\\\\\\.' ,./ ./ //
II II III \~\II, ~'\ ,/.//
/111//1/' II/\)\ \\\,'\I\ '~-..,/\./ 1/
.1)1/1 /1\\1,'-.. '- /
J//)(II II I('))/~ )1\11\" -""-- / I
1,/ :.)~ 11111;'//1 \\\--- --- / / J
I Jf / i I (I I I // / / I~/ / II / \, '----\ / ,,/
I (IJ¡¡fI/Ir'II///-./..J"',,"--- \ .///././'
C '- ./
i,flll I~..,'/ %:--'....-' I \
1(1 ¡I ( 1 / / l$/I ~,/ / --:::../ ",,- -... I
I , ,./,$,,(( ---., .. ,~
Figure 7 .. Existing Southwest Drainage Basin Map
"Sf'iymEfor fhe Peak of Excellence"
E~I1fW1" [G:'. 'i ~'i'.. - I
^~-~Ügli ¡i.. -1-
PAGE-.!l...OF 135
Ventan.
Job No. 97021
//
II \
II "
~h
---~----
~~~ ----
/~ ;=----
-/1 ---
~~
~~tL /
/1.- --...
-
. I æ ~
II! ~j:l
J~:/~- --~- ------
_/ -----274- t---- ---- --
-.::/ /£72- '- - - - - - --..-
'-270 - - . -
-~ --
! -=- -=- -=- ~::~ '-: - -L -- - -- -- --~
IÏJ -,
oJ
ð
(/)
,..-
"l~
----'-"ì
/ "-
/
/
/ t-"Olr-
--- ~-
--
---- / --=--- ----- -
---- /_---
/>",,- -
----==+-
/ /--r:
.-',.---
...r
..-- -
.¡f>
---
--
--
- --:.:
-
- ~
-.:::-
--- ~
-------
----
z
ëõ
/,<0 t
æ.<... - - - - -.:
- t5~
:J.i' /----
<"-
--- --- /--------
"0.., --- ~ ---
Z ~ -..
/"
'---
-----
-----
--..
---.
----..
---
----
_.....---
-- -- - ----
" -- ~I -
------'--- - """::-----1
--- =:¡--, /--
Figure 8 - Existing Northwest Drainage Basin Map
"Slrivingfor the Peak of Excellence"
ExrL~ ¡: 2C
.,-- ,
c ul. .,.---'"
PAGE-1.:LOF
1~5
Ventana
Job No. 91021
PROPOSED DRAINAGE
j
The ultimate goal of the proposed drainage is to mimic the existing conditions in terms of
the rates of runoff discharging nom the site by providing a detention pond, an infiltration
tank, and allowing some portions of the site to sheet-flow off site. The proposed drainage
has been designed using the most current approved engineering methods as described in
the King County Storm Water Management Manual and approved by City of Federal
Way. Four drainage basins are present in the proposed condition with slightly modified
amounts of area constituting them (see Figure 9). A thorough comparison of the existing
and proposed basins with respect to the rates of runoff exiting the site can be found in
Appendix B (On-site Basin Comparisons). The following is a description of the proposed
drainage plan for each of the four drainage basins:
Northeast:
The proposed infiltration tank that has been designed to infiltrate the rooftop runoff for
Lots 1-8 & 12-15 is located in the northeast basin. An area of 0040 Ac will be allowed to
drain to the east in the same manner as in the existing condition. Of the 0040 Ac, the
amount of impervious area accounts for 0.08 Ac and the amount of pervious area
accounts for 0.32 Ac. The pervious area will be made up of grassed yards.
!
]
.1
!
)
¡
Southeast:
In the southeast basin, the runoff nom the rooftops on Lots 1-8 will be tightlined to the
infiltration tank located in the northeast basin. The grassed, pervious area will be allowed
to exit the site and sheet-flow as in the existing condition. The amount of pervious area is
l.ll Ac.
Southwest:
In the developed condition, the southwest basin will be comprised of 7.66 acres of
pervious and impervious area. The storm water runoff nom Lots 9-11,16-28, Tract 994,
and the interior roads will be collected and conveyed by underground conveyance pipe to
the detention pond and biofiltration swale that is proposed to provide detention and water
quality treatment. Tract 995, which is 0.38 Ac of pervious area, will be allowed to bypass
the detention facility. The rates of runoff exiting the site nom the southwest basin in the
developed condition will be detained to match the rates of runoff exiting in the existing
condition.
"Strivi"g/or the Peak 0/ Excellence"
)
EXHIBIT Í-
PAGE--Lâ:..OF 135
Ventan.
Job No. 97021
Northwest:
A small portion of pervious area located on the northern and western side of the detention
pond wilÌ be allowed to exit the site and sheet-flow otfsite as in the existing state. The
amount of area that will be tributary to the northwest basin is 0.05 Ac.
"
"Strivingfor the Peak af Excellence"
EXHIBIT I
PAGE~OF 135
J
Ventana
Job No. 97021
j
I
PROPOSED BASIN MAP '*
SCALE: 1"-140' \
(j
- ---.:::- ----C- ~ -
~
..
SOUTHEAST
BABIN
I
I,
/
Figure 9 - Proposed Site Drainage Basin Map
"Srrivingf", ¡he I'",k of Excellence"
EJ~[HjüB~T I
PAGE-1.LOF 135
Ventana
Job No, 97021
III. EROSION CONTROL
Erosion I\Ild sedimentation control ,measures consisting of filter fabric fencing, temporary
ditching, and either a sediment pond or trap for each basin will be in place during
construction activity. Earthwork activity will consist mostly of road construction and lot
grading. All erosion control measures will be maintained during the, construction period
until the permanent storm sewer system is in place and all disturbed areas are stabilized.
"StriYing/or the Peak a/Excellence"
EXHü[~y, I
PAGE~6F 135
Ventana
Job No, 97021
IV. DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS
There are four distinct drainage basins found on-site. These drainage basins are labeled
as northeast, southeast, northwest, and southwest. The individual downstream analyses
of the drainage basins are as follows:
Northeast:
.,
Storm water runoff fÌ"om the northeastern basin will sheet-flow to the east as in the
existing condition to the eastern and northern property boundaries (see Figure 10). The
backyard runoff from Lot 1 will travel eastward into the adjacent property and sheet-flow
for approximately 150 LF across the adjacent lot into 23rd Avenue SW. The runoff then
sheet-flows north along the edge ofJ?avement of23rd Avenue SW for approximately 180
LF to the intersection with SW 304 Street. The runoff then turns east and continues to
sheet-flow on the south side of the pavement downhill for 200 LF to the 10w]Joint of the
road. The storm water enters a catchbasin on the south side of SW 304th Street. From the
CB, the runoff is conveyed to the north through 12" SD for 40 LF and discharged into a
natural drainage swale. The swale meanders through private property to the northeast
through forest with thick vegetation. Residents adjacent to the swale have had problems
on occasion with flooding. Storm water is conveyed through the swale to the northeast
for approximately 400 LF towards 21st Avenue SW. The swale is received by a 12" SD
on the western side of 21st Avenue SW that conveys the runoff to the north under a
private driveway for 30 LF. The runoff continues to the north for 200 LF through a series
of roadside drainage channels and 12" SD's that are located under private driveways. The
drainage channels and SD's direct the runoff to the intersection of 21st Avenue SW and
20th Place SW. A 12" SD conveys the runoff to the northeast 25 LF under 21st Avenue
SW to the western side of 20th Place SW. Runoff continues to the north through drainage
channels and SD's. With the exception of the problem previously noted in the drainage
swale on the private property, there appears to be sufficient capacity in the drainage
system for the northeast basin. Since a majority of the northeastern basin will be
infiltrated, the downstream drainage system should receive a volume of runoff less than
previously experienced.
I
¡
I
!
.J
J
I
J
J
Southeast:
Storm water runoff from the southeastern basin will sheet-flow to the southeast and
eventually be received by the conveyance system located in SW 306th Place (see Figure
11). A portion of the runoff fÌ"om the backyards will exit the site along the eastern
property boundary and sheet-flow through the adjacent property to. the east for
approximately 250 LF and enter the conveyance system located in SW 305th Street. The
conveyance system ofSW 305th Street conveys the runoff to the southeast and then south
"S¡rivinglor ¡he Pe.. 01 Excellence"
EXHIBIT :c
PAGE-.llOF 135
V..tana
Job No, 97021
through 12" SD for 300 LF. Once the storm system conveys the runoff to the south side
of SW 305th Street, the runoff is discharged into a drainage swale that conveys the storm
water to the south through private property for 60 LF to a 12" intake also located on
private property. The 12" SD conveys the runoff to the south to a CB located on the
northern side ofSW 306th Place.
The remainder of the storm water runoff on-site will sheet-flow to the southeast through
the adjacent property to the southeast for approximately 200 LF and enter the storm
system located in SW 306th Place. The runoff is conveyed to the east through 12" SD for
400 LF and tie into the CB that the previously described runoff enters.
The entire runoff is then conveyed to the south for 340 LF under SW 306th Place and
through private property to a CB located on the northern side of SW 307th Street through
a series of SD and drainage channel. From the CB, the storm water is conveyed through
24" SD to the south following 22nd Avenue SW for approximately 850 LF. The runoff is
then discharged into a large drainage channel that continues to the south. From the
observations made of the existing off site drainage system, the amount of runoff expected
to exit the site will not adversely affect the system due to sufficient capacity.
Northwest:
In the Northwestern portion of the site, runoff sheet flows to the west for approximately
100 LF into an existing draw, which flows in a westerly direction. The slopes and bottom
of the draw are saturated with groundwater seepage originating from upstream sources.
The northern portion of the draw is owned by King County Parks. Eventually the runoff
intercepts a stream, which conveys flow west through a 24" ADS culvert at SW 302nd
Street and a 24" culvert at SW 300th Place. There appears to be adequate capacity within
the existing draw and drainage channel to convey the on-site runoff in the northwestern
basin.
Southwest:
Runoff exiting the southwestern basin enters a ditch along the eastern side of 26th Avenue
SW (photo 1) and flows north to an existing 12" culvert (photo 2). Runoff flows through
the 12" pipe under a gravel driveway in a northwesterly direction for 23 LF, then west in
a roadside ditch that is eartblrock lined and 1-2 feet in depth (photo 3) for 130 LF at a
slope of 12.3%. Runoff continues west through a 12" pipe for 20 LF at 15.4% under a
driveway (photo 4). Runoff continues in a ditch for 104 LF at a slope of 14.6% (photo 5),
then flows through 61 LF of 12" pipe, then flows through 36 LF a shallow ditch, then
through 25 LF of 12" CP culvert, then through 10 LF of open ditch (photo 6), and then
enters a 12" pipe serving as an intake into an existing 48" detention pipe (photo 7). The
detention pipe was installed for Short Plat No. 679081 in 1981. Runoff discharged from'
"Strlvingl'" the Peak 01 Excellence"
EX~í¡B~'r I
PAGE~OF \3S-
I
~i
~J
~ ¡
¡
I
J
J
Ventana
Job No, 97021
the tank flows north through 64 LF of 12" CMP before outfalling onto a slope which was
created by filling for Lot 3 construction of the KCSP 679081. The overland drainage
course directs the storm water to the northwest 80 LF towards a 5x5 sump (photo 8 & 9)
with a wire screen covering at the toe of the slope. A 12" CP culvert exits the sump in a
westerly direction beneath an existing driveway and outfalls on the western side of the
driveway, although the outfall was not located. A I-foot wide drainage channel was
evident on the northern side of an existing garage, which conveys runoff in a westerly
direction.
,}
¡
j
¡
"Striving/or the P.ak 0/ Excell.nce"
EXHIBIT I
PAGE~OF 13'3
VenlJDa
JohNo.97021
.PROPOSED DOWNSTREAM IMPROVEMENTS
Western Basin: The developer has negotiated with the property owner downstream nom
the existing detention tank to obtain a 10 foot drainage easement along the eastern side of
Lot 3 to an existing catchbasin located on 28th Avenue SW (photo 10). The purpose of
the easement would be to install approximately 230 LF of 12" pipe directly nom the
detention pipe control structure to the catchbas.in. Once installed, runoff would be
conveyed westerly through 40 LF of 12" pipe (photo 11), then through another 70 LF of
12" pipe installed as part of the agreement with the property owner, replacing the existing
ditch (photo 12). Runoff would then cross 28th Avenue SW through 30 LF of 12" CMP
(photo 13), outfalling into a 3 foot deep ditch on the south side of28th Avenue SW (photo
13A). Runoff would continue west (photo 14 & 15) to the intersection of 28th Avenue
SWand 30th Avenue SW (photo 16), then cross 28th Avenue SW through 12" pipe, then
continue along the northern side of 30th Avenue SW in a westerly direction (Photo 17).
The ditch continues west before entering an underground conveyance system which
conveys flow to SW 300th Place, then continues west through private property before
outfalling into the Puget Sound (see Downstream Analysis Exhibits Shts. 1 & 2).
"Strivingfor the Peak of Excellence"
EXHIBIT I
PAGE2.3...0F 135
)
I
J
-1
]
')
J
J
J
~
Vent...
Job No. 97021
g r:f ~ t3
t;j 0
ß ¿] D ¿J 0
Do 0 ô D cO
E? £)
IJ D 0
Q ~ GO
[7 0 D ~
ß G G CU C1J
]
1
j
]
J
J
J
)
0
0
0
Q
(jJ
¡;;J
OLDS/~
. 0 SLAe'S
0
I::) [J 0 o~
a ~::. f!9 {] ~
{J ..,' ..' .... 0 n..,-J
....~", L::.,Q..
// 1CJ D ~ ~
(, . \.)
~C]~{ ~~~ST
Figure 10 - Northeast Basin Downstream Drainage Map
"Str,.¡ngfor the Peak of Excellence"
EXHüB~T I
PAGE~OF 135
Ven....
Job No. 9702\
..............- ~ 'tJ CJ C:J ~
D ~
~J?
,8°
D C
C CV DO
Figure 11 - Southeast Basin Downstream Drainage Map
"Striving for the Peok of Excellence"
EXHù[8üïr -L-
PAGE..3.i.OF 13~ ,J
r
¡
[
\
[
[
r
[
[
¡
r
rc;
I
r
lrìl,
l-i ~i
~!
!::~/
!Bw
%c¡ ¡
r,jõ:
,
I
@
i
r
f¡
I
!
\JÎ
1
\-] Ö
t:; (\i II
m ~.
~~
W( ,
¡
\
1
r
VJII
I-I~ I
0
f=o f'.. / [
L1ŒOC'(
!Bwl
:I:(!J
)(...-f'1
WQ:I
I
I
\
1
r
I
[
r
i
f
1
t"
I
\
I ~:
rl LL
01
I-bv
-Nil
!!! U I
J: C1!
~~
1
I
Hu.
O/
F~I (
= I
Ww !
J:CJ¡
)(~.
we...:
J
l
[
[
I
[
r
!~"
I
lfll
r<)
H u..1
0
0,1
i==
""""" I'()
~w\
J:~
~~I
[
r
[
r
[
I
r
f:~
I
[.
¡
91
H~ r
Þ- r
=^" (y'¡
g]w
:I: (9 I
~~
. I
@
ø
I
I
'1
I
j
I
'Ii
J
I
ì
_I
I
J
J
Ven....
Job No. 97021
\l~: .
./ Oí1 ~ <Ç\,.~, >p.I,.'
<:J 'i~~ !,"
Q~ 0 üÇ\ .'
>~ - '0°
.:; ."'--.... .
.'
i!
r--. .:.1¡
U"..' -
!j~~
.~~.. ""'0 '. ~ n~\
, '~~g~~ [JI\& ~ \\
0\;<, '3 . .,-,'~.',.'-:?:'. G n ;1 ¡ ~ CJ ,i.'
r \,v:;.::-, ,', ~' UI ! Lr if
>Ç::.>~., ~;:~'. \,:\"".. ..':.-h. '\} '. [? Itll o, Of] ,:I
r:--//',. 6:Ý.~':'-' "." \"',' " '\JtI 0 , [] {,\ .
. <,~'\r_'" \;. '\ \; \ i
"""V':""~'('~"\" Q,ßO\
:. ~ .' - .' . \\ "" ,.. . []' \ \ 0 D \; i! ~
~ ~~-~ _:_~~ "'-. - ~ .cR"YINE ß lJ 0 a \\~ <==J!!
-..." ! ì~~, (] ~ PI3"'~"&E ',.~ --:f :::::; ,
"'-- i !, ~ () D;;::;Ji /81' eT80e{j POINT ~ '. ~~J
\I'\ ../ : ~ ' 'VI. -
~l .". á~ì ai~" "'.":.
r~~i(~;~-c)ç',.;\ ~ D O"CJ<~<> 0 : .~..' ~ '-
~rr.r.. ~9;" \v~ f7 I~ o~\)~~W~;GH~f,8;--'~:
!!;.J ì~~:?~\\\,,;\'l 0 (i.1 lJ D [¡:J ¡I\~ r¿(çy --:'-"- ~-':ëJDc
',,'-- "'r:,. ~;'\ 'C. I D¿]C;~c..'O Q:..J-
.'
Figure 12 - Southwest Basin Downstream Drainage Map
"Striving/or the Peak 0/ Excellence"
EXHBB~T "T-
PAGE 3;;l.,OF ,135
Ventana
Job No. 97021
REVIEW OF RESOURCES
According to the Executive Proposed Basin Plan as adopted by the City of Federal Way
(see Appendix E), the site is located in the Central Puget Sound Basin. The Drainage
Basin Map of King County, Figure 13, also depicts the site being located in the Puget
Sound Basin. The property lies within the limits of the Federal Way Community
Planning Area, Figure 14. The site is not located in any of the critical drainage areas
defined in the reference section of the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual.
Based on the King County Sensitive Areas Maps, Figures 15-19, the property is not found
in any of the potential problem areas for landslide, seismic, erosion, and wetland hazards.
As previously noted, the on-site soil is mostly Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (AgC)
with a small portion being Alderwood and Kitsap soils (AkF) which are both classified as
Hydrologic Group "C" (see Figure 3).
"Strivingfor the Peak of Excellence"
EX~~Brlr I
PAGE .33 OF 135
Venlana
Job No. 97021
J
I
;¡¡;1
J
I
J
.J
I
J
J
I
I
:t --
. .
.....
'.
I \ ..,-
"\\",
;"""",.'<~:_~,,' ....
'. \~l""\'-'L:,"" '.
,~ i.
1 ,
/3
Figure j/ - Drainage Basin Map of King County
I
"Slriví"gfor the Peak of Excellence"
EX~l1¡¡b -L
PAGE~OF , 35
Venlana
Job No. 97021
.'
,.,
Figure 1- King County Community Planning Areas Map
"Strivingfor the Peak of Excellence"
135
¡
J
EXH~Brr --L
PAGE 35 OF
Vent...
Job No. 97021
J
J
"1
I
I
SlTEl
/. 8:
"
<.
."
"
.
IS
Figure JI - King County Sensitive Areas Map
Landslide
"Striving fo, the Peak of Excellence"
EX~1 U [SHill T
PAGE~OF ~
Ventan.
Job No, 97021
SIT£1.;
8.
-'
íìb
/IØ
Figure'; - King County Sensitive Areas Map
Seismic
"Striving/or the Peak 0/ Excellence"
EXHiB~1f :r
PAGE~OF /35
Ventana
Job No. 9702 J
:'~
J
J
~."
)¡;:fl ,,!
~~~;.¡
(J1-;",:,í,::C i1
S ':~1r ~l~f~~
,- <¡£, , Y""\'~ ,< /..:::s~!}¡¡'EI"l.;¡ <,"'lr"'.f-
,/, , "-'0,;/, \'~-~!,.r,,>C~""-;' ", r"""-;; ~-""
:U.,i r...--, J)"',',1 f'~'-\X:;~lf," '-,~'~', " ',' .,""h, '.{
:..'+-~-/?;t>..,fZ.>~,'u' >:~t(: I ~""'.--~;'1
,'J.,-..-,,-;. "..c..-:-::'[~"L""-; -"y1.~~
. t~:!'~~~\i:ç,¡~I ~t%~ti
',;,\~=--.-;;-'j' ,-¡,,='¡:;m.Ly/ t:;¡i~;~ "+
Z- ~~~~il"~ .~ &~:~}j
17
Figure W - King County Sensitive Areas Map
Erosion
"Strivi"gfor the Peak of Excellence"
EVHrcÏ) 11 "ic -:::L
It. t\)D " -"-""'-'-'-
PAGE 3ð' OF /35
Ventana
Job No, 97021
5
50=.,'
.
SITC 1
"
lowet Puget Sound
Hytebos Creek
1'1
Figure)1- King County Sensitive Areas Map
Wetland
"Striving/or the Peak 0/ &leellence"
---
E"ì.fr "0=1'" I
¡¡;;~lñ!UQ)lJ ~
PAGE~OF /35
Vcntana
Job No. 97021
¡
I
.I
I
~
]
I
J
J
J
J
I
I
\
VI. DETENTION ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
West Basin
This basin has been modeled using the modified SBUH methodology with the modified
}-day design storm (the Bruce Barker Method). The software program WaterWorks has
been used to develop and manipulate hydrographs.
The precipitation rates uom the KCSWM Design Manual are as follows:
2 yr, 7-day:
10 yr, 7-day:
4.30"
5.80"
Peak rates of runoff and required RID volume are summarized here, and the calculations
are shown in detail in Appendix A.
0.30
0.70
0.01
Northeast Basin
This basin was modeled using the KCRTS methodology with the software provided by
King County.
The site is located in the Sea-Tac Rainfa11 Region and was modeled using the 100-year
storm event. This basin will utilize an infiltration tank to handle storm water runoff.
Please refer to Appendix G for the KCRTS output.
Peak flows, cfs)
0.34
5,588
..Strivingfor tho PNk of ExcoUonco..
EXH~fS~1 I
PAGE~OF 135
Ventan>
Job No. 97021
WATER QUALITY DESIGN
A biofiltration swale will be designed to treat the runoff being released from the detention
pond. The Boswell Calculation Worksheet as provided by the Public Works Department
of the City of Federal Way will be used to size the swale.
v,
"S"t.tngfor the Peak of Excelle"ce"
EXHIBIT :::r
PAGE2LOF /35
Ven""'.
Job No. 9702\
APPENDIX A
I
I
,~j
I
I
WEST BASIN DETENTION POND
BARKER 7-DA Y OUTPUT
I
J
..Strivingfor the Peak of Excellence"
EXHiBfilr =c
PAGE l.f;1,OF 135
.2 3.2 U U J.I U 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.1 5.0 5.2 5 U.I 6.0 7.0
J. '~/f(t:.~. : ~ - ! r--l..l-' ~~ ~ - N't)(~-
. : ' .~ 1\ r!l. ; - .~ ~ ~ ~
~~ . _!-. ;,v-~ . n, / J. ~ ~.. " \, "~_\J)l ~
J.I-",~,<t--\ .f I " . /. .\.. ~~J- -'-..: þ- \ i-J t=
c.i;,'" ~¡ '<\ ~vrr ~,,-~.>~"I Î pI- t- \~~(
: "~H:! .~~',.~\~t/~~i21~",
LO
5.0) ~.., I . '; ~ \\ ~~~ \' 1 r f...;~; ~ 'it
. Wi,," \. t.-. r'i\~:'\ ,r1 Ij.~.~~~~,~
- k~ \-.--' ~"- c.~ \ 1.-' ~\~~ ~ I
' .', I> . fy-... \ ~ ¿: -, ~"":\.V -- ~\\. \JI. : I; f 'i:. j i
--<- ~ -;:.1 "o,:~;' "'- - ~ "de ~- "\ )', rJ,'~
;, - "- l~'¡1,(.. ~, "V\-, ' .9í ", :.,;,.0
~'; ';þ>I-":-'~ t\W /~,,~\;-I\\:> ~~ J; I ~
" - V' h, 4/ ~ 1e ' 'I r-,
~ ~ u .'.,""~'lr--" -t;;l~V1 -;:to L 0 I~,,;!
4.1 H : --- I1í!: ~ "'"Æ - r=' i\ f "\ . '1" \
SITE' ' ¿y:~~<\,~ ~~r :J' ~ ( l;;
4.~ UJ--\\ Ì" -, \\\ t- . .
fA
West King County . ~ 7- 1--'1Ï:::: j . - ~
5.4 Total Precipitation in Inches 4.1 - ^ M~ l}- , 0, ~...o
5.0 51¿5~" .~ "~'
5.1 ~ / ~~..7.o
" '.0 ,{U - u
lz.tlf.W EXHIB~Y -L
PAGE 43 OF /35
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8MU..
1.300,000
J
I
.,~ 7.0
J.
I
I
I
I
7.0
5.2
lO-YEAR 7-DAY ISOPLUVIALS
West King County
U Total Precipitation in Inches
a 1 2 . . . . 7 8M"..
.,
110 ~ 5.~O
EXH1B~T =r
PAGE-.1iOF ;-35
" .aa,aaa
._--:--_~j9c..l
..-. ---.1I-c./y'.J..1\D A--------:JI..L/~.------ ~--
DIfrA FOR. Dl!TFNTION:
txI$TlNt. BASIN:
TOTIIL BAsIN: S. Lf7 Åt..
Tc. . WDODE.(), FLIrT. IIZS
DE.VE.LOP£Q BArSIII: ë.- ..~ loTs
,~ IZ-/5
DE:íAiN£D ßAsIN' J27/){.CJF - L (2.500)' 317,O~' SF'
.t 7.z.~ Ac
"'P£tv~..sA~'/3(Z5'00)'" C2,O"l5.:;':
: 'Y,5î5 SF ~ 2...17 Ac.
P£'RVIO¡¡~ Aw,: 5./
A,
iìt..,
ßrp~ Af!.ÆA; o.3~ At..
PeRVIOIAS A~A. : O.J~ At.
Tc.:: Gt\IPS", Fu,T ' 12.5$
..,
EXHüBn1'- .J.
PAGE 45 OF 135
J
I
~
J
J
J
J
j
,I
J
SOUTHWEST BASIN MAP ~
EXISTING CONDITION m
--,-
" " '
/---
~ .. '
"""-'L
'~
~
-;",,1>1
1!
'.:'1,
I..
',',
,
'~
1
¡
, SCALE: 1"-100'
:-:.. -";;):'~~.:..'~:\~,\:II,!:I\:!" --=~=--
,- .. ~ ""i;I,) l....c'....- ~
¡"-~!":I' ,'1\',',,\"'\-"- 1
, : ' s_,,~.~ 1_05
" ',,\
"
_3~:~,
~~~~f:
\ ,
.
Ii
I
::::::-
'-:-'¡-
, I'r 'I
~ !; , ,¡'I I
I I' , ,I i ¡ iii' \ -" I
I I ITC~tJ,¡lL~fteA,
~~24AC' '"
" ¡" :
II':
, /", ¡i 'II ¡ ,
Ii , , I I I ! ' I
\ I I I , i , I ; :
~ ; : I I ; I
I ¡, I, ¡I
:! 1,11 ¡!
: ¡ i: ii,
\1, "
'\' "
\ \
\ \
\ I'
¡ )
,I
,.., ..
,;,
I,
i I
~
,.
:;¡.-
. i1i
......
..
~
s..
Ê
; ~
',I'
" \
I!
, ,
¡: I
,"
\\'\"',\
, \\
, ,
-~- -
/
--
"
I:
'I,
. ~ "."'" /,.... ~
',~>,.I ~ n,-_- - "..
scr:SWEX E~H~BTf I
.. PAGE 4~ OF /,~5
,
POND BYPASS
AREA-O.15 Ac
J
¡
r
.'.
2
3
.11
IS
0:"
IS
10
/
7
.21
II
8
-,
H.""""'. ""","
EXH~Br¡r.-x.'~,.~."~' ~
PAGE...:!.lOF 135 ~~--
/ /
l/
used for impervious areas. Do not use sheet flow formulas for pervious land cover.
Instead, use the times of concentration for pervious areas specified in Table 2.
J
I
1
J
)
J
J
I
]
]
TABLE 2
CALffiRATED TIME OF
CONCENTRATION VALUES FOR TILUWETLAND SOILS
CoverlSlope Time of Concentration
(minutes)
Wetland/All 1495
Grass/Steep. 0
Grass/Flat. 0
Grass/Steep** 545 ..
Grass/Flat** 1255 ~..Jo.
Forest/Steep 530 ~
Forest/Flat 1125 <Þ
Pasture/Steep 495
Pasture!Flat 1155
. CalIbrated to surface component of runoff. Use for applications where peak
flow is critical, such as conveyance design.
.. Calibrated to interflow component of runoff. Use for applications where
runoff volume is critical, such as detention design.
Flat: Average slope of 15% or less. .
Steep: Average slope greater than 15%.
Outwash soils: For sites predominantly outwash use standard 24-hr hydrograph method in
the design manual.
For RID Analysis: Use interflow calibrated Tc for both existing and developed condition
hydrograph.
¿ For Conveyance/Overflow Analysis: Use standard SCS Type I-A 24-hr rainf~
distribution and time-of-concentration as defined in the design manual.
Times of concentration for impervious surfaces are calculated as specified in the design
manual.
/E},!:<if9IT I
PAGE..:tLOF 135
8/6/98
2:38:26 pm
Detention Pond Sizing
Barker Method
Shareware Release
VENTANA
page
1
=====================================================================
BASIN ID: B10
SBUH METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA.......:
RAINFALL TYPE....:
PRECIPITATION.... :
TIME INTERVAL.. ..:
BASIN SUMMARY
NAME:
0.15 Acres
BARKER
5.80 inches
60.00 min
ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20
PEAK RATE: 0.02 cis VOL:
BASIN ID: B2
SBUH METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA. ......:
RAINFALL TYPE....:
PRECIPITATION.... :
TIME INTERVAL....:
AREA.. :
CN.... :
TC.... :
BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cis
PERV
0.15 Acres
81.00
530.00 min
0.05 Ac-ft
NAME:
0.15 Acres
BARKER
4.30 inches
60.00 min
ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20
PEAK RATE: 0.01 cis VOL:
BASIN ID: DI01
SBUH METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA.......:
RAINFALL TYPE....:
PRECIPITATION.... :
TIME INTERVAL....:
BASEFLOWS:
AREA.. :
CN.... :
TC.... :
0.03 Ac-ft
NAME: IMPERVIOUS
2.17 Acres
BARKER
5.80 inches
60.00 mill
ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20
PEAK RATE: 0.62 cis VOL:
BASIN ID: D10P
SBUH METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA. ......:
RAINFALL TYPE....:
PRECIPITATION. ...:
TIME INTERVAL....:
BASEFLOWS:
AREA.. :
CN.... :
TC.... :
1. 01 Ac-ft
NAME: PERVIOUS
5.11 Acres
BARKER
5.80 inches
60.00 mill
ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20
PEAK RATE: 0.46 cis VOL:
BASEFLOWS:
AREA.. :
CN.... :
TC.... :
1.80 Ac-ft
TIME:
9480 min
IMP
0.00 Acres
0.00
0.00 mill
IMP
0.00 Acres
0.00
0.00 mill
IMP
2.17 Acres
98.00
10.00 min
IMP
0.00 Acres
0.00
0.00 mill
F.. 'liP" ;' n ...... fl T' I
tb¿~U'=tl u ~j\ [ a .-I-
PAGE~OF /35
0.00 cis
PERV
0.15 Acres
81. 00 -
530.00 mill
TIME:
9480 mill
0.00 cis
PERV
0.00 Acres
0.00
0.00 mill
TIME:
9180 mill
0.00 cis
PERV
5.11 Acres
86.00
1255.00 min
TIME:
9660 min
8/6/98
2:38:26 pm
Detention Pond Sizing
Barker Method
Shareware Release
VENTANA
page
2
====================================================================~
BASIN ID': D2I
SBUH METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA.......:
RAINFALL TYPE....:
PRECIPITATION.... :
TIME INTERVAL....:
BASIN SUMMARY
NAME: IMPERVIOUS
2.17 Acres
BARKER
4.30 inches
60.00 min
ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20
PEAK RATE: 0.46 cis VOL:
'j
I
,.j
1
BASIN ID: D2P
SBUH METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA.. .....:
RAINFALL TYPE....:
PRECIPITATION.... :
TIME INTERVAL....:
BASEFLOWS:
AREA.. :
CN.... :
TC.. ..:
0.74 Ac-ft
TIME:
NAME: PERVIOUS
5.11 Acres
BARKER
4.30 inches
60.00 min
ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20
PEAK RATE: 0.32 cis VOL:
BASIN ID: E10
SBUH METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA.......:
RAINFALL TYPE....:
PRECIPITATION....:
TIME INTERVAL....:
I
,I
BASEFLOWS:
AREA.. :
CN.... :
TC.... :
1.20 Ac-ft
TIME:
NAME:
5.24 Acres
BARKER
5.80 inches
60.00 min
ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20
PEAK RATE: 0.45 cis VOL:
1. 62 Ac-ft
TIME:
BASIN ID: E2
SBUH METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA. . . . .. . :
RAINFALL TYPE....:
PRECIPITATION.... :
TIME INTERVAL....:
NAME:
5.24 Acres
BARKER
4.30 inches
60.00 min
ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20
PEAK RATE: 0.30 cis VOL:
BASEFLOWS:
AREA.. :
CN....:
TC.... :
BASEFLOWS:
AREA.. :
CN.... :
TC.... :
1. 04 Ac-ft
TIME:
0.00 cis
PERV
0.00 Acres
0.00
0.00 min
9180 min
0.00 cis
PERV -
5.11 Acres
86.00
1255.00 min
9660 min
0.00 cis
PERV
5.24 Acres
81.00
1125.00 min
9660 min
0.00 cis
PERV
5.24 Acres
81.00
1125.00 min
9660 min
IMP
2.17 Acres
98.00
10.00 min
IMP
0.00 Acres
0.00
0.00 min
IMP
0.00 Acres
0.00
0.00 min
IMP
0.00 Acres
0.00
0.00 min
[l=.\,'f1 D," J.
tJ;;;;u\'.... ~
PAGE 5ó OF 135
8/6/98
2:38:26 pm
Shareware Release
VENTANA
page
3
Detention Pond Sizing
Barker Method
=====================================================================
HYDROGRAPH SUMMARY
HYD
NUM
PEAK
RUNOFF
RATE
cfs
TIME
OF
PEAK
min.
VOLUME
OF
HYDRO
cf\AcFt
Contrib
Area
Acres
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Íf><'t'- -> 1
t.""..-";> 2
0.696
0.969
9180
9180
84316 cf
122081 cf
7.28
7.28
0 -- D~!-"'- "C>~ t;'
é)<
D\.:o:;:" ¡,. c \.:> f'
frc:.u>u..\Y( v.r-t-. ~- (?\I'~<;~.
~ n~ - r)\ '7.- .~ 'i. C.L.'l...,
t,"><lD..-f:,V\""-l.>f.7V ..; n-':\...~M(""'V-þ.(C.;,
\()\<\-~" ~ ...~
~
b.':)v- 0.\" .. ð .-¡..,,\ &k
< ð 4-~ <,~
[1,4<;; - 0-":'
E}fNJij[¿.)ulJ ~
PAGE~OF f35 -
8/13/98
2:13:48 pm
Shareware Release
VENTANA
page
Detention Pond Sizing
Barker Method
===================================================================~
STAGE STORAGE TABLE
CUSTOM STORAGE
Description:
ID No.
P1
STAGE <---.STORAGE---'>
1ft I ---d--- --Ac-Ft-
STAGE <---.STORAGE---->
(tcl ---d--- --Ac-Ft-
STAGE <----STORAGE---->
(ttl ---d--- --Ac-Ft-
STAGE <----STORAGE---->
(ttl ---d--- --Ac-FC-
J
I
.un..unnn.n..nnnn.un.un....nunnu.n..nn..n.nn.unn..unnn.......nnnnn
258.00 0.0000 0.0000 260.60 22181 0.5092 263.20 44337 1.0178 265.80 72671 1.6683
258.10 914.55 0.0210 260.10 22830 0.5241 263.30 45426 1.0428 265.90 13161 1. 6933
258.20 1829 0.0420 260.80 23418 0.5390 263.40 46516 1.0619 266.00 14851 1.7183
258.30 2144 0.0630 260.90 24121 0.5539 263.50 41606 1. 0929 266.10 15941 1. 1434
2S8.40 36S8 0.0840 261. 00 2471S 0.S688 263.60 48696 1.1119 266.20 11031 1. 1684
258.50 4513 0.1050 261.10 25423 0.5836 263.10 49186 1.1429 266.30 18120 1. 1934
258.60 5481 0.1260 261.20 26012 0.5985 263.80 50815 1.1619 266.40 19210 1.8184
258.10 6402 0.1410 261.30 26120 0.6134 263.90 51965 1.1930 266.50 80300 1.8434
258.80 1316 0.1680 261.40 21369 0.6283 264.00 53055 1.2180 266.60 81390 1.8685
258.90 8231 0.1890 261. 50 28011 0.6432 264.10 54145 1.2430 266.10 82480 1.8935
259.00 9146 0.2100 261. 60 28665 0.6581 264.20 55235 1.2680 266.80 83569 1. 9185
259.10 10060 0.2309 261. 10 29314 0.6130 264.30 56324 1.2930 266.90 84659 1. 9435
259.20 10915 0.2519 261.80 29962 0.6818 264.40 51414 1. 3180 261.00 85149 1.9685
259.30 11889 0.2729 261. 90 30611 0.1021 264.50 58504 1.3431 261.10 86839 1. 9935
259.40 12804 0.2939 262.00 31259 0.1116 264.60 59594 1.3681 261.20 81929 2.0186
"9.50 13118 0.3149 262.10 32349 0.1426 264.10 60684 1.3931 261.30 89018 2.0436
259.60 14633 0.3359 262.20 33439 0.1616 264.80 61713 1.4181 261.40 90108 . 2.0686
259.10 15541 0.3569 262.30 34528 0.1921 264.90 62863 1.4431 261.50 91198 2.0936
259.80 16462 0.3119 262.40 35618 0.8111 265.00 63953 1.4682 261.60 92288 2.1186
259.90 17376 0.3989 262.50 36108 0.8421 265.10 65043 1.4932 261.10 93318 2.1431
260.00 18291 0.4199 262.60 31198 0.86n 265.20 66133 1.5182 261.80 94461 2.1681
260.10 18939 0.4348 262.10 38888 0.8921 265.30 67222 1. 5432 261.90 95551 2.1931
260.20 19588 0.4491 262.80 39971 0.9118 265.40 68312 1. 5687 268.00 96641 2.2181
260.30 20236 0.4646 262.90 41061 0.9428 265.50 69402 1.5933
260.40 20885 0.4194 263.00 42151 0.9618 265.60 10492 1.6183
260.50 21533 0.4943 263.10 43241 0.9928 265.10 11582 1.6433
.",1
.J
J
J
E~r,. ~-" n .' ,-,'~C --'(
LÍ:.:'li':i. )" ~
PAGE5~' OF 135
8/13/98
2:13:48 pm
Detention Pond Sizing
Barker Method
Shareware Release
VENTANA
page
2
=====================================================================
MULTIPLE 'ORIFICE
Description:
Outlet Elev:
Elev: 256.00
Elev: 261. 20
STAGE <uDISCHARGE-u>
(tt) -hcisu --_Un
STAGE DISCHARGE TABLE.
ID No.
0
258.00
ft Orifice Diameter:
ft Orifice 2 Diameter:
STAGE <--DISCHARGEh->
(ft) _ucis-- _U_h-
2.4609 in.
1.5586 in.
STAGE <--DISCHARGEh->
(ft)
STAGE <uDISCHARGE--->
(ft) u-cfsh Uh_U
h-ds-- uu_u
258.00
258.50
0.0000
0.ll62
.n........n...n....n.n.n..n...n.n..nn..n.n--n..nn..nn.nn.un..u...n..--n..n..n
0.4238
0.4559
259.00
0.1643
259.50
260.00
260.50
0.2013
0.2324
0.2599
261. 00
261.50
262.00
0.2847
0.3436
0.3877
262.50
263.00
EXHIEUT ~
PAGE ~3 OF 135
8/13/98
2: 13: 50 pm
Shareware Release
VENTANA
page
I
- /
I
¡
Detention Pond Sizing
Barker Method
====================================================================,
LEVEL POOL TABLE SUMMARY
MATCH INFLOW -STO- -OIS- <-PEAK->
OUTFLOW STORAGE
<u---_uOESCRIPTION-u-_u--> lofsl Icfs) uid- --id- <-STAGE> id
lofsl VOL (ofl
.....................................................................................
10
0.29
0.43
O. '0
0.9'
PI
PI
0
261.12 19
262.59 20
0.2925544.08 cf
O~f
J
I
;,,1
J
I
J
J
I
j
J
I
~ q I (. S ?r c..-'t'
"S~t.~ ~ (t..-L.,Nt-
ç
y; \:~ .,.~"-~<X \
. Vb\"" Ú:tS>- Q
¿ ') & 4> ;:., J<- v \ '), 'k'i ¡q " "\ cA-
EXHUBUT I
PAGE~OF /35
'I
1
J
!
I
J
U'$<- 2.-yr, 7-,),'1 r..I"Q~ fo.to. +~f i"":^j
t~.J- l{.. 2. S. yvo.r ,Jo"" ro, cor.vof""C-t-
PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT
BIOSW ALE CALCULA nON WORKSHEET
Bioswale le~s than 200'
Project Name:
v ë.W\Þ"'-' '"
Date:
i -Io.{-"\&
Project No.:
Sl<ß"l':\ - ODDS
\..",.
By:
HYDROGRAPHS
I, 2 yr./24 hr.
Existing Q= O.I\1<r cfs*
Developed Q= 0 ,'1.-i(, cfs
Developed Q= o. '> '\ \ cfs
2.
25 yr./24 hr.
3.
100 yr./24 hr.
* .
a. Use developed Q if RID is downstream of bioswale or no RID is proposed.
b. Attach hydrograph summaries.
BIOFUNCTION DESIGN
4,
Select design flow depth/vegetation type:
A. Urban (Lawn) I" Design depth = 0.08'./
B. Rural (Natural) 4" Design depth = 0.33'
C. Wetland (Wet areas) 8" Design depth = 0.67'
[Recommended: 0.08' or 0.33']
5.
Calculate swale Q and V given:
n = 0.1
S = 0.02 ftIft.
Side slopes = 3:1 (H:V)
d = 0.08',0.33' or 0.67' ( item 4)
b = use V-ditch design (0' to 15')"'"
d=~ft.
b = 0 ft.
Q = 0.2..0 cfs
Calculated Q must be ;;:: item 1 Q.
If Q < IQ, increase b.
V = 0.':' I fps
Calculated V must be :5 1.5 fps.
devrevlengineerlbiowrksh.wks Updal<d: ognll96
EXHIB~T I
PAGE5S OF 135
EQUIVALENT AREA
6.
If the proposed bioswale is less than 200 lineal feet in length, it may be shortened. The
minimum length is 50 feet. The minimum length of any segment is SO feet.
Biofunction area (sq. ft.) = 200 ft. X 2. 0,,\
ft. (wetted perimeter) = A. I t:>
sq. ft.
Equivalent wetted permiter =
length.) = ,,-'2..\ ft.
4\'b
sq. ft.(biofunctionarea)/ \'1.0
ft.(proposed
..,Y
.""
1.lt'
ft.
.,
.4c,,-. ,".'
./
Therefore
b=
1..4
Acutal Bioswale capacity and velocity for 2 yr. event
Calculate swale Q given:
n = 0.1
S = actual (Recommended: 0.02 to 0.04 ftlft)
Side slopes = 3:1 (H:V)
d = per item 4. c). " os .
b = per item 6 (Recommended 2'min.. 8'max) b =
S= o.c....
ft/ft.
\'\'\-'
ft.
Q= oS,
cfs.
Calculated swale Q must be ;;:; item 1 Q.
.j
v = o."t.,
fps
Calculate V must be ~ 1.5 fps. If V is <!: 1.5fps then decrease slope or increase b.
FREEBOARD FOR 25 YR. EVENT
7.
Calculate actual flow depth for 25 yr. event,
n = * (0.10)
S = per item 6. d-O"1.. \lk...
Side slopes = 3:1 (H:V) ...
b = per item 6.
Q=peritem2. O.'l.'it..
d= O. 'l.<\- ft. depth required = d + 0.5ft =
0'":\-'\
ft*.
* if d is greater than flow depth/vegetation type used for biofunction design then change n to
.027 and recalculate.
devrevlengineerlbiowrksh.wks Updaced,08121/96
2
EXH!B~T -.1
PAGE 510 OF ~
I
¡
J
I
I,
1
n
Q
s
v
. Î
I
J
FREEBOARD AND VELOCITY FOR 100 YR. EVENT
8.
Calculate actual flow depth and velocity for 100 yr event.
n =*0.10
'S = per item 5.
Side slopès = 3:1 (H:V)
b = per item 5.
Q = per item 3.
d (depth required) = o."l~
ft**
Top of swale must be at or above 100 yr. water surface elevation.
V=
o.?¡o1)
fps
Calculated V must be ::; 5 fps.
* if.d is greater than flow depth/vegetation type used for biofunction design then change n to
.027 and recalculate.
** Need to use the greater of these two figures to determine swale depth or use a minimum
overall swale depth of one-foot.
9.
The swale must satisfy biofunction design and 25yr/l00yr storm event requirements. V'
Variables:
b
d
Bottom width of swale in feet
Depth of flow in feet
Manning's roughness coefficient
Discharge in cubic feet per second
Longitudinal slope of the swale in feet per feet.
Velocity of flow in feet per second
demvlenginmlbiowrksh.wks Updated: 08121/96
3
[y'~:;" Lu.-5
PAGE 57 OF 135
Ventana
Job No. 97021
APPENDIX B
ON-SITE BASIN COMPARISONS
'"
"Striving/or Ihe Peak o/Excellence"
EJ~HIBIT J
PAGE 5<6 OF 135
Ventan.
Job No. 91021
ON-SITE BASIN COMPARISONS.
The purp.ose of this analysis is to compare the rates of runoff and storm volumes for the
northeastern, southeastern, southwestern, and northwestern drainage basins within the
proposed site of development. The comparison for the basins is based upon the existing
and developed conditions for the 2- and 10-year events for using the KCRTS
methodology and software provided by King County. The following is a comparison for
each of the four basins:
J
;i
2-vear 24-hour I to-year 24-hour
Basin Existinl! Developed Kristin.. DeveloDed
NE 0.026 0.034 0.045 0.052
SE 0.076 0.056 0.132 0.105
NW 0.D25 0.002 0.044 0.004
NW See Detention Pond Sizine: Calculations -
ì
Northeast:
In the existing condition, the total area associated with the northeastern basin is 0.90 Ac.
The existing vegetation consists of forested conditions with thick underbrush. In the
developed condition, the total area associated with northeastern basin that is being
allowed to exit the site and proceed offsite as is demonstrated in the existing condition is
0.40 Ac. The amount of impervious area is 0.08 Ac. The remainder of the 0.40 Ac is
comprised of pervious area vegetated with grass. Hydrographs for the existing and
developed conditions have been created for the two storm events (see attached HYD
program output).
As indicated on the following table, both the rates of runoff and storm volumes decreased
slightly from the existing condition to the developed condition for both of the storm
events. In light of the downstream problem noted in the downstream analysis, the
decreased rates and volumes will be favorable.
J
J
J
J
I
I
J
Southeast:
In the existing condition, the total area associated with the southeastern basin is 2.66 Ac.
The existing vegetation consists of forested conditions with thick underbrush. In the
developed condition, the total area associated with northeastern basin that is being
allowed to exit the site and proceed offsite as is demonstrated in the existing condition is
1.11 Ac of pervious, grassed vegetation. Hydrographs for the existing and developed
conditions have been created for the two storm events (see attached HYD program
output).
When comparing the rates exiting the site, there is approximately a 50% decrease in rates
of runoff and storm volumes for the storm events. The southeastern basin is part of a
much larger overall basin. The stonn water flows in the conveyance system located in
"Striving/or the Peak 0/ Excellence"
!
E}(~~3¡jC) :c
PAGE 5~ "OF /35
VeolanO
Job No. 97021
SW 307tb Street are heavy within the 24" SD's. The runoff from the site is negligible
compared to the total flows noted in the downstream conveyance system.
Southwest:
In the developed condition, the storm water runoff in the southwestern basin is being
collected and conveyed to a detention pond. A small amount of the southwestern basin,
0.38 Ac, is being allowed to bypass the detention pond. The detention pond and control
structure have been designed to release the collected runoff at rates equivalent to the rates
exiting the site in the existing condition (see Appendix A). Therefore, the downstream
drainage system will not experience any increased flow rates according to the approved
methods of design.
Northwest:
In the existing condition, the total area associated with the northwestern basin is 0.88 Ac.
The existing vegetation consists of forested conditions with thick underbrush. In the
developed condition, the total area associated with northeastern basin thãt is being
allowed to exit the site and proceed offsite as is demonstrated in the existing condition is
0.05 Ac of pervious, grassed vegetation. Hydrographs for the existing and developed
conditions have been created for the two storm events (see attached HYD program
output).
The amount of area contributing to the northwest basin is considerably less in the
developed condition than in the existing condition. The result is a significant decrease in
both the rates of runoff and storm volumes. Once again, the on-site area that is associated
with the overall basin is insignificant when comparing to the entire basin. The decreased
rates and volumes will not alter the downstream drainage system.
"Strivingfor the Peø/c of Excellence..
EXHIBIT "1-
PAGE.1O.-0F
13<?
L
¡
I
EXIS~ ~_A~I~ MAP 111
~~~\'~ \:1"q I ,I ,--~~-~L,
""r-.J ~I I 1\( (\\~ \ \
-:rr-:" \111\\\1\1\'( -- ----i -~~'" ( '& \
, '\:~ 1 ~, , l \-:." .
A), 1\~~"~êlll~~ "L \ "~:::,~ 2.. I
/ j \~)\I~\\~~~,\\\ 11.- ~ I \ 1\1 ~~..-,ï
J 1111)111')\',1(/""\ ,\ I'.
111111111111\ ILII I ¡III I, I'
\ /\11111'1)/. ) \II~~~..L'STI 1/\1111
I 111I1111 I r' } \~~!""fA I I "I
I I \ (111111/11/ / I I BASIN I 1./ / ~J....'-
I I 11/11/1111 I I ~-o.90'1'cl//~""
1/11111"11/ II' I 11\//
~J 111/0111'1/(1" '\\ '1,1/
;-~- 1111/1/111 I I "\ \ /' \ I 1\\11'
~""""""'/JI/llil/I \,\\ \ 11\\
-:::::;--,llltfl(/1 ! \ \, / 1111
-,-",lllt'tll! \ //"/1 \
"'I\lllltll, I I /I/II/~I."'" "1'/
.\)11111/1/111 I I / 1,11/11'- /111'\
,II "-JII,I,II! \, //11/11//1 '- III
.)1, II,I"IIIV' /111/1/ IIII.J
// '/ I J' / 11/ _I'll
-./ \ I I ( I! I! ,', I I / I I I ( 1--- ~~'lí
'1\ II ¡'I 1// (//11;/1--// --
(i"'~~IIIII"""""""III'I) II/~I/~
'I, IV,,-' '- II 'III' ....J/~
I)/~-'II""-, II/ll,///~ I~"
1/ ~- \ ' 1\ ',', ", I I I I I I I / /~ ././ .J p/
, II~, \ \\1 , ',", , I / I') JII~I 1/ // ~
~// "\,,,'\\\\! 111(111// I I~
/_"', "\1\ II I I I I
/// '",,~ I \ ' I I _FrAFrrI
I ,) \ )"...... \ I " I ¡ I!ð. T -¡ /
\ ~/ / ""'-,""".¡ ¡ '--: I/III~ 1l.6f(Ac I ,
~( , -\ - I ¡ I' I I,
\ ,', ',--, \..-~ í-rl//// I ! / ...\'
," , 1,(1//11/
,\\,..._--1' 11\\\\111/:'
"'II -/ 1/'1)1//1 I
,1\ I,¡ / 1,/1//11'1 I I
\"" I ///1/ I J /
'I' / /1/111 / / I '
11\', ',..../ ~// / ! I I I / / ,','
II " /, ...."" III / / I,
'11"- -_/, ~ I I I' I I / / ~
1",.--- //11'(///1 'oJ
0"", ......./ /1 'II/I I
'1'---, // II~\'\I (
",', \ /~~"Jlll, I
, , À """. ,../ /~.....- .1- \, \ / I
/ j ~ .;~ !~ ) " \ I /'
EXHØB~T I
PAGE..kLOF 135
J
I
.¡,~t
J
J
I
J
!
DEVELOPED BASIN MAP ~
SCALE: 1'-~' rsw
. .
~
,,-
~
"",.',,', 'K."
Ie
17
18
19
11
zo
+ + +
+ +
+ + +
+ +
+ + + + +;
+ +
+~;""
+ + +
«~oj
+ + +
+ + + + j
. + . ¡"-,:
+ +
+ + +
+ + +
+ +
10
-- "."'--
n_. -'n_..
II
'",m,.,.. ,.:"
r;:;;l
-
r:::::ï
NORTHEAST
BYPASS BASIN
AREA-O.40 Ac
~
...
o.
...
...
"0'
EXHIBIT :!
PAGE~OF 135
EXBASINS.txt
KCRTS Command
-------------
CREATE a new Time Series
------------------------
-\
production of Runoff Time Series
Project Location: Sea-Tac
Computing Series: EXNE.tsf
Regional Scale Factor: 1.03
Data Type : Reduced
Creating Hourly Time Series File
Loading Time Series File:C:\KCRTS\ST
, ]
ï
TF60R.rnf
Till Forest
0.90 acres
J
I
--------------
Total Area: 0.90 acres
Peak Discharge: 0.075 CFS at 9:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8
Storing Time Series File
:EXNE.tsf
,,{
Time Series Computed
KCRTS Command
l
-------------
CREATE a new Time Series
------------------------
'J
Production of Runoff Time Series
Project Location: Sea-Tac
Computing Series: EXSE.tsf
Regional Scale Factor: 1.03
Data Type : Reduced
Creating Hourly Time Series File
Loading Time Series File:C:\KCRTS\ST
J
1
¡
J
J
TF60R.rnf
Till Forest
2.66 acres
--------------
Total Area: 2.66 acres
Peak Discharge: 0.221 CFS at 9:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8
Storing Time Series File
:EXSE.tsf
Time Series Computed
KCRTS Command
-------------
Page 1
EX[<¡u,~,T' ~
PAGE &3 OF '~5
EXBASINS. txt
CREATE a new Time Series
------------------------
production of Runoff Time Series
Project Location: Sea-Tac
Computing Series: EXSW.tsf
Regional Scale Factor: 1.03
Data Type : Reduced
Creating Hourly Time Series File
Loading Time Series File:C:\KCRTS\ST
TF60R.rnf
Till Forest
5.47 acres
--------------
Total Area: 5.47 acres
Peak Discharge: 0.454 CFS at 9:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8
Storing Time Series File
:EXSW.tsf
Time Series Computed
KCRTS Command
-------------
CREATE a new Time Series
------------------------
production of Runoff Time Series
Project Location: Sea-Tac
Computing Series: EXNW.tsf
Regional'Scale Factor: 1.03
Data Type : Reduced
Creating Hourly Time Series File
Loading Time Series File:C:\KCRTS\ST
TF60R.rnf
Till Forest
0.88 acres
--------------
Total Area: 0.88 acres
Peak Discharge: 0.073 CFS at 9:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8
Storing Time Series File
:EXNW.tsf
Time Series Computed
KCRTS Command
-------------
eXit KCRTS Program
------------------
Page 2
EXHU~J\ ~
PAGEliLOF
1~'5
Flow Frequency Analysis
-----------------------
Time Series File:exne.tsf
Project Location:Sea-Tac
---Annual Peak Flow Ratesu - -----Flow Frequency Analysis-------
Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob
(CFS) (CFS) Period
0.058 2 2/ 9/ 1 18:00 0.075 1 100.00 0.990
0.016 7 1/ 6/ 2 3:00 0.058 2 25.00 0.960
0.043 4 2/28/ 3 3:00 0.045 3 10.00 0.900
0.001 8 3/24/ 4 20:00 0.043 4 5.00 0.800
0.026 6 1/ 5/ 5 8:00 0.038 5 3.00 0.667
0.045 3 1/18/ 6 21:00 0.026 6 2.00 0.500
0.038 5 11/24/ 6 4:00 0.016 7 1. 30 0.231
J 0.075 1 1/ 9/ 8 9:00 0.001 8 1.10 0.091
.. Computed Peaks 0.069 50.00 0.980
J
0;(
Peak Values and Return Periods
~ Press Enter to Continue
.1
I
¡
g
.J
1
J
J
EXHn3~fi ~
PAGE~OF
?,s
Flow Frequency Analysis
-----------------------
Time Series File:exse.tsf
Project Location:Sea-Tac
---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- -----Flow Frequency Analysis-------
Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob
(CFS) (CFS) Period
0.172 2 2/ 9/ 1 18:00 0.221 1 100.00 0.990
0.047 7 1/ 6/ 2 3:00 0.172 2 25.00 0.960
0.128 4 2/28/ 3 3:00 0.132 3 10.00 0.900
0.004 8 3/24/ 4 20:00 0.128 4 5.00 0.800
0.076 6 1/ 5/ 5 8:00 0.112 5 3.00 0.667
0.132 3 1/18/ 6 21:00 0.076 6 2.00 0.500
0.112 5 11/24/ 6 4:00 0.047 7 1. 30 0.231
0.221 1 1/ 9/ 8 9:00 0.004 8 1.10 0.091
Computed Peaks 0.205 50.00 0.980
+-Peak Values and Return Periods------+
:. Press Enter to Continue.:
+-------------------------------------+
EV" n c .;('
b~ U=u L , .J.-
~~GE~Oï= /35
I.
I
Flow Frequency Analysis
-----------------------
Time Series File:exsw.tsf
Project Location:Sea-Tac
---Annual Peak, Flow Rates--- -----Flow Frequency Analysis-------
Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob
(CFS) (CFS) Period
0.355 2 2/ 9/ 1 18:00 0.454 1 100.00 0.990
0.096 7 1/ 6/ 2 3:00 0.355 2 25.00 0.960
0.263 4 2/28/ 3 3:00 0.273 3 10.00 0.900
0.009 8 3/24/ 4 20:00 0.263 4 5.00 0.800
I 0.156 6 1/ 5/ 5 8:00 0.230 5 3.00 0.667
0.273 3 1/18/ 6 21:00 0.156 6 2.00 0.500
0.230 5 11/24/ 6 4:00 0.096 7 1. 30 0.231
J 0 .454 1 1/ 9/ 8 9:00 0.009 8 1.10 0.091
.- Computed Peaks 0.421 50.00 0.980
I ~peak Values and Return pe~iOds~
Press
Enter to Cont1nue .
wi
1
I
)
,J
J
I
j
J
IE'\\VC<:I -r
H::.4\.u u.,,"- -.. ..-..--..----
PAGE.bl.OF 135
Flow Frequency Analysis
-----------------------
Time Series File:exnw.tsf
Project Location:Sea-Tac
---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- -----Flow Frequency Analysis-------
Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob
(CFS) (CFS) Period
0.057 2 2/ 9/ 1 18:00 0.073 1 100.00 0.990
0.015 7 1/ 6/ 2 3:00 0.057 2 25.00 0.960
0.042 4 2/28/ 3 3:00 0.044 3 10.00 0.900
0.001 8 3/24/ 4 20:00 0.042 4 5.00 0.800
0.025 6 1/ 5/ 5 8:00 0.037 5 3.00 0.667
0.044 3 1/18/ 6 21:00 0.025 6 2.00 0.500
0.037 5 11/24/ 6 4:00 0.015 7 1. 30 0.231
0.073 1 1/ 9/ 8 9:00 0.001 8 1.10 0.091
Computed Peaks 0.068 50.00 0.980
[peak Values and Return periods
. Press Enter to Continue
.1
/35
)
J
p"'r'" ¡co) U'1f' :t
Lc"..lci!lcl).iU
PAGE~OF
Devbasin
KCRTS Command
-------------
. CREATE a new Time Series
------------------------
. Production of Runoff Time Series
Project Location: Sea-Tac
Computing Series: DEVNE.tsf
Regional Scale Factor: 1.03
Data Type: Reduced
Creating Hourly Time Series File
Loading Time Series File:C:\KCRTS\ST
TG60R.rnf
Till Grass
0.32 acres
Loading Time Series File:C:\KCRTS\ST
EI60R.rnf
Impervious
0.08 acres
--------------
.1
Total Area: 0 .40 acres
Peak Discharge: 0.109 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8
Storing Time Series File:
DEVNE.tsf
Time Series Computed
KCRTS Command
-------------
CREATE a new Time Series
------------------------
Production of Runoff Time Series
Project Location: Sea-Tac
Computing Series: DEVSE.tsf
Regional Scale Factor: 1.03
Data Type: Reduced
Creating Hourly Time Series File
Loading Time Series File:C:\KCRTS\ST
TG60R.rnf
Till Grass
1.11 acres
--------------
Total Area: 1.11 acres
Peak Discharge: 0.242 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8
Storing Time Series File:
DEVSE.tsf
Time Series Computed
Page 1
E}t&=~u~ßl :t:
PAGE~OF 135
Devbasin
KCRTS command
-------------
CREATE a new Time Series
------------------------
Production of Runoff Time Series
Project Location: Sea-Tac
Computing Series: DEVNW.tsf
Regional Scale Factor: 1.03
Data Type : Reduced
Creating Hourly Time Series File
Loading Time Series File:C:\KCRTS\ST
TG60R.rnf
Till Grass
0.05 acres
--------------
Total Area: 0.05 acres
Peak Discharge: 0.011 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8
Storing Time Series File:
DEVNW.tsf
Time Series Computed
KCRTS Command
-------------
eXit KCRTS Program
------------------
Page 2
E".7n c" '~r' ..,.-
)\..[J¡j~)u ~
PAGE 70 OF /3S
Devpeaks.txt
KCRTS Command
-------------
Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module
-------------------------------
Analysis Tools Command
----------------------
Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies
----------------------------------
Loading Time Series File:
devne.tsf
Flow Frequency Analysis
-----------------------
)
¡
!J
Time Series File:devne.tsf
Project Location:Sea-Tac
Flow Frequency Analysis
-----------------------
Time Series File:devne.tsf
Project Location:Sea-Tac
J
I
.J
J
J
}
J
---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- -----Flow Frequency Analysis--
Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return
Prob
(CFS) (CFS) Period
0.049 4 2/ 9/ 1 2:00 0.108 1 100.00
0.990
0.033 7 1/ 5/ 2 16:00 0.061 2 25.00
0.960
0.061 2 2/27/ 3 7:00 0.052 3 10.00
0.900
0.027 8 8/26/ 4 2:00 0.049 4 5.00
0.800
0.034 6 10/28/ 4 16:00 0.047 5 3.00
0.667
0.052 3 1/18/ 6 16:00 0.034 6 2.00
0.500
0.047 5 11/24/ 6 3:00 0.033 7 1. 30
0.231
0.108 1 1/ 9/ 8 6:00 0.027 8 1.10
0.091
Computed Peaks 0.093 50.00
J
Page 1
E}n.'~¡:[M:Y_. :r
PAGE.1.LOF 135
Devpeaks.txt
0.980
Frequencies & Peaks saved to File:
DEVNE.pks
Analysis Tools Command
----------------------
Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies
----------------------------------
Loading Time Series File:
devse.tsf
Flow Frequency Analysis
-----------------------
Time Series File:devse.tsf
Project Location:Sea-Tac
Flow Frequency Analysis
-----------------------
Time Series File:devse.tsf
Project Location:Sea-Tac
---Annual Peak Flow Rates-n -----Flow Frequency Analysis--
Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return
Prob
(CFS) (CFS) Period
0.102 4 2/ 9/ 1 2:00 0.242 1 100.00
0.990
0.052 7 1/ 5/ 2 16:00 0.130 2 25.00
0.960
0.130 2 2/27/ 3 7:00 0.105 3 10.00
0.900
0.021 8 8/26/ 4 2:00 0.102 4 5.00
0.800
0.056 6 1/ 5/ 5 8:00 0.094 5 3.00
0.667
0.105 3 1/18/ 6 16:00 0.056 6 2.00
0.500
0.094 5 11/24/ 6 3:00 0.052 7 1. 30
0.231
0.242 1 1/ 9/ 8 6:00 0.021 8 1.10
0.091
Computed Peaks 0.204 50.00
Page 2
EXÜ=~L.. 1-
PAGE 7c20F , 35
- !
I
Devpeaks.txt
0.980
DEVSE.pks
Frequencies & Peaks saved to File:
Analysis Tools Command
----------------------
Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies
----------------------------------
devnw.tsf
Loading Time Series File:
Flow Frequency Analysis
J
I
,,¡I
J
¡
.J
I
¡
\
J
-----------------------
Time Series File:devnw.tsf
Project Location:Sea-Tac
Flow Frequency Analysis
-----------------------
Time Series File:devnw.tsf
Project Location:Sea-Tac
---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- -----Flow Frequency Analysis--
Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return
prob
(CFS) (CFS) Period
0.004 3 2/ 9/ 1 2:00 0.011 1 100.00
0.990
0.002 7 1/ 5/ 2 16:00 0.006 2 25.00
0.960
0.006 2 2/27/ 3 7:00 0.004 3 10.00
0.900
0.001 8 3/24/ 4 19:00 0.004 4 5.00
0.800
0.002 6 1/ 5/ 5 8:00 0.004 5 3.00
0.667
0.004 4 1/18/ 6 16:00 0.002 6 2.00
0.500
0.004 5 11/24/ 6 3:00 0.002 7 1. 30
0.231
0.011 1 1/ 9/ 8 6:00 0.001 8 1.10
0.091
Computed Peaks 0.009 50.00
Page 3
EXHIBIT 1-
PAGE.TI-OF /35
Devpeaks.txt
0.980
Frequencies & Peaks saved to File:
DEVNW.pks
Analysis Tools Command
----------------------
RETURN to Previous Menu
-----------------------
KCRTS Command
-------------
eXit KCRTS Program
------------------
Page 4
EXHIBIT ~
PAGE~OF 135
:exne.tsf
j
,,1
:EXNE.prn
J
I
I
J
J
:exse.tsf
:EXSE.prn
.J
Basinvol.txt
()¡'¡-SITE' ßA:5JN VOLUt1£
KCRTS Command
-------------
Enter the Analys~s TOOLS Module
-------------------------------
Analysis Tools Command
----------------------
Compute VOLUME Discharge
------------------------
Loading Time Series File
Discharge Volume
----------------
Discharge Volume from Time Series
exne.tsf
between 10/ 1/ 0 0:00 and 09/30/08 23:59
172494. Cu-Ft or 3.960 Ac-Ft in 2920.0 days
Discharge Volume File
Volume Computed
Analysis Tools Command
----------------------
Compute VOLUME Discharge
------------------------
Loading Time Series File
Discharge Volume
----------------
Discharge Volume from Time Series
exse.tsf
between 10/ 1/ 0 0:00 and 09/30/08 23:59
529890. Cu-Ft or 12.165 Ac-Ft in 2920.0 days
Discharge Volume File
Volume Computed
Analysis Tools Command
----------------------
Compute VOLUME Discharge
------------------------
Loading Time Series File
Page 1
EXHIBIT :;;
PAGE 15 OF 135
:exsw.tsf
:EXSW.prn
:exnw.tsf
: EXNW.prn
devne.tsf
DEVNE.prn
Basinvol.txt
CJN:JIT£ ßA:5/N
V6Ü{H€ .
Discharge volume
----------------
Discharge Volume from Time Series
exsw.tsf
between 10/ 1/ 0 0:00 and 09/30/08 23:59
1102591. Cu-Ft or 25.312 Ac-Ft in 2920.0 days
Discharge Volume File
Volume Computed
Analysis Tools Command
----------------------
Compute VOLUME Discharge
------------------------
Loading Time Series File
Discharge Volume
----------------
Discharge Volume from Time Series
exnw.tsf
between 10/ 1/ 0 0:00 and 09/30/08 23:59
168504. Cu-Ft or 3.868 Ac-Ft in 2920.0 days
Discharge Volume File
Volume Computed
Analysis Tools Command
----------------------
Compute VOLUME Discharge
------------------------
Loading Time Series File:
Discharge Volume
----------------
Discharge Volume from Time Series
devne.tsf
between 10/ 1/ 0 0:00 and 09/30/08 23:59
184057. Cu-Ft or 4.225 Ac-Ft in 2920.0
Discharge Volume
days
File:
Volume Computed
Page 2
EXHIB~l._1-
PAGE.1.hO~ /35
¡
J
devse. tsf.
J
I
DEVSE.prn
J
devnw.tsf
1
J
j
J
I
.J
J
DEVNW.prn
)
Basinvol.txt
ON.5IT£. ßA'SI~
VoU./H£
Analysis Tools Command
----------------------
Compute VOLUME Discharge
------------------------
Loading Time Series File:
Discharge Volume
----------------
Discharge Volume from Time Series
devse.tsf
between 10/ 1/ 0 0:00 and 09/30/08 23:59
438323. Cu-Ft or 10.063 Ac-Ft in 2920.0
Discharge Volume
days
File:
Volume Computed
Analysis Tools Command
----------------------
Compute VOLUME Discharge
------------------------
Loading Time Series File:
Discharge Volume
----------------
Discharge Volume from Time Series
devnw.tsf
between 10/ 1/ 0 0:00 and 09/30/08 23:59
11117. Cu-Ft or 0.255 Ac-Ft in 2920.0 days
Discharge Volume File:
Volume Computed
Analysis Tools Command
----------------------
RETURN to Previous Menu
-----------------------
KCRTS Command
-------------
eXit KCRTS Program
------------------
Page 3
EXHIBIT -::[.
PAGElLOF /35
Ventana
Job No. 97021
APPENDIX C
OFFSITE CONVEYANCE CAPACITY CHECK -
SOUTHWEST BASIN
"Strivingfor tire Peok of Excellence"
EXHIB~T~
PAGE-TI-OF /35
Vcntana
Job No. 97021
.
]
J
.;¡
OFFSITE CONVEYANCE CAPACITY CHECK
SOUTHWEST BASIN
The downstream from the detention pond outfall to the Puget Sound was analyzed using
the SBUH methodology using the 25-year, 24-hour storm event. WaterWorks, a software
program from Engenious Systems was used to calculate, route and add the hydrographs,
as well as calculate the pipe capacities. The basins and reaches (pipes and ditches) are
identified on the 24"x36" blueline exhibits A and B which can be found folded up in back
of this report. The topography shown was prepared by Tri-County Surveying.
For the purpose of this analysis, the hydrographs were assumed to be instantaneous
between each reach. This is a conservative assumption that shortens the time of
concentration thus increase the calculated peak flows.
The results of the analysis indicate all the pipes and reaches are not adversely affected by
the minor diversion occurring on the Ventana site. Each pipe and ditch haš adequate
capacity. The only problem identified is Reach 17, a 12" concrete pipe that is sloped in
the wrong direction.
J
1
]
J
J
]
J
"Striving/or 1m P<ok 0/ Exce/le"ce"
EXHIB~l .L
PAGE.1LOF /35
VeDloDO
97021
August 11, 1998
Ba,in
Name
-r-
B
c
~u~
D
E
F
G.__.un
H
;g~
G>:J:
m-
m
I~~
O~\
"
I
-.
--.
--
J
K
....
L
I
M
. -..-
N
~
0
p
Q
-
-
Basin Input Data
-I
0.31
0.25
w:.
I P:
Total I Perv/lmperv
Area (ac) ¡ I Area (ac)
0.54 p, ¡ 0.32
: I: i 0.22
¡ p, I 0.25
. I
I
0.07
10
: P:
J..!.:.
; P:
10
P:
0.06
1023
0.31
~
P:!
0.34
I:
r¡;:
~
1082
2.04
I:
P:
I:
Ii':
~
, p.
: I:
TI
¡I:
rp:
, I:
0.15
0.2
0.58
0.26
0.36
; P:
-4
'il
P: !
I: i
~
0.13
0.07
grass
brush
0.06
ill
gro"
brush
0.07
õ:õ3
0.04
õ:õo
0.06
t.19
grass
brush
0.04
õT6
.sr°"
brusb
.Ò.05
ITs
0.09
i7i
~grass
brush
0.15
1.82
0.22
õ:i2
0.03
ill
0.04
W
0.09
õ:ñ
0.04
õ:27
0.09
õ:i2
0.01
õ:õs
0.02
Perv i
Breakdown
grass
-.. -~.~
0.07
0.18
~1~L31
gras.'
-, . ~ ._~~
I
~- ._..~.~ - , ~-_u
n~u I~.~~~
J~F--tJ~I~ ~
brush
-]Jt--=j=~=~-~1
~ b_ru~ -~._.._.
-gr~!.~n
grass
i
grass --
gras~ -
grass
grass
grass
CN
86
81
-+ -'
-
Weighted I
CN
86:õo
98.00
82.40
I
98.00
iii39
98.00
š6:õõ
98.00
98.00
81.63
I
I
I
+
I
98.00
am,_-
98.00
ii:õO
98.00
šI99
I
I
¡
98.00
ii:õo
98.ÒÒ.-
86.00
98.00
86.00
98.00
š6:õõ
98.00
š6:õõ
98.00
š6:õõ¡
98.00
š6:õõ
98.00
õ6:õõ
,.00
I
Tc
(min)
-Š-
~,.
~-
5
L -~
L
(ft)
as;;;;;;d
,
(%)
cover
-~~
180
12
~thick ~rush~
-
~~-~- ~
222
__.J57
thick brush
f- ~
-1
. ~
u..-...--.
5
I assumed. -,-. - -~.~.u +-
5
assu,!,~d- n'~-
300 25 thick brush
~---.=. ._.~~~~~}tiBhJra.s
1.8Q. . ~..!4L. _~h-
~260 17,7_.- ~,,"-~jC~
30 6
375 ~.- --7Ô:¡
¡---{i. ~~f--
l'~t
ditch
cf~
~jOjr~;.
ditch
.~~---+--.H. I =~~~.
5
T ~ as!"med ~---
.n
5
assumed I-
5
assurn~~_~_-
5
¡ assumed
I ~ ~~--
5
assumed
assumed ~I .
. ~ ~
assumed ..1-
8/13/98
2:30:58 pm
Downstream Analysis
Shareware Release
VENTANA
page
1
=====================================================================
BASIN ID: D25I
SBUH METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA.......:
RAINFALL TYPE....:
PRECIPITATION.... :
TIME INTERVAL....:
BASIN SUMMARY
NAME: IMPERVIOUS
0-> ~ l 'íE--- \~ D ~ c /I->R ~
2.17 Acres
TYPE1A
3.48 inches
60.00 min
ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20
PEAK RATE: 1.01 cis VOL:
OJ
,d
BASIN ID: D25P
SBUH METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA.......:
RAINFALL TYPE....:
PRECIPITATION.... :
TIME INTERVAL....:
BASEFLOWS:
0.00 cis
PERV
0.00 Acres
0.00
0.00 min
AREA.. :
CN.... :
TC.... :
0.58 Ac-ft
480 min
NAME: PERVIOUS
5.11 Acres
BARKER
3.48 inches
60.00 min
ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20
PEAK RATE: 0.24 cis VOL:
J
:]
J
J
J
J
/J
TIME:
BASEFLOWS:
0.00 cis
PERV
5.11 Acres
86.00
1255.00 min
AREA..:
CN.... :
TC.... :
0.89 Ac-ft
9660 min
TIME:
EXHISrF: .:;:
PAGE..tLOF
IMP
2.17 Acres
98.00
10.00 min
IMP
0.00 Acres
0.00
O.OO.min
135
8/8/98
11:57:22 pm
Downstream Analysis
Shareware Release
VENTANA
page
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
BASIN ID: A
SBUH METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA.......:
RAINFALL TYPE....:
PRECIPITATION.... :
TIME INTERVAL....:
BASIN SUMMARY
NAME:
0.76 Acres
TYPE1A
3.48 inches
10.00 min
ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20
PEAK RATE: 0.41 cis VOL:
BASIN ID: B
SBUH METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA.......:
RAINFALL TYPE....:
PRECIPITATION....:
TIME INTERVAL....:
BASEFLOWS:
AREA.. :
CN.... :
TC.... :
0.15 Ac-ft
NAME:
0.47 Acres
TYPE1A
3.48 inches
10.00 min
BASEFLOWS:
AREA.. :
CN....:
TC.... :
0.00 cis
PERV
0.54 Acres
86.00
5.00 min
TIME:
480 min
0.00 cis
PERV
0.25 Acres
82.40
13 .51 miñ
ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20
TcReach - Sheet L: 180.00 ns:0.2400 p2yr: 2.18 s:0.1200
PEAK RATE: 0.25 cis VOL: 0.10 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min
BASIN ID: C .
SBUH METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA.... ...:
RAINFALL TYPE....:
PRECIPITATION....:
TIME INTERVAL....:
NAME:
0.40 Acres
TYPEIA
3.48 inches
10.00 min
BASEFLOWS:
AREA.. :
CN.... :
TC.... :
0.00 cis
PERV
0.18 Acres
82.39
14.35 min
ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20
TcReach - Sheet L: 222.00 ns:0.2400 p2yr: 2.18 s:0.1570
PEAK RATE: 0.22 cis VOL: 0.09 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min
BASIN ID: D
SBUH METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA..... ..:
RAINFALL TYPE....:
PRECIPITATION.... :
TIME INTERVAL....:
NAME:
0.07 Acres
TYPE1A
3.48 inches
10.00 min
BASEFLOWS:
AREA.. :
CN.... :
TC.... :
0.00 cis
PERV
0.03 Acres
86.00
5.00 min
ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20
TcReach - Sheet L: 222.00 ns:0.2400 p2yr: 2.18 s:0.1570
PEAK RATE: 0.04 cis VOL: 0.02 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min
IMP
0.22 Acres
98.00
5.00 min
IMP
0.22 Acres
98.00
5.00 min
IMP
0.22 Acres
98.00
5.00 min
IMP
0.04 AcreE
98.00
5.00 min
EXHIB~ 1k-
PAGE ~:l. OF J 35
8/8/98
11:57:22 pm
Downstream Analysis
Shareware Release
VENTANA
page
2
=====================================================================
BASIN ID: E
SBUH METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA.......:
RAINFALL TYPE. ...:
PRECIPITATION.... :
TIME INTERVAL....:
BASIN SUMMARY
NAME:
0.06 Acres
TYPE1A
3.48 inches
10.00 min
BASEFLOWS:
0.00 cis
PERV
0.00 Acres
0.00
0.00 min
AREA..:
CN....:
TC.... :
ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20
TcReach - Sheet L: 222.00 ns:0.2400 p2yr: 2.18 s:0.1570
PEAK RATE: 0.04 cis VOL: 0.02 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min
J
I
"L
BASIN ID: F
SBUH METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA.......:
RAINFALL TYPE....:
PRECIPITATION. ...:
TIME INTERVAL....:
NAME:
1.23 Acres
TYPE1A
3.48 inches
10.00 min
ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20
TcReach - Sheet L: 300.00
TcReach - Shallow L: 50.00
TcReach - Channel L: 180.00
PEAK RATE: 0.41 cis VOL:
J
)
.J
J
¡
I
BASIN ID: G
SBUH METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA.......:
RAINFALL TYPE....:
PRECIPITATION.... :
TIME INTERVAL....:
BASEFLOWS:
0.00 cis
PERV
1. 19 Acr-es
81. 63
15.81 min
AREA..:
CN.... :
TC.... :
ns:0.2400 p2yr: 2.18 s:0.2500
ks:9.00 s:0.2500
kC:17.00 s:0.1440
0.18 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min
NAME:
0.34 Acres
TYPE1A
3.48 inches
10.00 min
BASEFLOWS:
0.00 cis
PERV
0.26 Acres
84.85
15.52 min
NAME:
0.31 Acres
TYPE1A
3.48 inches
10.00 min
AREA.. :
CN.... :
TC.... :
ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20
TcReach - Sheet L: 260.00 ns:0.2400 p2yr: 2.18 s:0.1770
PEAK RATE: 0.14 cis VOL: 0.06 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min
BASIN ID: H
SBUH METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA.... ...:
RAINFALL TYPE....:
PRECIPITATION. ...:
TIME INTERVAL....:
BASEFLOWS:
0.00 cis
PERV
0.25 Acres
81. 00
1.74 min
AREA.. :
CN.... :
TC.... :
ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20
TcReach - Sheet L: 30.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 2.18 s:0..0600
TcReach - Channel L: 375.00 kC:17.00 s:0.0707
PEAK RATE: 0.16 cis VOL: 0.06 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min
IMP
0.06 Acres
98.00
5.00 min
IMP
0.04 Acres
98.00
5.00 min
IMP'
0.05 Acres
98.00
5.00 min
IMP
0.09 Acres
98.00
5.00 min
EXHIBIT ~
PAGE~ OF 135
8/8/98
11:57:22 pm
Downstream Analysis
Shareware Release
VENTANA
page
===================================================================
BASIN ID: I
SBUH METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA.......:
RAINFALL TYPE. ...:
PRECIPITATION....:
TIME INTERVAL....:
NAME:
BASIN SUMMARY
BASEFLOWS:
0.00 cis
PERV
1.67 Acres
83.99
21.98 mill
1.82 Acres
TYPE1A
3.48 inches
10.00 mill
ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20
TcReach - Sheet L: 300.00
TcReach - Shallow L: 185.00
TcReach - Channel L: 180.00
PEAK RATE: 0.66 cis VOL:
BASIN ID: J
SBUH METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA.. .....:
RAINFALL TYPE....:
PRECIPITATION.... :
TIME INTERVAL....:
NAME:
AREA..:
CN.... :
TC.... :
ns:0.2400 p2yr: 2.18 s:0.1420
ks:9.00 s:0.0810
kc:17.00 s:0.0100
0.31 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min
BASEFLOWS:
0.00 -cis
PERV
1.82 Acres
81.00
24.58 min
2.04 Acres
TYPE1A
3.48 inches
10.00 mill
ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20
TcReach - Sheet L: 300.00
TcReach - Shallow L: 315.00
TcReach - Channel L: 180.00
PEAK RATE: 0.64 cis VOL:
BASIN ID: K
SBUH METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA.......:
RAINFALL TYPE....:
PRECIPITATION....:
TIME INTERVAL....:
0.15 Acres
TYPE1A
3.48 inches
10.00 mill
NAME:
ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20
TcReach - Sheet L: 300.00
TcReach - Shallow L: 315.00
TcReach - Channel L: 180.00
PEAK RATE: 0.08 cis VOL:
AREA.. :
CN....:
TC.... :
ns:0.2400 p2yr: 2.18 s:0.1100
ks:9.00 s:0.1100
kc:17.00 s:0.0100
0.32 Ac-ft TIME: 480 mill
BASEFLOWS:
0.00 cis
PERV
0.12 Acres
86.00
5.00 mill
AREA.. :
CN.... :
TC.... :
ns:0.2400 p2yr: 2.18 s:0.1100
ks:9.00 s:0.1100
kc:17.00 s:0.0100
0.03 Ac-ft TIME: 480 mill
EXHIBIT ~
PAGE1&- OF
IMP
0.15 Acre:"
98.00
5.00 mill
IMP
0.22 Acres
98.00
5.00 mill
IMP
0.03 Acres
98.00
5.00 min
135
8/8/98
11:57:22 pm
Downstream Analysis
Shareware Release
VENTANA
page
4
=====================================================================
BASIN ID: L
SBUH METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA.......:
RAINFALL TYPE....:
PRECIPITATION.... :
TIME INTERVAL....:
NAME:
BASIN SUMMARY
0.20 Acres
TYPE1A
3.48 inches
10.00 min
ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20
TcReach - Sheet L: 300.00
TcReach - Shallow L: 315.00
TcReach - Channel L: 180.00
PEAK RATE: 0.10 cis VOL:
I
J
BASIN ID: M
SBUH METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA.......:
RAINFALL TYPE....:
PRECIPITATION.... :
TIME INTERVAL....:
;;1
NAME:
BASEFLOWS:
0.00 cis
PERV
0.16 Acres
86.00
5.00 mill
AREA.. :
CN.... :
TC.... :
ns:0.2400 p2yr: 2.18 s:0.1100
ks:9.00 s:0.1100
kC:17.00 s:O.OlOO
0.04 Ac-ft TIME: 480 mill
0.58 Acres
TYPE1A
3.48 inches
10.00 mill
ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20
TcReach - Sheet L: 300.00
TcReach - Shallow L: 315.00
TcReach - Channel L: 180.00
PEAK RATE: 0.30 cis VOL:
I
J
J
I
I
J
BASIN ID: N
SBUH METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA.... ...:
RAINFALL TYPE....:
PRECIPITATION.... :
TIME INTERVAL....:
NAME:
0.00 ëfs
PERV
0.49 Acres
86.00
5.00 mill
BASEFLOWS:
AREA.. :
CN.... :
TC.... :
ns:0.2400 p2yr: 2.18 s:0.1100
ks:9.00 s:0.1100
kc:17.00 s:0.0100
0.11 Ac-ft TIME: 480 mill
0.26 Acres
TYPE1A
3.48 inches
10.00 mill
ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20
TcReach - Sheet L: 300.00
TcReach - Shallow L: 315.00
TcReach - Channel L: 180.00
PEAK RATE: 0.13 cis VOL:
BASEFLOWS:
0.00 cis
PERV
0.22 Acres
86.00
5.00 mill
AREA.. :
CN.... :
TC.... :
ns:0.2400 p2yr: 2.18 s:0.1100
ks:9.00 s:0.1100
kc:17.00 S:0.0100
0.05 Ac-ft TIME: 480 mill
IMP
0.04 Acres
98.00
5.00 mill
IMP
0.09 Acres
98.00
5.00 mill
IMP.
0.04 Acres
98.00
5.00 mill
EXHIBIT ~
PAGE~OF /35
8/8/98
11:57:22 pm
Downstream Analysis
Shareware Release
VENTANA
page
===================================================================
BASIN ID: 0
SBUH METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA.... ...:
RAINFALL TYPE....:
PRECIPITATION.... :
TIME INTERVAL....:
NAME:
BASIN SUMMARY
0.36 Acres
TYPE1A
3.48 inches
10.00 min
ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20
TcReach - Sheet L: 300.00
TcReach - Shallow L: 315.00
TcReach - Channel L: 180.00
PEAK RATE: 0.19 cis VOL:
BASIN ID: P
SBUH METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA. .... ..:
RAINFALL TYPE. ...:
PRECIPITATION.... :
TIME INTERVAL....:
0.13 Acres
TYPE1A
3.48 inches
10.00 min
NAME:
ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20
TcReach - Sheet L: 300.00
TcReach - Shallow L: 315.00
TcReach - Channel L: 180.00
PEAK RATE: 0.06 cis VOL:
BASIN ID: Q
SBUH METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA.......:
RAINFALL TYPE....:
PRECIPITATION. ...:
TIME INTERVAL....:
NAME:
BASEFLOWS:
0.00 cis
PERV
0.27 Acres
86.00
5.00 min
AREA.. :
CN....:
TC.... :
ns:0.2400 p2yr: 2.18 s:0.1100
ks:9.00 s:0.1100
kc:17.00 s:0.0100
0.07Ac-ft TIME: 480min
BASEFLOWS:
0.00 -cis
PERV
0.12 Acres
86.00
5.00 min
AREA.. :
CN....:
TC.... :
ns:0.2400 p2yr: 2.18 s:0.1100
ks:9.00 s:0.1100
kc:17.00 s:0.0100
0.02 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min
0.07 Acres
TYPE1A
3.48 inches
10.00 min
ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20
TcReach - Sheet L: 300.00
TcReach - Shallow L: 315.00
TcReach - Channel L: 180.00
PEAK RATE: 0.04 cis VOL:
BASEFLOWS:
0.00 cis
PERV
0.05 Acres
86.00
5.00 min
AREA.. :
CN.... :
TC.... :
ns:0.2400 p2yr: 2.18 s:0.1100
ks:9.00 s:0.1100
kc:17.00 s:0.0100
0.01 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min
IMP
0.09 Acrer
98.00
5.00 min
IMP
0.01 Ac~es
98.00
5.00 min
IMP
0.02 Acres
98.00
5.00 min
EXHIBrc- :1-
PAGEik-OF 135
8/13/98
3:7:34 pm
Shareware Release
VENTANA
1
Downstream Analysis
page
=====================================================================
HISTORY OF HYDROGRAPH ACTIVITY
Date of Session, 8/13/'8
CLEARHIS
3,7,lI pm
Executing Program file, C, \DCADTA\P\97021 \WW\DOIINSTR\HCREATE.pgm
REMARK
Hydrograph Creation
LSTEND
BASIN D25I "ONSITE IMPERVIOUS" 2.170 3.48 60.00 0.00 TYPEIA 10.00
0.20 0.000 0.000 0.00 2.170 ".00 SBUN 168.00 484.00
LSTEND
J
BASIN D25P "ONSITE PERVIOUS" 5.110 3.48 60.00 1255.00 BARKER 0.00
0.20 0.000 5.110 86.00 0.000 0.00 SBUN 168.00 4B4.00
LSTEND
.J
BASIN A"" 0.760 3.4B 10.00 5.00 TYPEIA 5.00
0.200.0000.540 B6.00 0.220 'B.OO SBUH 24.00 4B4.00
LSTEND
BASIN B"" 0.470 3.4B 10.00 13.51 TYPEIA 5.00
0.20 0.000 0.250 B2.40 0.220 'B.OO SBUH 24.00 4B4.00
SHEET IBO.OO 0.1200 0.2400 2.1B
LSTEND
BASIN C"" 0.400 3.4B 10.00 14.35 TYPEIA 5.00
0.20 0.000 O.lBO B2.39 0.220 'B.OO SBUN 24.00 4B4.00
SHEET 222.00 0.1570 0.2400 2.1B
LSTEND
BASIN 0"" 0.070 3.4B 10.00 5.00 TYPElA 5.00
0.20 0.000 0.030 B6.00 0.040 'B.OO SBUN 24.00 4B4.00
SHEET 222.00 0.1570 0.2400 2.1B
LSTEND
BASIN E"" 0.0603.48 10.00 0.00 TYPEIA 5.00
0.200.000 0.000 0.00 0.060 'B.OO SBUN 24.00 4B4.00
SHEET 222.00 0.1570 0.2400 2.1B
LSTEND
J
BASIN F ".. 1.230 3.4B 10.00 15.Bl TYPEIA 5.00
0.20 0.000 1.190 B1.63 0.040 'B.OO SBUH 24.00 4B4.00
SHEET 300.00 0.2500 0.2400 2.1B
SHALLOW 50.00 0.2500 '.0000
CHANNEL IBO.OO 0.1440 17.0000
LSTEND
BASIN G "" 0.310 3.4B 10.00 15.52 TYPEIA 5.00
0.200.0000.260 B4.B5 0.050 'B.OO SBUH 24.00 4B4.00
SHEET 260.00 0.1770 0.2400 2.1B
.J
EXHIBIT ::r.
PAGEXLOF 135
8/13/98
3 : 7 : 34 pm
Shareware Release
VENTANA
page
2
Downstream Analysis
=====================================================================
HISTORY OF HYDROGRAPH ACTIVITY
LSTEND
BASIN H.. 0.340 3.4B 10.00 I.74 TYPEIA 5.00
0.200.0000.250 8I.00 0.0'0 '8.00 SBU!! 24.00 '84.00
SHEET 30.00 0.0'00 O.OllO 2.18
CHANNEL 375.00 0.0707 17.0000
LSTEND
BASIN ,." 1.8203.48 10.00 21.'8 TYPEIA 5.00
0.200.000 I.670 83." 0.150 '8.00 SBU!! 24.00 '84.00
SHEET 300.00 0.1420 0.2400 2.18
SHALLOW 185.00 0.0810 '.0000
CHANNEL 180.00 0.0100 17.0000
LSTEND
BASIN J" 2.040 3..8 10.00 24.58 TYPEIA 5.00
0.200.000 I.820 81.00 0.220 '8.00 SBU!! 2'.00 '84.00
SHEET 300.00 O.llOO 0.2400 2.18
SHALLOW 315.00 O.llOO '.0000
CHANNEL lBO.OO 0.0100 17.0000
LSTEND
BASIN K" 0.1503.48 10.00 5.00 TYPEIA 5.00
0.200.0000.1208'.000.030 '8.00 SBU!! 24.00 '84.00
SHEET 300.00 O.llOO 0.2400 2.18
SHALLOW 315.00 O.llOO 5.0000
CHANNEL 180.00 0.0100 17.0000
LSTEND
BASIN L.. 0.200 3.48 10.00 5.00 TYPEIA 5.00
0.200.0000.160 8'.00 0.040 58.00 SBU!! 24.00 484.00
SHEET 300.00 O.llOO 0.2400 2.18
SHALLOW 315.00 O.llOO 5.0000
CHANNEL 180.00 0.0100 17.0000
LSTEND
BASIN M"' 0.5803.48 10.00 5.00 TYPEIA 5.00
0.200.0000.450 8'.00 0.050 '8.00 SBU!! 24.00 484.00
SHEET 300.00 O.llOO 0.2400 2.18
SHALLOW 315.00 O.llOO 5.0000
CHANNEL 180.00 0.0100 17.0000
LSTEND
BASIN N". 0.260 3.48 10.00 5.00 TYPEIA 5.00
0.200.000 0.220 8'.00 0.040 58.00 SBU!! 24.00 4B4.00
SHEET 300.00 O.IlOO 0.2400 2.I8
SHALLOW 315.00 O.llOO 5.0000
CHANNEL 180.00 0.0100 17.0000
LSTEND
BASIN 0.. 0.3'0 3.48 10.00 5.00 TYPEIA 5.00
EXHIBIT ----L-
PAGE~<6 OF 135
8/13/98
3:7:34 pm
Shareware Release
VENTANA
page
3
Downstream Analysis
=====================================================================
HISTORY OF HYDROGRAPH ACTIVITY
0.200.000 0.270 86.00 0.0'0 '8.00 SBUII 24.00 484.00
SHEET 300.00 0.1100 0.2400 2.18
SIU\LLOW 315.00 0.1100 '.0000
CHANNEL 180.00 0.0100 17.0000
LSTEND
BASIN P"" 0.130 3.48 10.00 5.00 TYPEIA 5.00
0.20 0.000 0.120 86.00 0.010 '0.00 SBUI! 24.00 484.00
SHEET 300.00 0.1100 0.2400 2.10
SHALLOW 315.00 0.1100 '.0000
CHANNEL 100.00 0.0100 17.0000
LSTEND
BASIN 0"" 0.070 3.48 10.00 5.00 TYPEIA 5.00
0.200.0000.05086.000.020 '8.00 saUl! 24.00 484.00
SHEET 300.00 0.1100 0.2400 2.10
SHALLOW 315.00 0.1100 '.0000
CHANNEL 100.00 0.0100 17.0000
1
LSTEND
J
MOVE A to 1
0.4136 cf. 0.1531 ac-ft 0.00 hr.
MOVE B to 2
0.2459 cf. 0.0'" ac-ft 0.00 hrs
MOVE C to 3
0.2208 cf. 0.0865 ac-ft 8.00 hr.
MOVE D to 4
0.0415 cf. 0.0160ac-ft 8.00 hr.
MOVE E to 5
0.0435 cf. 0.0162 ac-ft 0.00 hr.
MOVE F to 6
0.4075 cf. 0.1032 ac-ft 0.00 hr.
MOVE G to 7
0.1363 cf. 0.0566 ac-ft 8.00 hr.
MOVE H to 0
0.1560 cf. 0.05" ac.ft 8.00 hr.
MOVE I to .
0.6627 cfs 0.3076 ac-ft 0.00 hr.
MOVE J to 10
0.6423 cf. 0.3162 ac-ft 8.00 hr.
MOVE K to 11
EXHIBIT L
PAGE~OF
J
. J
1'3>5
8/13/98
3:7:34 pm
Shareware Release
VENTANA
page
4
Downstream Analysis
=====================================================================
HISTORY OF HYDROGRAPH ACTIVITY
0.0647 ct. 0.0289 sc-fc 8.00 hr.
MOVE L to 12
0.0862 ct. 0.0386 sc-ft 8.00 hr.
MOVE M to 13
0.2404 ct. 0.1093 sc-ft 8.00 hr.
MOVE N to 14
0.1077 d. 0.0490 sc-ft 8.00 hr.
MOVE 0 to 15
0.1618 d. 0.0712 sc-ft 8.00 hrs
MOVE P to 16
0.0502 cf. 0.0235 sc-ft 8.00 hr.
MOVE Q to 17
0.0324 d. 0.0141 sc-ft 8.00 hr.
MOVE D25! to 19
1.0105 ct. 0.5757 sc-ft 8.00 hr.
MOVE D25P to 20
0.2408 cf. 0.8853 sc-ft 161.00 hr.
ADD 19 20 18
1. 0105 d. 1.4610 sc-ft 8.00 hr.
End program file c, IDCADTA IPI97021 IWWlDOWNSTRIHCREATE.pgm
EXHIBI1._.J
PAGEia-OF /35
8/13/98
3:20:5 pm
Shareware Release
VENTANA
page
1
Downstream Analysis
=====================================================================
HYDROGRAPH SUMMARY
PEAK TIME VOLUME
HYD RUNOFF OF OF Contrib
NUM RATE PEAK HYDRO Area
I cfs min. cf\AcFt Acres
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
1 0.414 480 6671 cf 0.76
¡ 2 0.246 480 4223 cf 0.47
3 0.221 480 3766 cf 0.40
4 0.041 480 698 cf 0.07
5 0.043 480 707 cf 0.06
J 6 0.408 480 7982 cf 1.23
7 0.136 480 2464 cf 0.31
8 0.156 480 2598 cf 0.34
I 9 0.663 480 13398 cf 1.82
10 0.642 480 13774 cf 2.04
11 0.065 480 1260 cf 0.15
"l 12 0.086 480 1680 cf 0.20
13 0.240 480 4761 cf 0.58
14 0.108 480 2133 cf 0.26
15 0.162 480 3100 cf 0.36
16 0.050 480 1024 cf 0.13
17 0.032 480 613 cf 0.07
18 1.011 480 63642 cf 7.28
19 1.011 480 25077 cf 2.17
20 0.241 9660 38565 cf 5.11
I
.J
J
I
j
J
EXHIBIT -L
PAGE-3LOF 135
Date of Session: 8/13/98
ADD
18119
1.0182 cfs
Down
3:10:6 pm
2.3799 ac-ft
Page 1
8.00 hrs
.-
EXHIBIT .-J
PAGE q~ OF 135
8/13/98
3:13:13 pm
Shareware Release
VENTANA
page
1
Downstream Analysis
=====================================================================
HISTORY OF HYDROGRAPH ACTIVITY
Date of Sessio", 8/13/00
CLEARHIS
3,12,56 pm
ROUTE HYDROGRAPH 19 THROOOH REACH 1
Hesch -Area- hQact-- --QFull- 'Full Ndepth --Cia- -Vact- -Vfull Base
8.04 1.02 8.636-7;; 2.80 12.00 7.00 11.28
ADD 122
0.6505 cis
0.2501 ac-ft
8.00 hrs
ROUTE HYDROGRAPH 2 THROUGH REACH 2
:I
Reach
-Area- --Qact-- --QFull- '~ll.~depth --Dia- -Vact- -VfUll Base
1.23 0.66 16.34 :~.,"04 1.70 12.00 0.66 21.35
ADD 233
0.8803 cfs
0.3365 ac-ft
8.00 hrs
1
ROUTE HYDROGRAPH 3 THROOOll REACH 3
Reach -Area- --Qact-- --QFull- '~" Ndepth --Du- -Vact- -Vfull Base
1.63 0.80 12.60 6.05. 2.22 12.00 8.81 16.56
~.
l
ROUTE HYDROGRAPH 3 THRDOOII REACH 3
Reach
-Area- --Qact-- --QFull- 'Full Ndepth --Dia- -Vact- -VfUll Base
1.63 0.88 12.68 ê' 2.22 12.00 8.81 16.56
ADD 344
0.0210 cfs
0.3526 ac.ft
8.00 hrs
J
ROUTE HYDROGRAPH 4 THROUGH REACH 4
Reach
-Area- --Qact-- hQFull- "~ll Ndepth --Dia- -Vact- -VfUll Base
1.70 0.92 0.60 ii~Þ 2.74 12.00 6.83 11.35
J
ADD 455
0.0652 cfs
0.3680 ac-ft
8.00 hrs
ROUTE HYDROGRAPH 5 THROUGH REACH 5
Reach
.Area- --Qact-- --QFull- 'Full Ndepth hDia- -Vact- -Vfull Base
1.76 0.07 21.47 é.5~' 1.80 i2.00 13.11 28.06
ADD 5 6 6
1.3720 cts
0.5520 ac-ft
8.00 hrs
J
ROUTE HYDROGRAPH 6 THROUGH REACH 6
Reach -Area- --Qact-- --QFu11. 'Full Ndepth --Dia- -Vact- -Vfull Base
2.00 1.37 16.10 c:!':40 2.45 12.00 11.92 21.14
ADD 6 7 7
1.5091 cts
0.6086 ac.ft
8.00 hrs
ROUTE HYDROGRAPH 7 THROUGH REACH 7
Reach
-Area- --Oact-- --OFu11- "ull Ndepth --Dia- -Vact-
-Vfu11 BEXHIB~1 ::r
PAGE 93 OF/35
_I
8/13/98
3:13:13 pm
Shareware Release
VENTANA
page
'2
Downstream Analysis
=====================================================================
HISTORY OF HYDROGRAPH ACTIVITY
6.52 É.~6
ROurE HYDROGRÅPH 7 THROUGH REACH 8
3.30
1.51
4.08 12.00
6.41
8.51
Hydrograph shifted 0.88 min
--xu --m-- -k.-- --0.- --K-- --C-- -sto- -kin-
6.710 1.986 0.000 0.996
60 0.604 -0.141 0.017
1.47 cfa
3.66 fpa 0.26 ft deep
ADD 7 8 8
1. 5703 cfa
0.6682 ac-ft
8.17 hrs
ROurE HYDROGRAPH 8 THROUGH REACH 9
Reach
-Area- --Qact-- --OFull- 'Full Ndepth --Dia- -Vact- -Vfull Basn
3.64 1.57 4.80 ß!}/ 4.91 12.00 5.19 6.27
ROUTE HYDROGRAPH 8 THROUGH REAeN 30
Hydrograph shifted 0.06 min
--Xu --m-- -k.-' --0.' --K-- --C-- -sto. -kin-
1.790 2.000 0.000 0.999 17 0.626 -0.157 0.005
1.56 cfa 1.84 fps e9'~t deep
ADD 8 9 9
2.0977 cfs
0.9757 ac-ft
8.17 hrs
ROurE HYDROGRAPH 9 THROUGH REAeN 11
11
-Area- --Oact-- --OFull- 'Full Ndepth --Dia- -Vact- -Vfull Basn
5.46 2.10 3.25 €5~ 7.36 12.00 4.36 4.25
Reach
ROurE HYDROGRAPH 9 THROUGH REAeN 32
Hydrograph shifted 0.25 adn
--x-- --m-- -k.-- --0.- --x-- --C-- -sto- -kin-
2.930 2.000 0.000 0.997 56 0.617 -0.117 0.016
2.07 cfs 2.77 fps øt deep
ADD 9 10 10
2.5287 cfa
1.2919 ac-ft
8.50 hra
ROurE HYDROGRAPH 10 THROUGH REACH 13
13
-Area' --Oact-- --OFull- 'Full Ndepth --Dis- -Vact- -Vfull Basn
7.50 2.53 3.58 r;;-.61. 7.82 12.00 4.66 4.68
'----' .
Reach
ADD 10 11 11
2.5713 cfs
1.3208 ac-ft
8.50 hrs
ROUTE HYDROGRAPH 11 THROUGH REACH 14
14
-Area- '-Oact-- --OFull- 'Full Ndepth --Dia- -Vact- -Vfull Basn
7.65 2.57 4.6464.7) 6.6' 12.00 5.73 6.06
Reach
ADO 11 12 12
2.6282 cfs
1.3594 sc-ft
8.50 hrs
EXHIBIT :[
PAGE-q~ OF
I3S
8/13/98
3:13:13 pm
Shareware Release
VENTANA
page
3
Downstream Analysis
=====================================================================
HISTORY OF HYDROGRAPH ACTIVITY
ROUTE HYDROGRAPH 12 THROUGH RHACH 15
Reach -Area- --Ooct-- --OFull- OFull Ndepth --Dia- -Vact- -Vfull Basn
15 7.85 2.63 5.01 B 6.45 12.00 6.11 6.55
ROUTE HYDROGRAPH 12 THROUGH REACH 16
Hydrograph shifted 1.08 min
--x.. ..m-- -k"-- --0"- --K-- --c.. -sto- -kin-
2.945 2.000 0.000 1.000 12 0.626 -0.152 0.003
2.60 cfs 3.04 fps é)J')ft deep
ADD 12 13 13
]
J
2.7590 cfs
1.4686 ac-ft
8.50 hrs
ROUTE HYDROGRAPH 13 THROUGH RHACH 17
Reach
-Area. ..Qact-- ..OFull- OFull Ndepth ..Dia- -Vact- -Vfull Basn
ADD 13 14 14
2.8325 cis
1.5176 sc-ft
8.50 hrs
'-1
ROUTE HYDROGRAPH 14 THROUGH REACH 19
Reach -Area- --Qact-- --OFull- OFull Ndepth --Dia- -Vact- -Vfull Basn
19 8.69 2.83 7.85 ~ 5.19 12.00 8.71 10.26
ADD 14 IS 15
2.9355 cfs
1.5888 ac-ft
8.50 hrs
ROUTE HYDROGRAPH IS THROUGH REACH 20
Reach
-Area- "Oact.. --OFull- OFull Ndepth --Dia- -Vact- -Vfull Basn
9.05 2.94 10.42 é::.'¡' 4.53 12.00 10.81 13.61
20
J
ADD 15 16 16
2.9719 cfs
1.6123 ac-ft
8.50 hrs
J
ROUTE HYDROGRAPH 16 THROUGH REACH 21
Reach
21
-Area- --Qact-- --OFull- OFull Ndepth --Dia- -Vact- -Vfull Basn
9.18 2.97 10.79 (!2;~"i) 4.48 12.00 11.13 14.10
ADD 16 17 17
2.9920 cfs
1.6264 ac-ft
8.50 hrs
J
ROUTE HYDROGRAPH 17 THROUGH REACH 22
Reach -Area- --Qact.. '-OFull- OFull Ndepth --Dia- -Vact- -Vfull Basn
22 9.25 2.99 4.55 ~~ 7.45 12.00 5.84 5.95
End program file C, \DCADTA\P\97021 \WW\DOWNSTR\RaUTING.pgm
EXHIB~=~__J
PAGE 95 OF
135
8/11/98
11:5:11 am
Downstream Analysis
Shareware Release
VENTANA
page
=====================================================================
PIPE REACH
From: To:
Pipe Diameter:
Pipe Length
Up invert
REACH sUMMARY
ID No.1
1.0000 ft
20.0000 ft
: 241.3800 ft
Collection Area:
Design Flow
Pipe Capacity
Design Vel
pipe Full Vel
PIPE REACH
From: To:
Pipe Diameter:
Pipe Length
Up invert
0.7600 Ac.
0.4136 cis
8.6328 cis
5.3742 ips
11 . 2804 ips
ID No.2
1.0000 ft
20.0000 ft
: 224.5500 ft
Collection Area:
Design Flow
Pipe Capacity
Design Vel
Pipe Full Vel
PIPE REACH
From: To:
Pipe Diameter:
Pipe Length
Up invert
1. 2300 Ac.
0.6595 cis
16.3371 cis
9.6633 ips
21.3477 ips
ID No.3
1.0000 ft
62.0000 ft
: 206.2800 ft
Collection Area:
Design Flow
Pipe Capacity
Design Vel
Pipe Full Vel
PIPE REACH
From: To:
Pipe Diameter:
Pipe Length
Up invert
Collection Area:
Design Flow
Pipe Capacity
Design Vel
pipe Full Vel
1. 6300 Ac.
0.8803 cis
12.6752 cis
8.8087 ips
16.5626 ips
ID No.4
1.0000 ft
26.0000 ft
: 197.4700 ft
1. 7000 Ac.
0.9218 cis
8.6828 cis
6.8312 ips
11.3458 ips
n: 0.0120
s: 0.0430
down invert: 240.5200 ft
Dsgn Depth:
0.15 ft
Travel Time:
0.06 min
n: 0.0120
s: 0.1540
down invert: 221.4700- ft
Dsgn Depth:
0.14 ft
Travel Time:
0.03 min
n: 0.0120
s: 0.0927
down invert: 200.5326 ft
Dsgn Depth:
0.18 ft
Travel Time:
0.12 min
n: 0.0120
s: 0.0435
down invert: 196.3390 ft
Dsgn Depth:
0.23 ft
Travel Time:
0.06 min
EXHIB~"L: ..-::1.
PAGE q~ OF /35
8/11/98
11:5:11 am
Downstream Analysis
Shareware Release
VENTANA
page
2
=====================================================================
REACH SUMMARY
PIPE REACH
From: To:
Pipe Diameter: 1.0000 ft
Pipe Length: 243.0000 ft
Up invert: 191. 9300 ft
OJ
Collection Area:
Design Flow
Pipe Capacity
Design Vel
Pipe Full Vel
ID No.5
1.7600 Ac.
0.9652 cis
21.4712 cis
13 .1107 ips
28.0563 ips
PIPE REACH
From: To:
Pipe Diameter: 1.0000 ft
Pipe Length: 112.0000 ft
Up invert: 127.1900 ft
Collection Area:
Design Flow
Pipe Capacity
Design Vel
Pipe Full Vel
)
.i
I
J
J
I
PIPE REACH
From: To:
Pipe Diameter:
Pipe Length
up invert
ID No.6
2.9900 Ac.
1.3728 cis
16.1772 cis
11.9205 ips
21.1387 ips
ID No.7
1.0000 ft
30.0000 ft
: 110.2800 ft
Collection Area:
Design Flow
Pipe Capacity
Design Vel
Pipe Full Vel
DITCH REACH
Ditch Length: 380.00
Side Slope1 : 2.00
Side Slope2 : 2.00
Mannings n :0.0400
Dn W.S. Elev:O.OOOO
3.3000 Ac.
1.5091 cis
6.5163 cis
6.4056 ips
8.5148 ips
n: 0.0120
s: 0.2660
down invert: 127.2920 ft
Dsgn Depth:
0.15 ft
Travel Time:
0.31 min
n: 0.0120
s: 0.1510
down invert: 110.2780 ft
Dsgn Depth:
0.20 ft
Travel Time:
0.16 min
n: 0.0240
s: 0.0980
down invert: 107.3400 ft
Dsgn Depth:
0.34 ft
Travel Time:
0.08 min
ID No.8
ft Ditch Width:
Ditch Slope:
Contrib Bas:
Dn Invert
Num Steps: 10
1. 00 ft
0.0919 it/it
72.43 ft
Trib Area: 3.30 Ac. Design Flow:
Depth 0.26 ft Vel
Upstream W.S. Elev: 0.00 ft.
1.46 cis
3.65 ips
EXHIBIT 7-
PAGEjLOF
/35
8/11/98
11:5:11 am
Downstream Analysis
Shareware Release
VENTANA
page
~~~~~~~=============================~==============================.
REACH SUMMARY
PIPE REACH
From: To:
Pipe Diameter:
Pipe Length
Up invert
collection Area:
Design Flow
Pipe Capacity
Design Vel
Pipe Full Vel
ID No.9
1.0000 ft
18.0000 ft
72.4300 ft
3.6400 Ac.
1.5665 cfs
4.8011 cfs
5.1833 fps
6.2736 fps
n: 0.0120
s: 0.0133
down invert:
72.1906 ft
Dsgn Depth:
0.41 ft
Travel Time:
0.06 min
EXH~~~-" :L-
PAGE3Z-0F ~
8/11/98
11:5:38 am
page -]:
Downstream Analysis
Shareware Release
VENTANA
=====================================================================
REACH SUMMARY
DITCH REACH
Ditch Length: 56.00
Side Slopel : 3.00
Side Slope2 : 3.00
Mannings n :0.0400
Dn W.S. Elev:O.OOOO
ID No. 10
ft Ditch Width:
Ditch Slope:
Contrib Bas:
Dn Invert
Num Steps: 10
71. 21 ft
1. 00 ft
0.0159 it/it
Trib Area: 3.64 Ac. Design Flow:
Depth 0.39 ft Vel
Upstream W.S. Elev: 0.00 ft.
]
I
PIPE REACH
From: To:
Pipe Diameter:
Pipe Length
Up invert
Collection Area:
Design Flow
Pipe Capacity
Design Vel
Pipe Full Vel
1. 56 cis
1. 84 ips
ID No. 11
1.0000 ft
62.0000 ft
71. 2100 ft
n: 0.0240
s: 0.0244
down invert:
69.6972- ft
5.4600 Ac.
2.0979 cis
3.2515 cis
4.1565 ips
4.2487 ips
Dsgn Depth:
0.61 ft
Travel Time:
0.25 mill
DITCH REACH
Ditch Length: 277.00
Side Slopel : 2.50
Side Slope2 : 2.50
Mannings n :0.0300
Dn W.S. Elev:O.OOOO
I
_J
J
I
J
]
I
ID No. 12
ft Ditch Width:
Ditch Slope:
Contrib Bas:
Dn Invert
Num Steps: 10
65.08 ft
1. 00 ft
0.0203 it/it
Trib Area: 5.46 Ac. Design Flow:
Depth 0.38 ft Vel
Upstream W.S. Elev: 0.00 ft.
PIPE REACH
From: To:
Pipe Diameter:
Pipe Length
Up invert
Collection Area:
Design Flow
Pipe Capacity
Design Vel
Pipe Full Vel
2.07 cis
2.77 ips
ID No. 13
1.0000 ft
84.0000 ft
65.0800 ft
n: 0.0240
s: 0.0296
down invert:
62.5936 ft
7.5000 Ac.
2.5272 cis
3.5812 cis
4.6631 ips
4.6796 ips
Dsgn Depth:
0.65 ft
Travel Time:
0.30 min
EXH~BuY :I
PAGE CfQ OF 135
8/11/98
11:5:38 am
Shareware Release
VENTANA
page
Downstream Analysis
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
REACH SUMMARY
PIPE REACH
From: To:
Pipe Diameter: 1.0000 ft
Pipe Length: 101.0000 ft
Up invert 62.4800 ft
ID No. 14
n: 0.0120
s: 0.0124
down invert:
61.2276 ft
Collection Area: 7.6500 Ac.
Design Flow 2.5699 cis Dsgn Depth: 0.56 ft
Pipe Capacity 4.6358 cis
Design Vel 5.7270 ips Travel Time: 0.29 min
Pipe Full Vel 6.0576 ips
PIPE REACH ID No. 15
From: To:
Pipe Diameter: 1.0000 ft n: 0.0120
Pipe Length : 179.0000 ft s: 0.0145
Up invert 61.0300 ft down invert: 58.4345 ft
Collection Area: 7.8500 Ac.
Design Flow 2.6267 cis Dsgn Depth: 0.54 ft
Pipe Capacity 5.0130 cis
Design Vel 6.1107 ips Travel Time: 0.49 min
Pipe Full Vel 6.5505 ips
DITCH REACH
Ditch Length: 69.00
Side Slope1 : 3.00
Side Slope2 : 3.00
Mannings n :0.0300
Dn W.S. Elev:O.OOOO
ID No. 16
ft Ditch Width:
Ditch Slope:
Contrib Bas:
Dn Invert
Num Steps: 10
1. 00 ft
0.0243 it/it
56.77 ft
Trib Area: 7.85 Ac. Design Flow:
Depth 0.39 ft Vel
Upstream W.S. Elev: 0.00 ft.
2.60 cis
3.04 ips
PIPE REACH
From: To:
Pipe Diameter:
Pipe Length
Up invert
ID No.1 7
1.0000 ft
25.0000 ft
56.7700 ft
n: 0.0120
s: -0.0036
down invert:
56.8600 ft
Collection Area:
Design Flow
Pipe Capacity
Design Vel
Pipe Full Vel
Ac.
cis
cis
ips
ips
Dsgn Depth:
ft
Travel Time:
min
EXbUJ~Bn~.......
PAGE 100 OF J35
I
J
8/11/98
11:5:38 am
Shareware Release
VENTANA
page
3
Downstream Analysis
=====================================================================
REACH SUMMARY
I
I
I
J
I
DITCH REACH
Ditch Length: 83.00
Side Slope1 : 3.00
Side Slope2 : 3.00
Mannings n :0.0300
Dn W.S. Elev:O.OOOO
ID No. 18
ft Ditch Width:
Ditch Slope:
Contrib Bas:
Dn Invert
Num Steps: 10
1. 00 ft
0.0139 it/it
55.71 ft
Trib Area: 14.12 Ac. Design Flow:
Depth 0.59 ft Vel
Upstream W.S. Elev: 0.00 ft.
4.71 cis
2.88 ips
PIPE REACH
From: To:
Pipe Diameter: 1.0000 ft
Pipe Length: 272.0000 ft
Up invert 55.7100 ft
ID No. 19
n: 0.0120
s: 0.0356
down invert:
46.0400 ft
J
I
Collection Area: 8.6900 Ac.
Design Flow 2.8346 cis Dsgn Depth: 0.43 ft
Pipe Capacity 7.8549 cis
Design Vel 8.7101 ips Travel Time: 0.52 min
Pipe Full Vel 10.2640 ips
PIPE REACH ID No. 20
From: To:
Pipe Diameter: 1. 0000 ft n: 0.0120
Pipe Length : 114.0000 ft s: 0.0626
Up invert 45.7400 ft down invert: 38.6400 ft
Collection Area: 9.0500 Ac.
Design Flow 2.9375 cis Dsgn Depth: 0.38 ft
Pipe Capacity 10.4160 cis
Design Vel 10.8107 ips Travel Time: 0.18 min
Pipe Full Vel 13 . 6106 ips
PIPE REACH ID No. 21
From: To:
Pipe Diameter: 1.0000 ft n: 0.0120
Pipe Length 69.0000 ft s: 0.0672
Up invert 38.6000 ft down invert: 33.9600 ft
Collection Area: 9.1800 Ac.
Design Flow 2.9739 cis Dsgn Depth: 0.37 ft
Pipe Capacity 10.7919 cis
Design Vel 11.1297 ips Travel Time: 0.10 min
Pipe Full Vel 14.1018 ips
J
EXH~Bl X--
PAGEÆLUF ---L&
8/11/98
11:5:38 am
Downstream Analysis
Shareware Release
VENTANA
page
;;;;;;;;;;=================================================;========
PIPE REACH
From: 'To:
Pipe Diameter:
Pipe Length
Up invert
collection Area:
Design Flow
Pipe Capacity
Design Vel
Pipe Full Vel
ID No. 22
1.0000 ft
41.0000 ft
33.8000 ft
9.2500 Ac.
2.9941 cis
4.5509 cis
5.8415 ips
5.9467 ips
REACH SUMMARY
n: 0.0240
s: 0.0478
down invert:
31. 8402 ft
Dsgn Depth:
0.62 ft
Travel Time:
0.12 min
!If'
EXHIBru _J
PAGE IO~OF 135
J
8/13/98
3:17:54 pm
Shareware Release
VENTANA
page
1
Downstream Analysis
=====================================================================
REACH SUMMARY
Network Reach DS
REACH <-AREA> <-DIA>
ID
(Ac)
(ft)
LENGTH SLOPE < n > DSGN Q' PIPE Ndepth 'Depth Vact
(ft) ft/ft u__u (cfs) uuu (ft) nuu (fps)
Vful! C_Area
(fps)
..... -...... - -"- -..... 08"""'08"_08"_",--,---"--""",, 00 - '00". - 08.. - - n. - 08_.... - 0800"
a .04 1. 00 20.00 0.0430 0.OI20 1.02 11. 79 0.24 24.05 7.00 11.2a
1.23 1.00 20.00 0.1540 0.0120 0.66 4.04 0.14 14.20 0.66 21.35
1.63 1.00 62.00 0.0027 0.0120 o.aa 6.05 0.18 18.40 a.81 16.56
1. 70 1.00 26.00 0.0435 0.0120 0.02 10.62 0.23 22.a2 6.83 11.35
1. 76 1.00 243.00 0.2660 0.0120 0.97 4.50 0.15 14.96 13.11 2a.06
2.00 1.00 112.00 0.1510 0.0120 1.37 a.40 0.20 20.42 11.92 21.14
3.30 1.00 30.00 o.ooao 0.0240 1.51 23.16 0.34 34.01 6.41 a.51
3.30 380.00 0.0019 0.0400 1.47 Ditch 0.26 Ditch 3.00
3.64 1. 00 la.OO 0.0133 0.0120 1.57 32.71 0.41 40.06 5.19 6.27
10 3.64 56.00 0.0150 0.0400 1.56 Ditch 0.39 Ditch 1.a4
11 5.46 1.00 02.00 0.0244 0.0240 2.10 04.52 0.61 61.30 4.10 4.25 -
12 5.46 277.000.0203 0.0300 2.07 Ditch 0.3a Ditch 2.77
13 7.50 1.00 a4.00 0.0200 0.0240 2.53 70.61 0.05 05.19 4.00 4.0a
14 7.65 1.00 101.00 0.0124 0.0120 2.57 55.47 0.56 55.03 5.73 6.06
15 7.a5 1.00 170.00 0.0145 0.0120 2.63 52.43 0.54 53.74 6.11 6.55
16 7.a5 60.00 0.0243 0.0300 2.60 Ditch 0.39 Ditch 3.04
17 1.00 25.00 -0.00," 0.0120
18 14 .12 83.00 0.0130 0.0300 4.71 Ditch 0.50 Ditch 2."
19 a .60 1.00 272.00 0.0356 0.0120 2.83 ,".06 0.43 43.24 a.71 10.26
20 o. OS 1.00 114.00 0.0626 0.0120 2.94 2a.18 0.38 37.77 10.81 13.61
21 0.18 1. 00 60.00 0.0672 0.0120 2.97 27.54 0.37 37.30 11.13 14.10
22 0.25 1. 00 41.00 0.047a 0.0240 2.99 65.75 0.62 62.07 5.a4 5.95
I
"\
EXHlsrr. .J:.
PAGE 103 OF /35
Yen"'.
Job No. 97021
APPENDIX D
OFFSITE DETENTION T ANI{ ANALYSIS
".
"Striving/or the Peak 0/ Excellence"
EXHIBiT ~
PAGEJQ:LOF 135
Vent...
Job No. 97021
I
I
I
J
OFFSITE DETENTION TANK ANALYSIS:
An exis~g detention tank is located to the west of the proposed development,
downstream of the outfall fÌ"om the proposed on-site detention pond. The detention tank
is located on the southern edge of lot 3 on the short plat KCSP 679081. The purpose of
this analysis is to demonstrate how the offsite detention tank performs once the proposed
site ofVentana has been developed. The tank is analyzed by routing the 2- and 10-year,
7-day design storms through the as-built tank, which is considered a conservative analysis
since the tank was originally designed using 1979 King County drainage standards.
The detention tank has a length of 49 ft., a diameter of 48 in., and a 0.50% slope. The
control structure is comprised of a 12" overflow riser with a bottom-plate orifice.
1
The offsite basin tributary to the tank, downstream and west of the proposed site, consists
of 1.12 acres with 0.76 acres being pervious area and 0.36 acres being impervious area.
The off site basin has been modeled for the two design storms. The on-site basin that is
tributary to the tank consists of a total of 7.31 acres with 4.91 acres being pervious area
and 2.40 acres being impervious area and has also been modeled for the two design
storms. The hydrographs associated with the on-site area of 7.31 acres are routed through
the proposed, on-site detention pond to compute the hydrographs of the runoff being
released fÌ"om the pond to the downstream system. The off site hydrographs (1.12 acres)
are added to the pond release hydrographs, which results in the total runoff tributary to
the off site detention tank.
.J
J
I
J
J
The following are the results fÌ"om the off site detention tank routing:
0.091 cfs
0.163 cfs
,IP,eàk,Sta I!:Elevation
193.48
193.49
The riser overflow elevation is 193.44 ft. In the case of both the 2- and 10-year, 7-day
storm events, the storm water will overflow. The off site detention tank was sized using
the Y & W method which typically produces lower rates of runoff and detention volumes.
The rates of runoff being released fÌ"om the proposed development match the runoff rates
for the existing conditions of the on-site area. Therefore, the proposed development will
not adversely impact the off site detention tanle The reason that the analysis performed
shows the tank to be in a state of overflow is due to the differences in modeling
procedures, the past technique being the Y&W method and the current being the SBUH
method with the 2- and 10-year, 7-day design storms.
"Strivingfor the Peok of Excellence"
_J
1E~~..nBIT -r
PAGE 10S OF I3S
OFFSITE DRAINAGE
BASIN MAP
SCALE' 1"=50'
r-~;--¡
: HOUSE:
I I
I I
L__-_-J
----
EXHIBIT~
PAGE1Qh.OF
Iß'S
.wv
r-Ëx--¡
I HOUSE I
I I
I
I
L_____J
OFFSITE, DOWNSTREAM
AREA-1.12 Ac
23,
~~~-
EDGE lor PAvfMENT
---
~
I
I
I
r=-'
I
I
L
~-
I
I
~=
\
\
1/021
VE:NTIINA
JIL.VI,.
, .
.\
OFFSITE DETENTION TAcNK P~/l.FO/l.HANl.£ ANAI.~/S
OFF::)/TE: OE:VE:l.OP£O CoNOITION:S:
ToTAl. Aw ~ /./2. Ac.
P£RVIOIAS A(1.£A: 0.7(. 4c.
CN: ~G,. 2.0
J
I
IHP£RVIOU:S AR.£A : 0.3C Ac.
c.N: C¡'8'.OO
Tc.< G,e.I\SS, f:I.AT: I2.S.s
I
J
J
I
J
J
i
¡
i
I
I
I
I
. I
¡
I
I
I
I
EXHIBIT J
PAGE 101 OF -B2-
3/20/98
pinnacle Engineering Inc.
VENTANA
OFFSITE DET. TANK PERFORMANCE
97021
page
1
====================================================================~
BASIN ID: D10
SBUH METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA.......:
RAINFALL TYPE....:
PRECIPITATION. ...:
TIME INTERVAL....:
TIME OF CONC. ....:
ABSTRACTION COEFF:
PEAK RATE:
0.05 cis
BASIN ID: D2
SBUH METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA.......:
RAINFALL TYPE....:
PRECIPITATION.... :
TIME INTERVAL. ...:
TIME OF CONC.. ...:
ABSTRACTION COEFF:
PEAK RATE:
0.03 cis
BASIN SUMMARY
NAME: DEV. OFF. - 10 YEAR STORM
1.12 Acres
KC7
5.80 inches
60.00 min
1255.00 min
0.20
BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cis
PERVIOUS AREA
AREA..: 0.76 Acres
CN....: 86.20
IMPERVIOUS AREA
AREA..: 0.36 Acres
CN....: 98.00
0.37 Ac-ft TIME: 3720 min
VOL:
NAME: DEV. OFF. - 2 YEAR STORM
1.12 Acres
KC7
4.30 inches
60.00 min
1255.00 min
0.20
BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cis
PERVIOUS AREA
AREA..: 0.76 Acres
CN....: 86.20
IMPERVIOUS AREA
AREA..: 0.36 Acres
CN....: 98.00
0.24 Ac-ft TIME: 3720 min
VOL:
EXHIBIT :!
PAGE 10<6 OF 13CS
3/20/98
Pinnacle Engineering Inc.
VENTANA
page
1
OFFSITE DET. TANK PERFORMANCE
97021
=====================================================================
BASIN ID: S10
SBUH METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA.......:
RAINFALL TYPE....:
PRECIPITATION.... :
TIME INTERVAL....:
TIME OF CONC.....:
ABSTRACTION COEFF:
PEAK RATE:
0.31 cis
]
I
BASIN ID: S2
SBUH METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA.......:
RAINFALL TYPE....:
PRECIPITATION.... :
TIME INTERVAL....:
TIME OF CONC.....:
ABSTRACTION COEFF:
I
.J
J
I
J
J
PEAK RATE:
0.20 cis
BASIN SUMMARY
NAME: SITE - 10 YEAR STORM
7.31 Acres
KC7
5.80 inches
60.00 min
1255.00 min
0.20
VOL:
BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cis
PERVIOUS AREA
AREA..: 4.91 Acres
CN....: 86.00
IMPERVIOUS AREA
AREA..: 2.40 Acres
CN....: 98.00
2.40 Ac-ft TIME: 3720 min
NAME: SITE - 2 YEAR
7.31 Acres
KC7
4.30 inches
60.00 min
1255.00 min
0.20
VOL:
BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cis
PERVIOUS AREA
AREA..: 4.91 Acres
CN....: 86.00
IMPERVIOUS AREA
AREA..: 2.40 Acres
CN....: 98.00
1.59 Ac-ft TIME: 3720 min
EXHIB~1---....1
PAGE IO~ OF ~
3/20/98
pinnacle Engineering Inc.
VENTANA
page
1
OFFSITE DET. TANK PERFORMANCE
97021
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;=;;===;;;=;=;;========;;;;=;=;;;=;;=;=;;;==;;
HISTORY OF HYDROGRAPH ACTIVITY
Date of Session, 3/20/98
CLEARHIS
ADD 2 12 15
0.0915 cfs
1.5945 ac-ft
168.00 hrs
ADD 4 13 16
0.1633 cts
2.3999 ac-ft
135.00 hrs
EXHIBUTL_J
PAGEJlliOF ~
3/20/98
Pinnacle Engineering Inc.
VENTANA
page
1
OFFSITE DET. TANK PERFORMANCE
97021
=====================================================================
HYDROGRAPH SUMMARY
HYD
NUM
PEAK
RUNOFF
RATE
cis
TIME
OF
PEAK
min.
VOLUME
OF
HYDRO
cf-AcFt
Contrib
Area
Acres
O~f','ITi: G¿V. 2. è VI:. 0.030 3720 10627 cf 1.12
4- It ft.. 0.048 3720 16019 cf 1.12
8. ¿ vi::. 0.198 3720 69273 cf 7.31
j (I~J->Ir£ {]EI¡ 9./C lI'.. 0.311 3720 104408 cf 7.31
("~'",H f'r."c 12'2 y,~. 0.077 10440 58830 cf 7.31
~(L.EAsE I'AHs 13-lay!:. 0.141 9240 88521 cf 7.31
I C.1C>lIJi!D i8£~S[15 - 2. YI:.. 0.091 10080 69457 cf 8.43
SJFc,",n: .R~TIó.¡16 -(V 'ff"... 0.163 8100 104540 cf 8.43
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
I
J
J
J
EXHIBIT ~
PAGEJlLOF 13'5
3/20/98
Pinnacle Engineering Inc.
VENTANA
page
1
OFFSITE DET. TANK PERFORMANCE
97021
=====================================================================
STAGE STORAGE TABLE
UNDERGROUND PIPE ID No. P
Description: OFFSITE DETENTION TANK
Diameter: 4.00 ft. Length:
Slope...: 0.0050 ft/ft
49.00 ft.
STAGE <_u-STORAGEuu'
(ft) _udu- uAe-Ft-
STAGE <u--STORAGE----'
(ft) _udu- ..Ae-Ft-
STAGE <-..-STORAGE--.-'
(ft) ..-du- ..Ac-Ft-
STAGE <....STORAGE....,
(ft) -uef..- ..Ac-Ft-
.nn.u..unnnnu.nn..unu...un..u.unnuunn..unn.u....nn.....n.n..._n.....n.
lB'.44 0.0000 0.0000 190.50 110.35 0.0025 191.60 315.21 0.0072 192.70 517.63 0.011'
lB'.50 0.2341 0.0000 190.60 127.19 0.002' "1. 70 334.4' 0.0077 192. BO 533.33 0.0122
lB'.60 2.6'77 0.0001 190.70 144. 5B 0.0033 191.BO 354.23 0.0081 192. '0 54B .24 0.0126
lB'. 70 B.6106 0.0002 190.BO 162.43 0.0037 191. '0 373.60 0.00B6 193.00 562_.25 0.012'
lB'.BO 16.251 0.0004 190. '0 lBO. 70 0.0041 192.00 392.77 0.00'0 193.10 575.22 ,0.0132
lB'.'O 26.073 0.0006 191.00 "'.32 0.0046 192.10 411.73 0.00'5 193.20 5B6.'6 0.0135
190.00 37.472 0.000' 191.10 21B.21 0.0050 192.20 430.44 0.00" 193.30 597.21 0.0137
190.10 50.155 0.0012 191.20 237.36 0.0054 192.30 44B.7' 0.0103 193.40 605.50 0.0139
.'
190,20 63. '19 0.0015 191. 30 256.65 0.005' 192.40 466.76 0.0107 193.50 611.B' 0.0140
190.30 78.620 0.0019 191.40 276.12 0.0063 192.50 4B4.26 0.0111 193.60 615.20 0.0141
190.40 '4.12' 0.0022 191. 50 2'5.63 0.006B 192.60 501.25 0.0115 193.6B 615.76 0.0141
EXH~B~1 -r
PAGE \\2 OF 165
J
3/20/98
Pinnacle Engineering Inc.
VENTANA
page
2
OFFSITE DET. TANK PERFORMANCE
97021
=====================================================================
STAGE DISCHARGE TABLE
MULTIPLE ORIFICE ID No. 0
Description: OFFSITE DETENTION TANK ORIFICE
Outlet Elev: 189.44
Elev: 187.44 ft Orifice Diameter: 1.3000 in.
STAGE <.-DISCHARGE-h>
1ft) ---dSh _h--h
STAGE <--DISCHARGE-n>
1ft) n-cfsn -nOOn
STAGE <nDISCHARGE-n>
1ft) h-ds-- -nh--
STAGE <--DISCHARGE-n>
(ft) h-dSn ---hn
189.44 0.0000 190.90 0.0554 192.40 0.078' 193.90 0.0969
189.50 0.Oll2 191.00 0.0573 192.50 0.0802 194.00 0.0979
189.60 0.0183 191.10 0.0591 192.60 o. 0815 194.10 0.0990
189.70 0.0234 191.20 0.0608 192.70 0.0828 194.20 0.1001
18'.80 O. 0275 191.30 0.0625 192.80 0.0841 194.30 0.1011
189.90 O. 0111 191.40 0.0642 192.90 0.0853 194.40 0.1021
190.00 0.0343 191. 50 0.0658 193.00 0.0865 194.50 0.1032
190.10 0.0373 191. 60 0.0674 193.10 0.0877 194.60 0.1042
190.20 0.0400 191. 70 0.0689 193.20 0.0889 194.70 0.1052
190.30 0.0425 191.80 0.0705 193.30 0.0901 194.80 0.1062
190.40 o. 0449 191.90 0.0719 193.40 0.0913 194 . 90 0.10n
190.50 O. 0472 192 . 00 0.0734 193.50 0.0924 195.00 0.1081
190.60 0.0494 192.10 0.0748 193.60 0.0935 195.10 0.1091
190.70 O. 0515 192.20 0.0762 193.70 0.0947 195.20 0.1101
190.80 O. 0535 192.30 0.0776 193.80 0.0958 195.29 0.1109
.1
U - U .. u.. u.. U.. Un n- - nn _n.. n._. n'Unn - n'-..n. n U n un..n_..n.. n '-nn -au .an- n.. u
J
J
EXHIBIT ~
PAGE.lß..-OF
135
3/20/98
Pinnacle Engineering Inc.
VENTANA
page
4
OFFSITE DET. TANK PERFORMANCE
97021
====================================================================~
STAGE DISCHARGE TABLE
RISER DISCHARGE
Description:
Riser Diameter (in):
Weir Coefficient...:
Orif Coefficient...:
ID No.
R
12.00
3.782
9.739
elev:
height:
increm:
193.44 ft
195.29 ft
0.10 ft
n_cts-- _--._n
STAGE <nDISCHARGEn_>
(ftl n-C£S-- 00_0000
STAGE <nDISCHARGEn.,
Iftl n-ctsn nnn-
STAGE <nDISCHARGE--->
STAGE <--DISCHARGE--->
(ftl
(ftl
---cfs.. noon.
.............................................................--.------.........----...........----......
193.44 0.0000 193.90 2.5651 1".40 3.7056 194.90 4.5698
193.50 0.1431 194.00 2.8302 194.50 ].8938 195.00 4.7237
193.60 0.6233 194.10 3.0725 194.60 4.0733 195.10 4.8728
193.70 1.2911 194.20 3.2971 194.70 4.2453 195.20 5.0174
193.80 2.1036 194.30 3.5073 1".80 4.4105 195.29 5.1441
EXHIBIT L
PAGElLLOF
13<:)
3/20/98
Pinnacle Engineering Inc.
VENTANA
page
1
II
OFFSITE DET. TANK PERFORMANCE
97021
=====================================================================
STAGE DISCHARGE TABLE
COMBINATION DISCHARGE
Description:
Structure: 0
Structure: R
Structure:
ID No.
C
Structure:
Structure:
STAGE <.-DISCHARGE-h>
(it) ---cfSh _h--_-
STAGE <hDISCHARGEh->
(it) h-cfsh h_-h-
STAGE <--DISCHARGE--->
(it)
n-Cfsh 00_--_-
STAGE <hDISCHARGE-h>
(it) ---cfs-- h__---
. - - -- ... -.. -- n. -.n -. n - -- n'-.n.. - n... n. nn'..n.n. -- n. n.--n..... n.......... n.. n.. -.. -... n
L
"'.44 0.0000 190.00 0.0554 192.40 0.0709 193.90 2.6619
189.50 0.0112 191.00 0.0573 192.50 0.OB02 194.00 2. 92B1
lBO.60 0.01B3 191.10 0.0591 192.60 O. OBIS 194.10 3.1215
IB9.70 0.0234 191.20 0.060B 192.70 0.OB2S 194.20 3.3911
189.BO 0.0275 191.30 0.0625 192.BO O.OB41 194.30 3.60B4
lBO.90 0.0311 191.40 0.0642 192.90 0.OS53 194.40 3.BO77
190.00 0.0343 191. 50 0.065S 193.00 0.OS65 194. SO 3.9970
190.10 0.0373 191.60 0.0674 193.10 O.OB77 194.60 4.1775
190.20 O. 0400 191. 70 0.06BO 193.20 0.OBB9 194.70 4.3505
190.30 0.0425 191. SO 0.0705 193.30 0.0901 194.BO 4.5167
190.40 0.0449 191.00 0.0119 193.40 0.0913 194.90 4.6770
190. SO 0.0472 192.00 0.0734 193.50 0.2355 195.00 4.B319
190.60 0.0494 192.10 0.074B 193.60 0.116B 195.10 4 .0S19
190.70 0.0515 192.20 0.0762 193.70 1.3B58 195.20 5.1275
190.80 0.0535 192.30 0.0776 193.BO 2.1994 195." 5 .2550
.\
I
J
.J
E}{HIB~l :r.
PAGE~OF
135
File Basin Hydrograph Storage Discharge Level pool
Pinnacle Engineering Inc. 2
3
ROUTING COMPARISON TABLE
MATCH INFLOW STO DIS PEAK PEAK OUT
DESCRIPTION PEAK PEAK No. No. STG OUT HYD
======================================================================
2 YEAR
10 YEAR
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.16
P
P
C
C
193.48
193.49
0.09
0.16
19
20
Available Memory remaining: 215064 bytes
Current Data Set Name: C:\DCADTA\P\97021\WW\OFFSITE
VENTANA
OFFSITE DET. TANK PERFORMANCE
97021
=====================================================================
LEVEL POOL TABLE SUMMARY
MATCH INFLOW -STO- -DIS- <-PEAK->
STORAGE
<U_h_UDESCRIPTIONn_n__n> (cfs) (ds) nid- --id- <-STAGE> id VOL (d)
n.. n. n. n n. n n. n .n. n........... n nn n.n ..................... n..u
2 YEAR ...
10 YEAR
..................
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.16
193.48 19
193.49 20
610.90
611.39
W"l€"£" [L.f:Vl1ílCN F¡)~ 10- YE"'¡:, ]-Cl,ý IN ïlŒ Úf.Vw.:PGc, ::JïAíC
<:
iT?:J,'.r¡
P¡i":'E~ ()"ErFW;..) E".LE.{I;TI(',\ ~ '13,1.{4
EXHIBIT 1:
PAGEJJk..OF
ßCj
3/20/98
Pinnacle Engineering Inc.
VENTANA
page
1
OFFSITE DET. TANK PERFORMANCE
97021
=====================================================================
HYDROGRAPH SUMMARY
I
I
J
I
HYD
NUM
PEAK
RUNOFF
RATE
cis
TIME
OF
PEAK
min.
VOLUME
OF
HYDRO
cf-AcFt
Contrib
Area
Acres
2,-2 Y/:.
OFF:; T~ Q[V. 4 -It' if.
8 - 2 yt.
()N-SITED[v. 9-IofR.
o.v-S'1T£ Pc:iO12 '2. vr.
R,éLE:4S( RATES' 13-lt rl'.
Co'~¡; ""b ¡l(eLE~5 '2. y(¿.
¡"!'!'~IÎf' .eAn>'16-/J (t:!
f{UEJ>.,/Cf!.",r£:; 19-2.Yi:..
I rt:..«!c",TET'",;.:20-tö fR.
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
0.030 3720 10627 cf 1.12
0.048 3720 16019 cf 1.12
0.198 3720 69273 cf 7.31
0.311 3720 104408 cf 7.31
0.077 10440 58830 cf 7.31
0.141 9240 88521 cf 7.31
0.091 10080 69457 cf 8.43
0.163 8100 104540 cf 8.43
0.091 10140 69196 cf 8.43
0.163 7200 104167 cf 8.43
!
.J
J
I
-j
EXHIBiT 1:
PAGEJ1l0F ~
Veil""
Job No. 97021
APPENDIX E
EXECUTIVE PROPOSED BASIN PLAN
Hylebos Creek and Lower Puget Sound
."
"Strivi"g/o, ¡he Peak a/Excel/en,,"
EXHIBrú -r:
PAGEJ)1.0F /35
-
.~
Executive Proposed Basin Plan
Hylebos Creek and Lower Puget Sound
EXHlsnr -5-
PAGE1l10F~
@"~~~'ô)
"~~" .;z;:,. ,.;.,"":'" '::: ,,~~ ,0:::,
~ King County
Surface Water
Management
~\ \\ \ "', Everyone hves downslrem"
1
~~--------------------------------
EXHIBIT -=:L
PAGE-1QC F -1~S
Figure 4.4.3
CENTRAL LOWER PUGETSOUND
SUB-BASIN
RECOMMENDED SOLUTIONS
.... Basin Boundary
.... Sub-Basin Boundary
~ Sub-Catchment Boundary
IIH9 Sub-Catchment Number
~ Streams and Stream Number
~ Inventoried Wetland
(King County, 1983)
82431 Project Location and Number
N
i
PUGET
SOUND
~
Paver ty
Localion
Reference
Bay
SITe
@
. 'f>
1991
, --
I --
¡C...F ü- --- -~ -L;2 ~ ~ '--
~J
'..J-"':":' -~ "'=-----. ,- .. ~\.. -
,
Figure 4.4.2
CENTRAL LOWER PUGET SOUND
SUB-BASIN
PROBLEM CONDITIONS
- Basin Boundary
- Sub-Basin Boundary
..-...;' Sub-Catchment BoUndary
'JH9 Sub,Catchment Number
~ Streams and Stream Number
~ Inventoried Wetland
(King County, 1983)
~ Flooding
. ~¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡iJ Erosion/Sedimentation
~ Habitat
fB:';J Water Quality
N
i
PUGET
SOUND
~
Location
R.ference
Pover ty
Buy
S"líé
8
L
'L'
1991
EXHIBIT.
PAGE 12/ OF 135
-------------------------------
I
Figure 4.4.1
CENTRAL LOWER PUGETSOUND
SUB.BASIN
WATER FEATURES
.... Basin Boundary
.... Sub-Basin Boundary
,-.../ Sub-Catchment Boundary
Vti3 Sub-Catchment Number
~ Streams and Stream Number
~ Inventoried Wetland
(King County, 19831
Streams .
--- Class"
_n.. Class III
. .... Unclassified
. No Class Iin Sub-Basin
N
i
PUGET
SOUND
~
Pover Iy
Bay
Location
Rere,ence
(@
'------ 'il
1991
:XHIBIT -:1!
)ßr-.~ \? or 132-
'j
I
I
J
J
I
J
~.4 CENTRAL LOWER PUGET SOUND
Introduction
The Central Lower Puget Sound sub-basin drains upland areas through two major
streams, Redondo Creek (tributary 0384) and Cold Creek (tributary 0385); and a
host of intennittent channels farther west (Figure 4.4.1). The upland area is
underlain by till and locally overlain -by outwash. The steeper slopes leading
down to Puget Sound expose a sequence of older, deeper deposits of past gla-
ciations and interglaciations. Moderate erosion of the sandier deposits on
this slope is conmon along the channels here, as is landsliding near the con-
tacts between sandy and underlying silty deposits.
Flows in the sub-basin are predicted to be minimally increased in the future,
but they are dramatically greater now than prior to development. Between 1987
and full build out, modeled flows typically increase by no more than 10 to 20
percent even without onsite detention. In contrast, the differences between
forested and 1987 conditions are typically three- or four-fold for a given
recurrence interval.
Water-quality conditions in this basin affect both streams and lakes.
Observed high concentrations of fecal colHonns, metals, .and total suspended
solids stem from high-density development, numerous arterial roads and two
state highways, and a now-abandoned petrochemical disposal site. The mouth of
Redondo Creek, in particular, was rated the single worst water-quality site of
any in the Hylebos and Lower Puget Sound basins during the 1989-1990 stonn
season sampling program. Water here discharges into Lower Puget Sound Wetland
61, a number-one rated intertidal wetland and an LSRA. Degraded water quality
at this site is particularly problematic.
Surface-water problems here are numerous but most are not severe, reflecting
the limited extent of the drainage system and the substantial alterations that
have already occurred to many of the streams. The habitat value of this sub-
basin is also rather low. Significant problems, therefore, are few in number
(Figure 4.4.2). Those problems that do not pose hazardous conditions are not
addressed by the reconmendations below. They are noted in both the Current
and Future Conditions Report (King County, 1990a) and in the final listing of
identified problems (King County, 1990e). These reconmendations also do not
address the recent fai1ure of the Redondo Beach Road Seawall, caused by wave
action during high winds in December 1990.
Reconmendations (Figure 4.4.3)
Regulations and Programs. Because the sub-basin is largely built out, onsite
flow control for new development could be only moderately effective. No
supplemental detention beyond the Basinwide Reconmendation (see BW-2) is
therefore recommended. In some cases, however, less restrictive detention may
be feasible and acceptable.
4 - 51
EXHIBIT J:
PAGEJ.ß.OF /35
Ventan.
Job No. 97021
APPENDIX F
CORE & SPECIAL REQUIREMENT COMPLIANCE
"SlrivingfOT the Peak of Excellence"
EXH~Bnr-=r:
PAGEl1i..OF 135
Ventana
Job No. 97021
¡
)
I
J
J
I
CORE & SPECIAL REQUIREMENT COMPLIANCE
Core Requirements:
I) Four natural points of discharge are present in the existing condition and will be
present in the developed condition as well. Runoff is being allowed to sheet-flow
offsite for the northeast, southeast, and northwest drainage basins in order to try to
mimic existing rates of runoff. For the southwest basin, the runoff being released
nom the detention pond is discharged nom the site into a roadside ditch as was
occurring in the existing condition.
2) A downstream analysis has been performed.
"'
3) An infiltration tank, a detention pond, and a biofiltration swale are proposed to
provide runoff control for the site.
4) The proposed conveyance system will be sized to ensure proper function in a later
submittal package
I
.J
J
I
j
J
5) Erosion and sedimentation control measures consisting of filter fabric fencing,
temporary ditching, and both a sediment trap and pond will be in place during
construction activity.
6) A maintenance and operation manual will be prepared and submitted at a later date.
7) All drainage facilities will be constructed in conformance with the bond and liability
requirements.
Special Requirements:
1) The project does not lie within a critical drainage area.
2) The plan has been prepared to comply with the basin-wide BW-2 requirements where
applicable.
3) N/A
..Striving/or the Peak o/Excel/ence"
J
EXH~B~T -1:
PAGE1l20F
I3Cj
Veotan.
Job No. 97021
4) The drainage plan has been designed in compliance with the Hylebos Creek and
Lower Puget Sound Executive Proposed Basin Plan.
/'-......
\ 5) A water quality swale has been proposed to provide treatment to the storm water
\.,__),lIloff being discharged from the site.
6) The site will contain less than 5 acres of impervious and is therefore exempt.
7) The storm water runoff is not being discharged into a closed depression.
8) The proposed plan does not call for the use oflakes, wetlands, or closed depressions
for peak rate runoff control.
9) N/A
10)N/A
11) A geotechnical report has been prepared by a professional engineer.
12)N/A
"Strlvingfor lhe Peole of Exce//.nce"
E~,,"""~~UT -f,
PAl:iLJ2h~)L
135
Vent...
Job No. 97021
APPENDIX G
I
.J
NORTHEAST BASIN INFILTRATION TANK ..
KCRTSCALCULATIONSOUTPUT
..,
.j
J
.J
¡
J
]
..1
"Striving/or the Peolc a/Excellence"
J
EXHIBiT 1-
PAGEJTIOF 135
. H,--__----.. -'j7j}_?(------__J/þ:jÝTAML_.----- J 1~/3-L._____-
INF/LT£ATION 7ÃN/'í
Kc..¡z,TS METHOf)
D£"uIGN
LFIl.TIlATION f\AT£:
Iocsl(;>.) = It<f;ASUUO x F';'tsT,tJ& .. F;;""n"'"v < Fp....r.¡.,"C.
WHltRE: InEAS/./¡w) r 3 "'//l1Z.
Fr£ST""" 0.50
FpUt6GW<.' o.qO (~£"'""SA"0.5)
FWM<TO1= t¡ ~ +- 0.05" . L¡ (t)-to.O$ ';> I
:. = 1.0
;,
IDE:SI'~ . (3 '%..) 1 D.50 . 1.0 " 0.'\0
= 1.35 '%K. 'fi:: L '.j, YLj r'\loJ~N
CONTe/ ßlmNG {l,UNOFF:
ARr¿f\. 12. ROO~.s x 2.500~"
= 30,000 SF ~ O.~î Ac.
C,N " enS
Tc..: G.30 MIN"TE:S (/1IN.)
:SEA' He. KAINFAU R£G,ION
Vý / SCAl.¡¡: = 1.03
EXHIBIT -=r
PAGE 12&'OF 13c;
J
SECfíùN I/J
~e.Lt . 1.03
ill-4
~
f.~ KCRTS User, Guide
EXHIBIT ~]S.]99S
PAGEJ1-.iOF /35
Createhy.txt
KCRTS Command
-------------
CREATE a new Time Series
------------------------
Production of Runoff Time Series
Project Location: Sea-Tac
Computing Series: 100DEV.tsf
Regional Scale Factor: 1.03
Data Type : Reduced
Creating Hourly Time Series File
Loading Time Series File:C:\KCRTS\ST
EI60R.rnf
Impervious
0.69 acres
--------------
Total Area: 0.69 acres
Peak Discharge: 0.336 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8
Storing Time series File:1
OODEV.tsf
Time Series Computed
KCRTS Command
-------------
eXit KCRTS Program
------------------
Page 1
EXHIBiT 5
PAGE 130 OF I?:6
Discharge Volume from Time Series
dev.tsf
between 10/ 1/ 0 0:00 and 09/30/08 23:59
582985. Cu-Ft or 13.383 Ac-Ft in 2920.0 days
\,..
L
)
.1
J
,
J
EXHIBIT~
PAGElZlOF /3S
Retention/Detention Facility
Type of Facility:
Tank Diameter:
Trench Width:
'Tank Length:
Effective Storage Depth:
Stage 0 Elevation:
Storage Volume:
Vertical Permeability:
Permeable Surfaces:
Riser Head:
Riser Diameter:
Top Notch Weir:
Infiltration
6.00
12.00
144.
5.50
100.00
5588.
44.44
Bottom
5.50
12.00
None
Tank
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
cu. ft
minI in
ft
inches
~"
EXH~Bilf J
PAGEJ310F I ~5
I
1
Retention/Detention Facility
Stage Elevation Storage Discharge Percolation
(ft) (ft) (cu. ft) (ac-ft) (cfs) (cfa)
0.00 100.00 O. 0.000 0.000 0.00
0.10 100.10 52. 0.001 0.000 0.05
0.65 100.65 605. 0.014 0.000 0.05
1.20 101.20 1173. 0.027 0.000 0.05
1. 75 101.75 1770. 0..041 0.000 0.05
2.30 102.30 2383. 0.055 0.000 0.05
2.85 102.85 3000. 0.069 0.000 0.05
3.40 103.40 3610. 0.083 0.000 0.05
3.95 103.95 4201. 0.096 0.000 0.05
4.50 104.50 4757. 0.109 0.000 0.05
5.05 105.05 5257. 0.121 0.000 0.05
5.50 105.50 5588. 0.128 0.000 0.05
5.60 105.60 5588. 0.128 0.308 0.05
5.70 105.70 5588. 0.128 0.871 0.05
5.80 105.80 5588. 0.128 1. 600 0.05
5.90 105.90 5588. 0.128 2.390 0.05
6.00 106.00 5588. 0.128 2.670 0.05
6.10 106.10 5588. 0.128 2.930 0.05
6.20 106.20 5588. 0.128 3.160 0.05
6.30 106.30 5588. 0.128 3.380 0.05
6.40 106.40 5588. 0.128 3.590 0.05
6.50 106.50 5588. 0.128 3.780 0.05
6.60 106.60 5588. 0.128 3.970 0.05
6.70 106.70 5588. 0.128 4.140 0.05
6.80 106.80 5588. 0.128 4.310 0.05
6.90 106.90 5588. 0.128 4.4?0 0.05
?OO 107.00 5588. 0.128 4.630 0.05
7.10 107.10 5588. 0.128 4.780 0.05
7.20 107.20 5588. 0.128 4.930 0.05
55.00 155.00 5588. 0.128 26.610 0.05
J
J
I
EXHUBfL.-J:
PAGE-illOF ~
Routing Hydrographs
Hyd Inflow Outflow Peak Storage
Target Calc. Stage Elev (Cu-Ft) (Ac-Ft)
1 0.34.******* 0.00 5.42 105.42 5527. 0.127
2 0.26 ******* 0.00 1.81 101.81 1839. 0.042
3 0.21 ******* 0.00 1. 77 101.?7 1791. 0.041
4 0.21 0.00 1.82 101.82 1850. 0.042
5 0.18 0.00 3.63 103.63 3859. 0.089
6 0.18 0.00 1.01 101.01 981. 0.023
7 0.17 0.00 4.09 104.09 4338. 0.100
8 0.15 0.00 0.86 100..86 821. 0.019
<¡,
E}{HnB~Ti_",_~
PAGE~ OF
13'5
Peak Outflow Discharge:
Peak Reservoir Stage:
Peak Reservoir Elev:
Peak Reservoir Storage:
0.000
5.42
105.42
5529.
0.127
CFS at 12:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8
Ft
Ft
Cu-Ft
Ac-Ft
Storing Time Series File:rdout.tsf
8
)
¡
I
]
I
Facility Routing Complete
Loading Stage/Discharge curve ÒNLY:rdout.tsf
Converting Stage to Discharge TSF
8
Volume Calculation
Discharge Volume
----------------
Discharge Volume from Time Series
rdout.tsf
between 10/ 1/ 0
0:00 and 09/30/08 23:59
O. Cu-Ft or
0.000 Ac-Ft in
2920.0 days
DownStream Analysis Complete
,
<it
H W STAC£ =
5.1./2. FT
I
J
J
I
J
J
R'SEr2 6TAbE:= 5'.50 FT
.
. .
0.000
Ac.-FT
IS RE:Lé..ASf:.D FROM THe
FACILfTY.
THE: RUNOF¡: 1\5 CaMpi ~""r-, \'
'-"""'- IJJFIL772ltrelJ.
EXH~B[j- ...::C
PAGE \3C? OF ---1.3.2
(
C
Rr:\/I!C'..'O~ I.... -
--I,¡', ¡-' '/IJE
-. .... 'i Uti
MAR 2 7 1998
11100 NE 8th Street
Suite 355
Bellevue, WA 98004
(425) 462.7663
(425) 462,7597 F.,X
. Engineering, Inc.
March 26, 1998
CO'" ,,-, RECEIVED BY
,,",, ..-ITV~CJ'"' 'r-
'- '" ,.".,_. 'Oo'n'Vcm
MAIl 2 I 1998
Ms. Lisa Read
City of Federal Way
33530 1st Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6210
Re:
Preliminary Plat of Vent ana
SEP97-0036 & SUB97-0005
Letter of Modification
Dear Ms. Read:
This letter serves as a modification request to divert storm water runoff from developed portions
of the Southeast basin to an infiltration system located near the Northeast comer of the plat. The
diversion is necessary because there is no existing storm system near the Southeast comer of the
site to convey runoff, and the soils in the Northeast comer of the site are more suited for
infiltration. Some backyard runoff will be allowed in the Southeast basin to account for the
diversion.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
PINNACLE ENGINEERING INC.
~£~
Raymond E. Miller, PE
President
"Striving/or ¡he Peok 0/ Excellence"
t ~ It,~
EXRJBrr-J. ~ (
PAGF-LOF--L-
EXHIBIT
9-15-1998 a,31AM
FROM P I I\IIIACLE-ENGR 4254627597
P.2
(
c
-Engineering,. Inc.
11100 NE 8th Street
Suite J55
Bellevue, WA 98004
(425) 462-7663
(425) 462-7597 fax
March 26,1998
Revised September 15, 1998
Mr. Fei Tang
City of Federal Way
33530 1st Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6210
Re:
Preliminary Plat ofVentana
SEP97-0036 & SUB97-O005
Letter of Modification Request - Revised
Dear Mr. Tang:
We have received your Memo dated 9/1/0/98 to Ms. Deb Barker requesting an updated
Modification Request that follows the procedure oUtlined in the King County Surface Water
Design Manual (KCSWDM). . The Modification Request considers the following:
L Divert a portion of the Southeast Basin to the Northeast Basin.
2. Divert portions of the Southeast, Northeast, and Northwest Basins to 1he Southwest Basin.
3. Divert the downstream discharge path of the Southwest basin from the present overland path
to an established roadside ditch and underground conveyance systeIIL .
Basis for the Modification Request:
L The present topography of the Southeast basin slopes in a southeasterly airection onto
adjacent property. There is no established drainage course in the basin or nearby that can be
used for conveyance of developed runoff. Therefore, it was logical to consider onsite
infiltration for runoff from rooftops and developed portions of the lots within the Southeast
basin. A .geotecbnical analysis and. soil logs discovered that the most desirable soils for
infiltration existed in the Northeastern portion of the site at a depth of approxiniately 13 feet
below existing grade. The soils in the Southeast basin did not demonstratè the same
desirable characteristics and a tightline was desigiled to convey runoff from the lots to an
mro"'oo .ok ,.-. ::~;7;~!ofilio.~ ~ -~
"S"'vin. (or 1M PODk of &all...,."
09/1:;/98 TUE 09:34 ITX/RX NO 59271
9-15-1998 8:32AM
FROM PJ/ll'llACLLENGR 4254627597
(
P.3
(
The preferred method for controlling developed runoff is infiltration as discussed ,in the
Department of Ecology StormwaterManagement Manual for the Puget Sound Basin, Section
1-2.8. By diverting runoff to the Northeast basin, infiltration can be used and potential
downstream problems in the Southeast Basin can be avoided, thus producing a result in the
public interest meeting the objectives set forth by the Department of Ecology.
2. The detention pond located in the Northwest comcr ofthc site has been designed to meet the
current standards of the city of Federal Way for detention and water quality. Portions of the
Northeast, Northwest, and Southeast basins that contain the proposed roadway of 24th
Avenue SW and developed lots are conveyed to the pond for the purpose of controlled runoff
and water quality meeting the City's standards., A small portion ,of developed runoff from
24th Avcnue SW will flow uncontrolled to the north and south respective basins which will
account for somc'ofthe diverted flows.
The 'diversion of thc Northeast, Northwest, and Southeast basins to the. detention and water
qUality fa.cility in the Northwest comer of the site will produce compensating ~ts in thc
public Îl).terest by avoiding downstream basins that demonstrate potential problcms and will
meet the objectives ofthc City for function, water quality, and mliintenam:e.
3. The present downstream drainage path of the Southwest basin was initially considered as the
proposed outfall for the detention and, water quality facility. Interest and, concern from
downstream property owners over thc impact from runoff iIiitiated an investigation into an
alternative outfall path. Negotiations were' conducted with concerned owncrs and an
agreement was reached to construct a conveyance system to the existing conveyance system
along 28th Avenue SW. A detailed downstream survey and anålysis has been perfonned to
qualify the proposed drainage path. ' ,
The proposed diversion of the present downstream drainage path in thc Southwest basin will
produce a compensating result in the public interest and Irieet the objectives of safety,
function, and maintainability.
Please call if you have any qucstions.
'Sincerely,
PINNACLE ENGINEERING INc.
UdL
cc:
Mr. Greg SabRI, Wellington-Morris
t 6b'~é
EXHIB~T .:S-z.,
PAGE~OF 2--
EXHIBIT
",<..i.i." (~,"- P...nI"r~ll_.~"
09/15/98 TUE 09: 34
(TX/RX NO 5927]
t.
RECEIVE!) I:IYp"""'ENT
COM~ DEVELOPMENT DE IV> , m
'OCT 02 1998 6eh
(206) 661-4000
FEOERAL WAY, WA 98003-6210
October I, 1998'
Ray Miller, P.E.
Pinnacle Engineering, Inc.
11100 NE 8th Street, Suite 335
Bellevue, WA 98004
Re:
Complex Variance Request,
Preliminary Plat of Ventana Basin Diversion Request
SUB97-0005
Dear Mr. Miller:
The Public Works Department has received your letter dated September 15, 1998 in wlùch.you request a
Complex Variance for the referenced project The detailed description of the diversion can be found in the
Prelimimuy Storm Drainage report dated August 14, 1998.
Pursuant to the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual, Chapter I, Section 1.4.1, the Department of
Public Works has the authority to determine if and wbat type of variance is required for projects subject to
drainage review. Variances ftom the requirements descnDed in the manual may be granted provided the variance
will accomplish the following:
I. Produce a compensating or comparable result that is in the public interest.
2. Meet the objectives of safety, function, appearance, environmental protection, and maintainability
based on sound engineeringjudgemenl
Upon review of the Preliminary Storm Drainage report, the following describes how the above listed criteria are
met:
The project site area is about 9.9 acres. It is located on a ridge and contains four distinct drainage basins.
Without a variance, the King County Swface Water Design Manual may require that the project to COostruct four
separate retention/detention facilities onsite. The City Swface Water Management division (SWM) recognizes
the impractical nature of this requirement.
The size of the proposed basin modification is minor. As the result of the modification, the runoff rates in the
developed condition from the Northeast basin, Southeast basin and Northwest basin will all be equal or less than
their runoff rates in the existing condition for the 2-year and 10-year storm events.
The proposed diversion of the downstream discharge path of the Southwest basin will divert high flows from the
present overland path to an established roadside ditch and pipe system. The diversion is not significant in the
sense that the outfall locations of the existing and the proposed draimige paths into Puget Sound are very close
(about 200 feet) and the distance between the outfall and the project site is very short (about a half mile).
EXHIBIT
~ óß!~W:f!
'" .
EXHIBIT_t -
PAGE..LOF z.-
'.,.
('
c
By diverting high flows from and erosion-prone overland path located on private properties to an established.
conveyance system located within the public right of way, the City will have the benefit of convenience for
maintenance i.e., easy access for addressing future maintenance needs. The following conditions of approval will
also ensure that the objectives of safety, function, and envirorunental protection are met.
1. The flow rates from the Southeast basin, Northeast basin and Northwest basin in the developed
condition need to be analyzed. The peak discharge rates from above three basins for the 2-year and
10-year 7 -day design stann events in the developed condition have to be equal or less than the peak
discharge rates in the existing condition for the same basin and the same design stonn event.
2. A flow splitter must be installed at the outlet of the existing offsite detention tank so that all low
flows will remain in its existing drainage path, and all flows larger than the. erosion-causing threshoLd
(i.e., 50% of the 2-year peak flow) will be diverted to the new drainage path.
3. The downstream capacity of the new drainage conveyance for the Southwest basin between the
project site and Puget Sound has to be adequate. The capacity of this convey8lÍce needs to be fully
analyzed using the design standard outlined in the King County Surface Water Design Manual. The
analysis will be reviewed in the engineering review process. Any deficiency of the conveyance has
to be addressed before engineering approval of the project. Depending upon the-result of the
analysis and the historical observation record, the mitigation effort may involve substantial
improvement of the conveyance system downstream. The bonds and liability requirement, including
drainage facilities restoration and site stabiLization bond and the maintenance and defect bond, shall
be applied to all downstream improvements constructed by the developer.
¡fyou have any questions, please contact Fei Tang, P.E., Surface Water Engirieer, at (253) 661-4015.
Sincerely,
C7/Þ\~
Cary M. Roe, P.E.
Public Works Director
CMRffW:kcm
co:
Stephen Clifton, Development Services Manager
Jeff Pratt, SWM Manager
Fei Tang, Surface Water Enginecr
Deb Barker, Associate Planner
Lisa Read, Contract Plans Reviewer
Project file
Day File
L:IPRMSYSIOOCUMEIffiSUB97 - OO.OSIPWIOO 198.00c
l ~ tI-.e
EXH i B IT J--
PAG E-L OF z.
EXHIBIT
r
...
...
..
~
~
ui
C?
ui
~
~
~
CIf
,...
~
..¡
I
..¡
I
.'\~. '" '\ '\ \\;. . fi\
" \',' ,,!~
,\\ ...'tI,.,~1'.... -----
l\I " .. ~'" \ ,", '.. -----------,
, ,,'i '\ ,..\ \ I ..( ¡~
'\'\ '\ "\"~..\ . '\ ~:; l' :;:
\'\ \ . .., "" ;~ w .-J
'\ ~ ~
;: , ì- 'IW~ '. ~--~'.:~':ê.w "'I
w w @,,:::\~;
~e ..,
-...---....-
"31IJ: 'IIq.Iæ¡qlq
---
-..
"'_101"'" Mill'
JD<S All "" nI"', I
..."""'" '"'YO .-...--..
..
YNV.LN3A
~
~
&! 8 -"
~ ~R !~
~ -~
"
¡
hft
nl
n~
};~
ig!~
t::
CD
:¡:
><
UJ
.. .... ,
:;';u; ,','IE. ';',1': .. 'JI.'S- '.rAY VI"
I
---r---- . '\ ... ... '\ '\
I ~ , t¡
\~ "\\ '-
~ \ \ i'
\ ~ ¡!J,~
t\ ,,'"
OJ '\
,
~¡¡ a
u. ~/r
u. \!I
;;j
I.>
¡¡¡-
iii iii 0
,.;@
'\
I
r
I
,"""
\
~~ §
~~~
~ ~ .
g ~ ,~
il L' ~' I'
L~
~! ~ ~ .
~ I~ ~ II ¡~ ~ã ~~
i~¡i 'R¡o ~ ~ ~~ ~~ I
~~ °Il ~ Ow " '.
~* I~~~~: ~ã ~~ã
!!Þn~ m!!¡ ¡¡ !!u
e
iii
h
il.
~@
~<!>
-
~'Y"
0
t: ~,
!!!W
i~
W~
¡¡¡
:õ;
..J
¡¡¡
...
..
~
~
ui
Ci
It
:i
Ñ
n:
~
Ñ
...
~
CI)
..¡
-
!ii
z
..¡
i
t
~
"""""'......""""""" II/IVI
- .... .......
~
"
;:;
~
~
,..",..",........,..,
::~'i~";
: : 'II :
"""",:"""",:,~¡ø,
, 'H
....,;',¡~,: ,
: ~ìgS:
: " ì~!J/
",¡,h~!~
: ¡ ï ~ ~~
: hll:
:..U:
, , , , " '
8
..= """,:
" ,
: 'n "" iu." 00'00'" ~~ "
: : :'~,:=<..:
~~~ . ' \,
, \
"H~J' \
ll- ~"RJI
I<H;;:¡.;e:\
""" '30.\:1
~ 8 : 00+1 =?
~~~
,:uJ -
~~§
II
~
"
"
u "" Hl" 00.. ~lS
~ ~
~
~
, '
,l-
't...",
: Ol~",,^,
, '
":'( If"""- :
....'
~8
U~ '
'""'Ii ..:..
å~~ :
H
....'
....'
'....
....'
....'
, , , ' , , , , , , , , , , , ,
-....
....'
....'
........
'.... ..~¡¡:.. ....- '.... ....
S~~:
'Id~
~<, 'II
.~~~~ ....- '....
~hl
~~. ....'
'.... ....' , , , , , ' , ,
....LI ""'"
..~ ""'"
...... " "" """ '....
~ ~
'....
'....
....'
~
Ii
~
~
8
it
8
;t
g
;!;
~
~ ;1
ia
8
;I¡
~
8
;!:
8
<5
~
~
.
_a ,\T.II.'IY8IU
VlIIV nmA e.~
--~ ...
.
-
,
~ ~~
~
--..' 1::-1
!!!W
!::: ::I:~
!:!?
:I: t1~
><
LU
~18
U
Oil
8
<5
8
;!:
8
<t
~-
~;I
ii
8
;
g
;!;
8
;t
I
J
.............. "T"~
YNV.LN3A ..
~ .
.......... -.... ..
-
~ u.
0
t:-t
=--
e:!W
!::: :t:~
~ ~~
:J:
><
u.J
[I]=:'¡~
-...nI'I/O ,
-- "", '-"'-"
::¡j
~
~
~
a:
:i
Ñ
!L
~
C'IÏ
.....
~.
~.
ill
z
~
i
~
i
,..----
............,.....
',~.-J',J-+---\-',,',
,/,
..,/'" :""",",'" "",.....: ,
:- ,"""'"""-:
/
I
I
,I""
\
\\
" '
\ '
"
\,
....\ ."
)
./...
..'.'.'I~.^.\.'...:,..',.',~.,.-::.'..".::,:',.,.',.."""""""""
~ ", . . . . . ' . , . . ' , . . . . . . . . . . , . , . . . . . . . . . ' .
..><.,..,
: -"" :
: ~.: "'.",,:.,,,
""'99'
"-
:\
.........".....
~d~
'\' .
i}¡ ,
: I :
..,.:..-j"":""""'"
I
: I
, ,
, . .,. , ' , ., , ' , ,
\ i:
" '
g;=
J ¡' :
.. ,/',
f .
/ :
"J.......
I '
" :
\ :
\
...., ':
\ '
\ '
\ :
8
it
~I
~U
~
~
~þ
~
8
~
......,
8
it
8 it
~u
"""""",:_,~\'_'."""\'I",',JI
\ :
~
~
~
~
8
;t
8 81
. Ii
- ""
B
8
;!;
..._n."'" ..._n. - ......---
-- -~_....
.
YNV .LN3A
.... _TIllY UO'1I
."".'" .=:: .:' .::
-
~
~ i
~
I
~
~
!
-¡~:
!! J ~
011
~
~
uS
t')
~
II:
i
Ñ
~
C'I
...
~
CJ)
..¡
-
[j
z
..¡
~
;;èi~'d ;¡Œ'1'130~'
'C_-------=-~/' - --
-..
/ "
1
..¡
-
5":
2i
-
w -::z. La.;
~ 0
~~
~~
..;:---
I-
ã5
:J:
><
L.U
r
NWt/4. NWt/4, NE1/4, SEC. 12, TWP. 21N. AGE. 3E., W.M.
DI!1I!NIICIt I'CM:
1IIACT -
a¡
..,
~-
- r.--- -
'~
,\ "
I'
I
:, ;¡¡jc
,
,
l/rÞ ~'
.vr J ,---;~:,,:i
, \ '
IE \
\
,/
,-
DtCIIIUCJUS ,. I'UIII1M [TAL
1iõiiõiõ
=- -==. -
!Ri!œ"-
;:Ͼ
___r-
::c:" ...... ,.
~'
LEŒH:!!
Swnbol CMInIilil Oose,;o"oo
8
~
20
§I",lIkoJll "," '6 bl ...u
210
'0;01'" "... 10 .. ,........ du, 10
",.."'" """'. .... ..--
'on,'~'ion ~ ~...../...-
18F
Denol.. ""Ipot ~" (~ ~",..) ond
_In 01',..
r- 0-., r~, c- w, " C,d~. H- W, H~I"'"
G
66
p"""" "'oot T,..
A,. -.... '0<1- Q~y'- _ed . ",' OC
11/2" Cd",.
f!!21EII!
I. =- "';;"..,;;.tb'U'~';¡," "",'II<onl T'.... '2" C~1pot .... ,~..., p. rwe
2 =ït*= ,~': ~...J;~o ....... .... ...!Ok ,~d
p-... 01 ""'",~I T,..o 10 .. '.'o~ed - ".
3. "'- .... """", boll",. ond ..-" .... ~ "'_.
~ TIEE PROTEC1ION TEOHCIEIÞ
p.. CUv of Fod..01 Way Codo s.dioo 22-1568{C}{6}{a-o):
.. No - .... .. ....... on ° "'- -' 01', .nll
'ho .... ,eI"'.... .... lood"- _. h- b- _°'" by 'ho
CIty .. ._~ Noy. ,
b. A - -- ~...'..."" .... .. do"'" '0 .. 1M .... On, 01
:::'~""""",,Ib"""tllleddurin.-"ructions'-
l . """"'.' .~-I~' - "" ,....,
,. . ... .. ... loot .....' ...on..--... '_-b"",l- ~'"
- -.. ~ m.... "on ,.. I..' ....., ,-,.. by
h__~~",,'s_.
" ::.::-.... ':'::;.\",;, -:.:::-';:' .: ::::t..:. -:.:;-e'ion
d,O___"""""""",o"'-""",."",on.
loot. ° """ - .... b, ,ons,ru,'ed, Th, ~- ......," 01 'h. ,~.
:.5:~,=',:;:"'~:;'::::.:~""':':- .., ":" ":".:';"" ,:"':,'":",'"::,
.. - - - .... nol , ......... "'h~ 'M "'" 01 'h. ,-
...- do"'" .. -.,
t - .... ~. 01 tho "oo(.~ ~
i. ... - ~ound Ih. ".. ...... '0 on. 100' ~ dlom.", 01 """
..... 01 .... lrunk dlom.'" m.o~ed ,_, ,.., "'ow Ih.
...-.
I. AII- _""Ion mo'hOd. mo, .. .... " "'<DO'" b, ...
- .. -It, ............1 _'m..' '0 ",0"" ....~ ~
-. .... -O<\ion.
.. -, - tho no "".'b..... ~.. -r .. 000'" .....
tho ....~ do'-.. _~,hm..' -ovid no b. "",Im..'~ '0 II ¿
tho...... 01 tho ",. EXHIBIT \ 6b ~
EXHIBIT 0
PAGE-LC¡
6&
1t
...., ,'.",
Iiil5l5ij
-.., - ..
MAIN STREET DESIGN
LAND'CA.. A.CNOTEC"'..
::.=::-::.. 1::1:::::::-
~
~
~ I
I
P
I ~
t-
I
I
97II2t
;;;:--.
L-l 1
I
NW1/4, NW1/4, NE1/4. SEC. 12. TWP. 21N~ AGE. 3E., W.M.
'"
L,u.,;Ü;." """'L,u.,¡U:,
~?
~
:3
!;¿
:;.
.
~
it
!~
. 50
IØ1IIIESJ
- ....
_Of
.... II ,.".. ... '- .. ...... ..... 3 rAST. ""- """'" 1HE
~ ~ ~ -= ::=.::= ~ .:..~ ..=r
Of"'_, '
w::NTY MAP ...
""'" '"-2500' !!II
2WI8!I
......A . -.-
... -- ..-
¡:.~~-
""",,,,-.OPER
... ..... .....
----
..... .... nom. !U1f .
8EULIŒ. .. -
(---
A
EARIHWOFIK CUANTTTEB
are ..- c.Y.
.... ...... c.Y.
-- n.... c.Y.
(ABU: ," SIN'
EM- .......... .... CÐEItA"" ...... ..... IÐHOD.
JMI!IEmB
18I-COIIIIY1NG~--
481."'" or.......... A
L_'" --
(425) m--
.I...EŒK!!
,; 18HS 1U .. SA"'"
~ ~ .....
--.m- ......,... """""
~ ROOCERY""'"
JBiHEfI
-_INC.
"... IE ... S1. ...... ...
-..-
(---
EXISIN1 oa.DITIONB
.... -- ... ......
- ....
TAX ACCt "'" 1221D3-11o12
--- --""'AVE."'."""""'.
f'AOPo ........ use
...... .
.......- ....
.......... _'IS -10,000 SF.
_Y _121 SF.
.... ..- :::::: ~ =:!
SI£ET_HEX
,. -- Q£AØIG - ......... PUN
2. -- _Y - UI8JJY PUN
.. Clff-SŒ"""""PUN
4 -y .......
50 SLŒE _YSlS'"
L SIE ..... SEC11OIIS
, OF I "'-SŒ""""""'"
EXHIBIT
\
lk{
~I!H
a ~:Ö5
1'-""
f
I
~
!
a ~
I i
I~
I
~
EXHIBIT r b II
PAGE--LO~ I
I
. .. '. ,- .
( " (.
RECEiVi=.DBŸ::: r-, ,I"". "
"""'jf"TYf)O\r::o;~~~~Et>TERRA ASSOCIATES, In~~@~ITwm:~
,IA~:'~ :"""tG9~l'::, Co"'uhants in Geot.,.;hnical En¡;in""ring, Geology )~
... . ' and JUN 2 7 1997
Environment.1 Earth Sciences
Mr, Greg Sabar
Wellington-Morris Corporation
10335 Main Street, Suite 8
BeUevue, Washington 98004
June 26,1997
Project No. 1-3319
Subject;
Site Evaluation for Bald ~gJes
Federal Way Project
Federal Way, Wasbin;ton
Dear Mr, Sahar:
As requested, we visited the subject property near 25th Avenue SW in Federal Way, Washington. Our site visit
was conducted on June 17, 1997, during a period of light rain. The pwpose of our site visit was to evaluate thc
site conditions for possible use by bald eagles (HaJ/aeetus /eucocephalus).
The subject property is a' square pareeloften acres located between SW 304th Street aDd SW 3O6th Street on the
east side of 25th A Venue SW. The property is und",'.loped, but a nètworlt of1rails crosses and provideS access to.
most parts of the site. ,
The property is currently covered by a second groWth' mixed coniferous and, broadleaf deciduous forest.
Dominant native tree species are Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menzies/I), western hemlock (Tsuga h4//!/'ophyIIa),
big.leaf maple (Acer macrophy/Ium), and red alder (A/nus Mtl:ml). The forest understory is dominated by Indian
plum (Oemler/a cerasiformis). red elderbeny (Sambucus race_sa). salal (Gaul/heria shal/on), and salmonbeny
(Rubus spec/abms), Common herbaceous species inelude sword fern (Polys//chum mun/tum), bracken-fern
(Ptoridiutn aqu¡¡¡fiUmj, and stinging nettle ({.irtica die/co).
Topographically, the site is located on the crest of a north-south tmlding ridge. The elevation near the center of
the property is approximately 325 feet, and elevations near the east and west boundaries are approximately 300
feet There are no swales or depres$ions on the property, and no wetlands or other special habitats are present on
the property,
Neighbors in the vicinity bave reported that the large trees on the property have been used for pesch sites by bald
eagles, Bald eagles in the Puget Sound reg.ion feed almost exclusively on fish, and to a much lesser extent on
bjrds. .¥O$t of their fo~gingis dondrom perçh~oYeriooking large bodies of Water: ' Alibough '110 eagles were
seen during Our site visit. numerous ¡':ees on'thé property have the size; 'Structure, and view of PugetSound to
I provide s,uitable peteb sit~s for eagles. " (II/'
EXHIBIT tn:;
12525 Willow, Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Wa<hington 98034 . Ph1!Xt-ftBtT ~
PAGE..l-OF z,
(
, '.
(
Mr. Greg Sabar
June 26, 1997
Very few trees on the site appeared to have the structure necessary ~o support an cagle nest. However, most eagle
nests in the Puget Sound region are very close to water, and this site is probably too far from open water to be a
desÙ1lble nest location. '
Information available from the Washington Departmenl of Fish and Wildlife indicates a bald eagle foraging
territory on Puget Sound north of the subject property. This tetritocy is occupied by a single pair of eagles,
although other eagles may pass through on occasion. One nest site is lo<:atedclose to the water approximately
one-half mile north of the subject property, and a second nest site is located approximately one mile further east
on Puget Sound. It is. not unusual for a pair of cagle to have multiple nest sites within their territory, although
only one nest would be active each year. Bald cagle nests belòllging to different pairs in the Puget Sound region
are generally located about five miles apart. As long as the »overty Bay nest is active, it is unlikely that another
pair of eagles would attempt ~o build a nest in this vicinity.
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife generally designates restricted zones around active bald cagle
nests. The primary zone includes a radius of 330 feet around the nest site, and the secondary zone includes the
area between 330 feet and 660 feet from the nest site. Development activities an: generally prohibited in the
primary zone and limited within the secondary zone. It is also recommended that foraging perch trees within 200
feet of the shoreline be preserved.
Because the closest known nest site is over 2,0,00 feet wm the subject property, there should be no restrictions of
development of the site. The site is also at least 2,000 feet tiotn the closest shoreline. It is unlikely that trees on
the property would be used as foraging perches by the eagles. However, it is likely that the eagles would
occasionally use trees on the site for resting perches.
It is our understanding that under the proposed development plan for this site, at least 2S percent of the large trees
on the site will be preserved. Many of the perch trees that are currently used by eagles will still be available.
Many eagles in the Pugct Sound region have bccomehabituated to human activity 'and development and will
readily use perch trees in " residential development. However, there is considerable variation in. individual
tolerance for disturbance, and it is not possible to be certain how the resident eagles in this area will react to this
development.
It is our conclusion that there are no bald eagle nests on or within 2,000 feet of the Federal Way property,
although the large tr~es on the site are likely to be used for occasional perching. The proposed level of
development is unlikely to have any adverse impact on the pair of bald eagles nesting on Poverty Bay.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call.
Sincerely yours,
TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC.
~'¿5
Thomas R. Strong, Ph.D.
Project Sci.mtist
, I L1 t\£
EXHIBIT~-----
Project No. T-3686
EXHIB{feN°'h¿- \
PAGE 'Z- OF Z-
( . .,~.
TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc.
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology
and
Environmental Earth scie.ncesR;-Oj
RECEIVEDJ'}X,.,.,. , . .
CO"MIINITV~F\/FI.oO'<C'.1 '.. . .W:1-rI
:"~'.' !", "-"-
~~.
MAR ì 71998
'tAR 2 7 1998
March 19, 1998
Project No. T-3686
Mr. Greg Sahar
Wellington-Morris Corporation
10335 Main Street, Suite 8
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Subject:
Response to Comments
Preliminary Plat ofVentana
King County, Washington
Dear Mr. Sahar:
As requested, we have reviewed the comments from the City of Federal Way on the Preliminary Plat of Ventana,
located between SW 304th Street and SE 306th Street in Federal Way, Washington. We 'conducted a site visit on
January 29, 1998, to investigate the issues raised in those comments.
Bald Ea!!les
As noted in our previous letter on bald eagle use of trees in this area (dated June 26, 1997), a pair of bald eagles
has a territory on Poverty Bay, with a nest site approximately 2,OÒO feet north of the Ventanasite. The
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife typically requires primary and secondary zones of protection around
nest sites. These zones may vary in size based on specific characteristics of each territory, but the outer protection
zone is generally less than 1,000 feet in radius from the nest. In addition, foraging perch trees within 200 feet of a
shoreline are protected. Because the Ventana site is at least 2,000 feet from the nest site and about 2,000 feet
from the closest shoreline, there should be no restriction on site development because of the eagles.
It was originally anticipated that approximately 25 percent of the large trees on the site would be preserved, but
the current grading plan indicates a greater impact. Wettington-Morris Corporation has elected to pay a fee to the
City of Federal Way in lieu of preservaÌion of open space. In the current plan, approximately 0.24 acres out of the
total of 9.9 acres on the site wilt be preserved in one open space tract. This area, Tract 995, is located on a
relatively steep slope adjacent to 26th Avenue SW in the southwest corner of the property. This tract will
preserve numerous large Douglas fir (Pseudolsllga menziesii) trees, and a few big-leaf maple (Acer
macrophyllum) and red alder (Alnus mbra). The tract is on a west-facing slope with a view of Puget Sound.
G-z-
EXHIBIT
-£
Mr. Greg Sahar
March 19, 1998
(
«:
In addition to the designated open space tract, an area of natural vegetation will be preserved on the slope at the
east ends of Lots 16, 17, 18, and 19. This area is dominated by Douglas fir with some maples and alders. It is
located on a west-facing slope with a view of Puget Sound. Another area of natural vegetation will be preserved
at the east end of Lots I, 2, 3, and 4. This area is dominated by red alders with an understory of salmonberry.
Several other large trees will also be preserved in individual lots on the property.
It is unlikely that the eagles from the Poverty Bay territory use the trees on the Ventana site for anything more
than incidental resting perches. The site is too far from the nest to be used regularly for territorial defense perches
or overnight roosting. The site is also too far from the shoreline to be used for foraging perches. The preserved
open space tract and the other trees and areas of natural vegetation should retain enough trees to provide for
occasional eagle use.
The Ventana site is almost completely surrounded by existing residential development, and eagles using the site at
the present time are probably habituated to residential landscapes and neighborhood activities. It is reasonable to
expect eagles to continue using the site to the same extent as currently. In order to maintain the long-term
potential for use by eagles, we recommend that additional conifers, especially Douglas fir and grand flf (Abies
grandis), be used for landscaping in individual lots.
<
Wetlands
As noted in our previous letter, there are no wetlands or other aquatic habitats on the Ventana property. In
response to comment #19, we examined the southeast comer of the property in more detail. Red alder and
salmonberry, with some Himalayan blackberry and trailing I;Jlackberry (Rubus ursinus), dominate vegetation in
this area. Alder and salmonberry are frequently found in wetlands, but they are just as likely to be in uplands.
Soil samples in this area showed no hydric characteristics. The coiors were dark yellowish brown (IOYR3/4)
with no mottles. There was no saturation, in spite of heavy recent rainfall.
Adjacent land to the south and east from the southeast property comer is occupied by existing residential
development. Wooden fences are present on the property boundary, with landscaped yards and houses within 100
feet of the Ventana property. No wetlands are present in this area, and to the best of our knowledge, no wetlands
are located anywhere within loa feet of the Ventana property boundary.
We trust this information satisfies your current needs for this project. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please call.
Sincerely yours,
TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC.
!l:::;~1 !F
Project Scientist :h:D. vr
cc:
Mr. Ray Miller, Pinnacle Engineering, Inc.
(&£~
EXHiBIT G^;:~: T"3686
PAGE-LOF VageNo.2
EXHIBIT
.,~ ii- t
. ~r~; TEc~~~, ~~:'~~~~~~:Or~ C.
Environmental Earth Sciences
July 9,1998
Project No. T-3686
Mr. Greg Sahar
Wellington-Morris Corporation
10335 Main Street, Suite 8
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Subject:
Response to Additional Comments
Preliminary Plat ofVentana
King County, Washington
'Dear Mr. Sahar:
AI; requested, we have re~;ewed the additional comments fro:n the City of Federal Way on the Preliminary Plat
ofVcr.tana. !ocatedbetween SW 3O4lh Street and SE 306th Street, in Federal Way, Washington. The City of
Federal Way has requested some additional clarificatiOli of a recommendation made in our pre\;ous letter.
Our previous letter (dated March 19, 1998) proposed that "in order to maintain the long-term potential for use by
eagles, we recommend that additional conifers, especially Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga n¡enziesii) and grand fir
(Abies grandis), be used for landscaping in individual lots." The intent of this recommendation was not to
provide immediate perch sites for eagles. Trees large enough for eagles to use would be extremely difficult to
transplant and would have a low probability of survival. Our intention was that standard landscape-size trees
(four to six feet) be provided as a part of the landscaping scheme for the development. One or two of these trees
could be planted in each of the proposed lots. Over a time span of 50 to 100 years, these trees will become large
enough to serve as potential perch trees for eagles, and they will provide replacements for existing trees in the
open spaces that could die or be blo>\l1 down during that rime period.
We trust this information satisfies your current needs for this project. If you have any questions or need
additional information. please ca!l.
Sincerely yours,
TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC.
!f::: si!E
Project Scientist Y
REVISION DATE
12525 Willows Road, 5uite 101, Kirkland, Washington 9
cc:
Mr. Ray Miller, Pinnacle Engineering, Inc.
c C
TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc.
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology
and
Environmental Earth Sciences
November 23, 1998
Project No. T-3686
Mr. Steve Nielsen
Wellington-Morris Corporation
10335 Main Street, Suite 8
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Subject:
Response to Wildlife Concerns
Preliminary Plat ofVentana
Federal Way, Washington
Dear Mr. Nielsen:
As requested, we have reviewed the letter from Mr. Chris Carrel (Oct. 30, 1998) regarding wildlife issues on
the Preliminary Plat of Ventana, located between SW 304th Street and SE 306th Street in Federal Way,
Washington. This letter raised questions about four species that Mr. Carrel believes to be on the property.
These are the northern goshawk, owls, pileated woodpeckers, and ensatina salamanders. We conducted a site
visit on November 10, 1998, to investigate the issues raised in those comments and to evaluate the site for
these species. We have also reviewed the letter on SEPA comments from the City of Federal Way (Nov. 18,
1998), which requests additional information on the potential impact of the project on bald eagles.
Northern Goshawk
Mr. Carrel's letter states that he has "frequently observed a breeding pair of northern goshawk foraging on the
site." This statement implies that the goshawks are nesting on the Ventana site.
The northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) is listed as a candidate for status as threatened or endangered by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).
The goshawk is a large hawk that feeds on small mammals (rabbits, squirrels, chipmunks, etc.) and a variety of
birds (crows, grouse, ducks, pheasants, etc.) (Terres, 1980). Goshawks normally nest in tall trees in heavily
wooded, remote wilderness areas and mountain forests (Harrison, 1979). Goshawks are only rarely observed
in the Puget Sound region, and there are no known nests in western King County (P, Thompson, WDFW,
personal communication 11/11/98). Goshawks are relatively common in the forested areas of the Cascade
Range in eastern King County.
EXH\BIT~-
Mr. Steve Nielsen
November 23, 1998
c
c
It is my opinion that Mr. Carrel has seen another hawk in this vicinity and has misidentified it as a northern
goshawk. Cooper's hawks (Accipiter cooper¡) are similar to goshawks, and they are relatively common in the
Puget Sound area. Goshawks are generally larger than Cooper's hawks, but there is some overlap in the size
ranges for these species. Cooper's hawk generally feed on small birds captured in forested areas. These hawks
are the most likely raptors to be encountered in the habitat available on the Ventana site.
While on-site, I searched the trees for possible raptor nests, but was unable to locate any. During my three
visits to the site, I have seen no hawks, owls, or eagles on or near the site.
The City of Federal Way Environmentally Sensitive Areas regulations (Article XIV, Sec. 22-1221 through
Sec. 22-1369) includes no specific rules for protection of wildlife or habitat. However, relevant state or
federal regulations regarding wildlife might be applicable. There are no federal regulations specifically
protecting nest sites for Cooper's hawks, and WDFW has no specific management guidelines for Cooper's
hawks. However, Cooper's hawk nests would be covered under general rules prohibiting the destruction of
nests of protected species (R.C.W 77.16.120). The term "protected species" is defined to ~nclude all birds
other than game birds, predatory species, or those otherwise classified as threatened or endangered (VV.A.C.
. 232.12.011(3». "Predatory birds" in western Washington are limited to American crow, European starling,
and house sparrow (W.A.c. 232.12.004(2».
The proposed action on the Ventana site will require clearing most of the trees on the property, which would
remove potential foraging habitat for Cooper's hawks. However, large forested areas remain in this vicinity in
Poverty Bay Park, Dash Point State Park, and other wooded ravines. Proposed actions for this site will have
no significant adverse impact on this species or the individuals currently using the site. No mitigation
measures are required or proposed.
Owls
Mr. Carrel reports that he can "ftequently hear owls hooting ftom trees within the Ventana site." It is likely
that Mr. Carrel has heard a great homed owl (Bubo virginianus), a large owl with a deep hooting call. Great
homed owls are common in the Puget Sound region, but they are rarely seen because of their noctumal habits.
The proposed action on the Ventana site will require clearing most of the trees on the property. Potential
perching and roosting sites for great homed owls will be lost. However, these owls are very adaptable and are
relatively tolerant of human activity. Proposed actions for this site will have no significant adverse impact on
this species or the individuals currently using the site. No mitigation measures are required or proposed.
Pileated Woodpecker
Mr. Carrel's letter states that "a pair ofpileated woodpeckers also forage in the site and may nest there."
EXHIBIT l è\ ~-E ----
EXH I B IT ~t No. T-3686
PAGE--.k..OF 5 Page No. 2
Mr. Steve Nielsen
November 23,1998
c
c
The pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pilealus) is a candidate for listing as a threatened or endangered species
by WDFW. Candidate species are believed to be declining in population and are to by reviewed by WDFW
for possible listing as threatened or endangered. Because pileated woodpeckers are not officially designated as
threatened or endangered, they have no formal regulatory status at this time.
The pileated woodpecker falls into the category of protected species under WDFW regulations as described
above. There are no specific requirements for habitat protection, although WDFW has prepared management
recommendations for this species (Rodrick and Milner, 1991). Those recommendations are logging operations
that would impact large areas of forest. The recommendations are not applicable to a small development in an
urban setting.
Pileated woodpeckers generally inhabit mature and old-growth forests or second-growth forests with sufficient
large snags and fallen trees (Rodrick and Milner, 1991). Pileated woodpeckers are also reported to use open
woodlands, parks, and wooded suburbs (Ehrlich et aI., 1988), and are regularly seen in those habitats in the
Puget Sound vicinity. Pileated woodpeckers excavate cavities in snags or large dead branchð& for nesting and
usually make a new nest cavity every year. Nest snags are usually greater than 27 inches in diameter and taller
than 87 feet.
Pileated woodpeckers usually forage in forests at least 40 years old, feeding primarily on carpenter ants, beetle
larvae, and other insects in large snags and stumps. In foraging, they dig large distinctive excavations in snags
or live trees, leaving piles of chips on the ground. During the fall season, pileated woodpeckers also feed on
fruits, nuts, and acorns (Ehrlich et aI., 1988). The average home range size on the west side of the Cascades is
1,200 acres, but some studies have found that the density of these woodpeckers increased with the abundance
oflarge conifers and snags (Rodrick and Milner, 1988).
The U.S. Forest Service (1986) recommends maintaining at least 2 snags greater than 12 inches in diameter
per acre, and some snags must be greater than 20 inches in diameter to provide nesting sites.
I located foraging excavations by pileated woodpeckers in six snags on the Ventana site, generally across the
central part of the property. Most of these snags were between 10 and 16 inches in diameter and included red
alder (Alnus rubra) and Douglas fir (Pseudolsuga menziesii). The observed snag density is approximately 0.6
snags per acre. One very large Douglas fir (48 inch diameter) has a snag top with some excavations. This
snag also has a nest cavity that may have been used by pileated woodpeckers. The observed foraging appears
to be relatively old, and no recent chips were found near these trees.
I believe that the Ventana property is much too small to support a pair of pileated woodpeckers and the habitat
is of only marginal suitability. The generally healthy condition of the forest on this site provides a low density
of small snags. I found only one snag in the normal size range for nest cavities (greater than 20 inches in
diameter). it is likely that this site is only a small part of a breeding and foraging tenitory that may include
Poverty Bay Park, Dash Point State Park, and other heavily wooded areas.
EXHIBIT ~
EXHIBIT G - ----
PAG E.-2 cr~t ~~~8~
Mr. Steve Nielsen
November 23, 1998
(
c
The proposed action on the Ventana site will require clearing most of the trees on the property. Large snags
would have to be removed for safety reasons. However, because of the marginal quality of the habitat and its
limited use for foraging, the proposed actions are not expected to have any significant adverse impact on the
pileated woodpecker. No mitigation measures are required or proposed.
Ensatina
Mr. Carrel reports that the "site is also home to a healthy population of ensatina salamanders." During my
most recent site visit, I found three of these salamanders in a relatively short time, and I agree with Mr.
Carrel's comment. The ensatina is not on any state or federal lists òf threatened, endangered, or sensitive
species.
The ensatina is a small salamander that is descn'bed by Leonard et al. (1993) as "one of the most widespread
species of salamanders." Leonard et al. (1993) also describe the ensatina as "ubiquitous"-and "commonly
encountered." They can be found easily by searching under logs or other woody debris on the forest floor.
The proposed clearing on the Ventana site will remove most of the trees and woody debris on the property.
Most of the suitable habitat for ensatinas will be lost, although some habitat will remain in the small areas of
preserved open space. Because the ensatina is so common and widespread, the proposed actions for this site
will have no significant adverse impact on this species, and no mitigation measures are required. However,
any existing woody debris or logs should be retained in the open space areas.
Bald Ea!!le
As noted in our previous letters on bald eagle use of trees in this area (dated February 12, March 19, and July
19, 1998), a pair of bald eagles has a territory on Poverty Bay, with a nest site approximately 2,000 feet north
of the Ventana site. Bald eagles are becoming more common in the Puget Sound region, and it is possible that
adult or immature eagles use the tall trees on the Ventana site for occasional perching. The eagles reported to
have been seen on this site may be the resident eagles ITom the Poverty Bay territory, or they could be
transients that have no established territory.
As noted above, the City of Federal Way has no specific regulations applying to protection of sensitive species
or their habitat, but state and federal regulations would still apply. The Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife typically requires primary and secondary zones of protection around nest sites. These zones may vary
in size based on specific characteristics of each territory, but the outer protection zone is generally less than
1,000 feet in radius ITom the nest.
In addition, foraging pe~ch trees within 200 feet ofa shoreline are protected. Federal guidelines recommend a
primary protection zone with a 330-foot radius and a secondary zone with a 660-foot radius. \
eXHIBIT~
PAGE~OF9ageNo.4
Mr. Steve Nielsen
November 23, 1998
c
(
Because the Ventana site is at least 2,000 feet from the nest site and about 2,000 feet from the closest
shoreline, there should be no restriction on site development because of the eagles. The site is not subject to
state or federal bald eagle management guidelines, and no direct mitigation should be required.
In the proposed development plan for the Ventana site, approximately 0.24 acres out of the total of 9.9 acres
on the site will be preserved in one open space tract. This area, Tract 995, is located on a relatively steep slope
adjacent to 26th Avenue SW in the'southwest corner of the property. This tract will preserve several large
Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesil) trees, and some big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) and red alder (Alnus
rubra). The tract is on a west-facing slope with a view ofPuget Sound.
It is unlikely that the eagles from the Poverty Bay territory use the trees on the Ventana site for anything more
than incidental resting perches. The site is too far from the nest to be used regularly for territorial defense
perches or overnight roosting. The site is also too far from the shoreline to be used for foraging perches. The
preserved open space tract will retain some trees that could allow occasional eagle use.
The Ventana site is almost completely surrounded by an existing residential development, and-eagles using the
site at the present time are probably habituated to residential landscapes and neighborhood activities. It is
,reasonable to expect eagles to continue using the site to the same extent.
Although no direct mitigation is required, in order to maintain the long-term potential for use by eagles, we
recommend that additional conifers, especially Douglas fir and grand fIT (Abies grandis), be used for
landscaping in individual lots. The intent of this recommendation in not to provide immediate perch sites for
eagles. Trees large enough for eagles to use would be extremely difficult or impossible to transplant and
would have a low probability of survival. Our intention is that standard landscape-size trees (four to six feet)
be provided as a part of the landscaping scheme for the development. One or two of these trees could be
planted in each of the proposed lots. Over a time span of 50 to 100 years, these trees will become large
enough to serve as potential perch trees for eagles, and they will provide replacements for existing trees in the
open spaces that could die or be blown down during that time period. This recommendation has been accepted
as a condition of the MDNS, with the provision that a comparable number of trees be clustered in other parts
of the property.
We trust this information satisfies your current needs for this project. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please call.
Sincerely yours,
TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC.
~~~
Thomas R. Strong, Ph.D.
Project Scientist
TRS:kh .
EXHIB'T~_-
EXHIBIT____(Q~
PAGE.&-~~
i-
0
i-1
~:Z: ..
Iff
m I
,~' ~I,
~III ¡
I
J
>
~
.J
c(
a:
w
Q
W
LI.
LI.
0
~
0
en
<C
w
a:
<C
w
>
-
I-
-
en
z
w
en
I
'W'
,~~
II f f I
, l!J JIB f
j iJlj JIJi~ liJ
IIII ~ ~ ~
. !
+ ,!
. ~. ~ j
i
~
1
(j)
J
a:
------.------
--- "-- _. --.
, ,
.' Ir-
-
....,
!
~;
i
i;.
_.~.,..¡ ...,
(
c,
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
Ventana
SW 304th Street
Federal Way, Washington
Project No. T -3686-1
Terra Associates, Inc.
Prepared for:
Wellington Morris Corporation
Bellevue, Washington
fb:,'c{
ð/?C/qt>
February 27, 1998
EXHIBIT-J~K
EXHiBIT. T
PJ\GE~OF.' 3~
c (
TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc.
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering. Geology
and
Environmental Earth Sciences
February 27, 1998
Project No. T-3686-1
Mr. Greg Sahar
Wellington Morris Corporation
10335 Main Street, Suite 8
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Subject:
Geotechnical Report
Ventana
SW 304th Street
Federal Way, Washington
Dear Mr. Sahar:
As requested. we have conducted a geotechnical engineering study for the subject project. The attached report
presents our findings and recommendations for the geotechnical aspects of project design and construction.
Our field exploration indicates the site is generally underlain, at shallow depths, by medium dense outwash sands
and dense glacial till composed of silty sand with gravel. In our opinion, these soil conditions will be suitable for
development of the site as proposed, provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into
project design and construction.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to Wellington Morris Corporation during the design phase of this
project and look forward to working with you during the final design and construction phases.
We trust the information presented in this report is sufficient for your current needs. If you have any questions or
require additional 'information, please call.
Sincerely yours,
TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC.
~
7-/2-ljq3
DPLlTJS:dvp
cc: Mr. R~Iti!!r. ~81~~ng, Inc.
EXHIBIT_I ~ ~
EXHIBIT \
PAGE...LOF 3~
12525 Willows Road. Suite 101. Kirkland. Washington 98034 . Phone (425) 821-7777
5.0
6.0
7.0
c
E
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pal!e
1.0
2.0
3.0
Project Description """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'........."..............................1
Scope of Work............................................................................... ..................................2
Site Conditions.................................................................................................................2
3.1 Surface................................................................................................................2
3.2 Subsurface.................................................................................""""""""""""" 3
3.3 Groundwater ....................................................................................................... 3
Geologic Hazards............................................................................................................. 3
4.1 Erosion................................................................................................................3
4.2 Seismic................................................................................................................4
4.3 Slope Stability.....................................................................................................4
Discussion and Recommendations ............................................,.....................................4
5.1 General................................................................................................................4
5.2 Site Preparation and .Grading............................................................................. 5
5.3 Excavations.........................................................................................................6
5.4 Foundations.........................................................................................................6
5.5 Slab-on-Grade Construction .....,......................................................................... 7
5.6 Rockeries ............................................................................................................ 7
5.7 Stormwater Detention Facility............................................................................ 8
5.8 Infiltration ........................................................................................................... 8
5.9 Drainage..................................,...........................................................................9
5.10 Utilities ...............................................................................................................9
5.11 Pavements...........................................................................................................9
Additional Services........................................................................................................10
Limitations.....................................................................................................................10
4.0
Fil!ures
Vicinity Map ....................................................................................................................... Figure 1
Exploration Location Plan .................................................................................................. Figure 2
Rockery Cross-Sections ...................................................................................................... Figure 3
Reinforced FilIIRockery Cross-Section .............................................................................. Figure 4
Appendix
Field Exploration and Laboratory Testing ....................................................................... Appendix A
(i)
EXHIBIT (~
EXHIBIT I
PAGE.l. OF 3>:2.
c
(
Geotechnical Report
Ventana
SW 304th Street
Federal Way, Washington
1.0
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Ventana plat will include constructing access and development for 28 lots on an
approximate ten-acre parcel. Preliminary plans, prepared by Pinnacle Engineering, Inc., datecl October
16. 1997, show access to the site will be off of 24th Avenue SW, 25th Avenue SW, and SW 304th
,. Street. Site grading to establish roadway grades will consist primarily of cuts varying from two to ten
feet below existing surface elevations. In the southwest portion of the site, cuts approaching 14 feet
below existing grades are planned to create a public access tract and private lot access. Rockeries with
jf. maximum heights of eight feet will be used to face vertical grade breakS required to construct the)
~I private access to Lot~t the extreme southwest site corner. v<.>kul ~ 1!c Iq ý,¿ i... , ,^" ') ""...v.
~{j~'A stormwater detention pond will be constructed in the northwest corner of the site (Tract 994).
.;;f.l Preliminary plans show interior slopes graded at 2:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) from the adjacent east road
~\~ shoulder. Treated stormwater will be discharged through a control structure to a biofiltration swale
\ located southwest of the detention pond. Lots 1 through 8 and 12 through 15 will have their stormwater
routed to discharge in an infiltration facility. This facility will consist of a perforated buried structure
installed adjacent to the east side of the roadway. north of Lot 4.
). Þ~Based on our experience with similar projects, we expect the residential structures will be supported on
',:J~ a system of bearing walls and isolated columns. We expect structural loads to be about one to two kips
per foot for bearing walls and about 20 kips for interior columns. We also expect main floors will be
framed over a crawl space with attached garage floors constructed at grade.
The recommendations contained in the following sections of this report are based on our understanding I:Á \ ...
of the above design features. If actual features vary, or if changes are made, we should review the;--- ~ ,(/
order to modify our recommendations as required. We should review final design drawings and c.,.i'JI.
specifications to verify that our recommendations have been properly interpreted and incorporated into
project design.
l~~
EXHIBIT -r
PAGE-=L.OF
EXHIBIT
3~
ç'
c
February 27, 1998
Project No. T-3686-1
2.0
SCOPE OF WORK
On September 24, 1997, we excavated ten test pits to depths of 10 to 18 feet below existing surface
grades. Using the information obtained from the subsurface exploration, we performed analyses to
develop geotechni¿al recommendations for project design and construction. Specifically, this report
addresses the following:
.
Soil and groundwater conditions
Site preparation and grading
Excavations
.
Foundations
Slab-on-grade constructiont
Rockeries
Stormwater detention pond
Infiltration
Drainage
Utilities
Pavements
3.0
SITE CONDITIONS
3.1
Surface
The approximate location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. Topographic conditions
on the project site are shown on the Exploration Location Plan, Figure 2.
The project site is located between SW 304th Street and SW 306th Street on the east side of 26th
Avenue SW. Existing residences surround the site to the south, east, and north. Topographically, the
site is located on the crest of a north-south trending ridge. The elevation through the center of the
property ranges from Elev. 298 to Elev. 316. Elevations near the east and west boundaries are as low as
Elev. 250 on the west to Elev. 282 in the southeast. The property is wooded with firs, alder, maple
trees, with a dense native understory. .
Page No.2
EXHIBIT T
EXHIBiT
PAGE ~ OF
3.;1.,
(
[
February 27, 1998
Project No. T-3686-1
3.2
Subsurface
In general, we found that a majority of the site is mantled with 6 to 12 inches of forest debris and
topsoil. In the southern section off 24th Avenue SW, we encountered numerous stockpiles of
landscaping debris. In all but two test pits, a red-brown silty sand with gravel underlies the surface
mantle to a depth of about two to four feet. Below the red-brown silty sands, the site soils vary.
In the south to southeastern section of the site, we encountered a medium dense, tan to brown silty sand
with some gravel overlying dense to very dense glacial till composed of cemented, gray-brown silty
sand with gravel. In Test Pit TP-5, we were able to excavate through the glacial till and observed
medium dense gray sand from 13 to 15 feet.
In the northeast to western sections of the site, we encountered glacial recessional outwash consisting of
silty to clean sands. The brown to gray sands found near the 'surface were silty and occasionally
contained some gravel. We found the deeper sands to be less silty and coarser-grained.- We also
observed some thin silt laminations within the sand units.
, The preceding discussion is intended as a brief review of the soil conditions encountered. For more
detailed descriptions, please refer to the Test Pit Logs in Appendix A.
3.3
Groundwater
We did not observe groundwater seepage in our test pits during exploration. We did; however, observe
some iron stain mottling in some of the deeper sandy soils, which is indicative of groundwater seepage.
Fluctuations in groundwater seepage levels should be expected on a seasonal and annual basis.
Typically, groundwater seepage reaches maximum levels during and shortly following the wet winter
months and diminishes or is completely absent during the dry summer season.
4.0
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
4.1
Erosion
A review of the Soil Survey for the King County Area identifies the site as being underlain by
Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (Age) and Alderwood Kitsap soils (AleF). These classifications are
consistent with the soils we observed. With the existing slope gradients over most of the site, these soils
will have a low to moderate potential for erosion when exposed. Where site gradients increase, the soil
erosion potential will be high. Erosion protection measures, as required by the City of Federal Way,'
will need to be in place concurrent with the start of grading activity on the site.
Page No.3
8~1.. -
EX n I D a 'f-----+--------
PAGE~OF 3.1..
(
(
February 27,1998
Project No. T-3686-1
4.2
Seismic
Tne Puget Sound area falls within Seismic Zone 3, as classified by the 1994 Uniform Building Code
(UBC). Based on the soil conditions encountered, and the local geology trom Table 16-1 of the UBC, a
site coefficient of 1.2 should be used in design.
Liquefaction is a phenomenon where there is a reduction or complete loss of soil strength due to an
increase in water pressure induced by vibrations. Liquefaction mainly affects geologically recent
deposits of fine-grained sands that are below the groundwater table. Soils of this nature derive their
strength trom intergranular fiiction. The generated water pressure, or pore pressure, essentially
separates the soil grains and eliminates this intergranular fiiction, thus eliminating the soils' strength.
Based on the soil and groundwater conditions we encountered, it is our opinion that there is no risk for
liquefaction to occur at this site during an earthquake.
4.3 '
Slope Stability
We did not observe site conditions that would indicate unstable slope conditions exist at the site. Slope
. conditions we observed were stable and there was no surficial evidence that previous slope failure had
occurred at the site. The soil conditions encountered at the test pits are moderately well drained and
exhibit moderate to high strength characteristics. In our opinion, provided recommendations outlined in
this report are followed, planned grading, as ShO\\l1 on preliminary plans prepared by Pinnacle
Engineering, Inc., would not impact the current stability of the site slopes nor those on adjacent
properties.
5.0
DISCUSSION AND RECOi\'Il\IENDATIONS
5.1
General
Based on our study, in our opinion, the site is suitable for the proposed development trom a
geotechnical s'tandpoint. The buildings can be supported on conventional spread footings bearing on
competent native soils below the upper 12 to 18 inches of surficial soils. Alternatively, if required by
desired final building elevations, structural fill placed and compacted above these native soils can be
used to support the building foundations. Floor slabs and pavements can be similarly supported.
The native, near-surface soils encountered at the site contain a significant amount of fines and will be
difficult to compact as structural fill when too wet. The ability to use native soil trom site excavations
as structural fill will depend on its moisture content and the prevailing weather conditions at the time of
construction. If grading activities will take place during the winter season, the owner should be
prepared to import clean granular material for use as structural fill and backfill.
The following sections provide detailed recommendations regarding the above issues and other
geotechnical design considerations. These recommendations should be incorporated into the final
design drawings and construction specifications.
Page No.4
Ex~rä ¡T T
PAGE~OF
3~
(
c
February 27, 1998
Project No. T-3686-1
5.2
Site Preparation and Gradin!!
To prepare the site for construction, all vegetation, organic surface soils, and other deleterious materials
should be stripped and removed from the site. You should expect surface stripping depths ofabout 6 to
12 inches to remove organic topsoil. Stripped vegetation debris should be removed from the site.
Organic topsoil will not be suitable for use as structural fill but may be used for limited depths in non-
structural areas or for landscaping purposes,
Once clearing and grubbing is complete, cuts and fills can be made to establish desired lot and road
grades. Prior to placing fill, we recommend proofrolling all exposed surfaces to determine if any
isolated soft and yielding areas are present. Cut areas that will provide direct support for new
construction should also be proofrolled.
If excessively yielding areas are observed and they can not be stabilized in place by compaction, the
affected soils should be removed to firm bearing and grade restored with structural fill. If the depth of
excavation to remove unstable soils is excessive, use of geotextile fabric, such as Mirafi HP370 or
equivalent, in conjunction with clean granular structural fill, can be considered to limit the depth of
" removal. In general, experience has shown that a minimum of 18 inches of clean, granular structural fill
over the geotextile fabric should establish a stable bearing surface. A representative of Terra
Associates, Inc, should observe all proofrolling operations, We also recommend field evaluations at the
time of construction to verify stable subgrades.
Native soils vary at the site, ranging from relatively clean sand with gravel to silty sand with up to 39
percent fines (silty and clay size particles). The ability to use native silty soils (USCS classification SM,
SP-SM) ITom site excavations as structural fill will depend on their moisture content and the prevailing
weather conditions at the time site grading activities take place, The cleaner site soils (USCS
classification SP) should be suitable for use as structural fill during most weather conditions.
If grading activities are planned during the wet winter months, or if they are initiated during the summer
and extend into fall and winter, you should be prepared to import wet weather structural fill. For this
purpose, we recommend importing a granular soil which meets the following grading requirements:
U.S. Sieve Size Percent Passing
3 inches 100
No.4 75 maximum
No. 200 5 maximum.
.Based on the 3/4-inch fraction.
Page No.5
EXHIBIT____-
EXHIBIT -r
PAGE-LOF
3~
(
(
February 27, 1998
Project No. T-3686-1
Prior to use, Terra Associates, Inc. should examine and test all materials planned to be imported to the
site for use as structural fill.
Structural fill should be placed in uniform loose layers not exceeding 12 inches and compacted to a
minimum of95 percent of the soils' maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM Test Designation
0-698 (Standard Proctor). The moisture content of the soil at the time of compaction should be within
two percent of its optimum, as determined by this ASTM standard. In non-structural areas, or for
backfill in utility trenches below a depth of four feet, the degree of compaction could be reduced to 90
percent.
5.3
Excavations
All excavations at the site associated with confined spaces, such as utility trenches, must be completed
in accordance with local, state, or federal requirements. Based on current Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, sandy outwash soils found on the north, central, and west
sides of the site would be classified as Group C soils. The dense glacial till soils found on the south half
of the site, would fall into a Group B category.
Accordingly, for excavations more than four feet but less than 20 feet in depth, the side slopes within
the upper four feet should be laid back at a minimum slope inclination of 1.5:1. Below this level, side
slopes should be completed at a'minimum gradient of I: 1. If there is insufficient room to complete the
excavations in this manner, or if excavations greater than 20 feet in depth are planned, using temporary
shoring to support the excavations may need to be considered.
Groundwater seepage should be anticipated within excavations during the winter season. We anticipate
that the volume of water and rate of flow into the excavation will be relatively minor, and is not
expected to impact the stability of the excavations when completed as described above. Conventional
sump pumping procedures along with a system of collection trenches, if necessary, should be capable of
maintaining a relatively dry excavation for construction purposes.
The above information is provided solely for the benefit of the owner and other design consultants and
should not be construed to imply that Terra Associates, Inc. aSsumes responsibility for job site safety. It
is understood that job site safety is the sole responsibility of the project contractor.
5.4
Foundations
Spread Footillgs
Residences may be supported on conventional spread footing foundations bearing on competent native
soils or on structural fills placed above competent native soils. Foundation subgrades should be
prepare<;l as recommended in the Site Pr~paration and Grading section of this report. Perimeter
foundations should be at a minimum depth of 18 inches below final exterior grades for frost protection.
Interior foundations can be constructed at any convenient depth below the floor slab.
EXHIBIT T
EXHIB~r
PAGE-LOF
Page No.6
3:1.
(
(
February 27, 1998
Project No. T-3686-1
For bearing on competent native soils or structural fill, we recommend designing foundations for a net
allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 pounds per square foot (pst). For short-term loads, such as wind
and seismic, a one-third increase in this allowable capacity can be used. With the expected loads, and
this bearing stress applied, the estimated total settlements fall in the range of one-half inch. Continuous
foundations transitioning from native to structural fill support should be stiffened to resist bending
caused by potential differential movement.
For designing foundations to resist lateral loads, a mction coefficient of 0.4 can be used. Passive earth
pressures acting on the side of the footing can also be considered. We recommend calculating this
lateral resistance using an equivalent fluid weight of 350 pounds per cubic foot (pct). This value
assumes the footing will be constructed neat against competent native soil or backfilled with structural
fill, as described in the Site Preparation and Grading section of this report. The passive value
recommended includes a safety factor of 1.5.
5.5
Slab-on-Grade Construction
Slabs-on-grade may be supported on the subgrade prepared as recommended in the Site Preparation and
Grading section of this report. Immediately below the floor slab, we recommend placing a four-inch
thick capillary break layer of clean, free-draining sand or gravel that has less than three percent fines
passing the No. 200 sieve. This material will reduce the potential for upward capillary movement of
water through the underlying soil and subsequent wetting of the floor slab.
Where moisture by vapor transmission is undesirable, a durable plastic membrane should be placed over
the capillary break material. The membrane should be covered with one to two inches of clean, moist
sand to guard against damage during construction and to aid in curing of the concrete.
5.6
Rockeries
We understand two rockeries may be used in the southwest portion ofthe site. A rockel}' is not
intended to function as an engineered structure to resist lateral earth pressures as a retaining wall does.
The primary function of a rockery is to cover the exposed excavated surface and thereby retard the
erosion process. Soil conditions encountered in Test Pit TP-IO indicate eight feet of loose to medium
dense silty sand over dense, cemented glacial till. The loose to medium dense silty sands will not stand
near-vertical for rockery construction. If rockeries are facing the silty sand soils with heights greater
than four feet, then we recommend excavating out the silty sands and reconstructing the area as a
reinforced structural fill rockery. Rockeries of four feet and less can be constructed against the loose to
medium dense silty sands without reinforcement. We recommend limiting rockeries to a height of eight
feet where placed against the dense glacial till soils and against the reinforced fill section. Typical
rockery construction details are included on Figures 3 and 4.
Page No.7
EXHIBIT .. r
EXHiBUT
PAGE-E-OF
3~
c
E
February 27, 1998
ProjcctNo. T-3686-1
The construction of rockeries is, to a large extent, not entirely controlled by engineering methods and
standards. It is imperative that rockeries are constructed properly and with care. An experienced
contractor, with a proven ability in rockery construction, should perform the work. The rockeries
should be constructed with hard, sound, and durable rock in accordance with accepted local practices.
'-
5.7
Storm water Detention Pond
A storm water detention pond will be constructed in Tract 994, in the northwest comer of the site. Based
on the pond location, we expect the eastern side will be excavated down on the naturally sloping grades
from east to west. An earth berm will likely be constructed along the western, northern, and southern
sides to establish the desired pond crest elevations. Detained and treated storm water will be discharged
through a control structure into a biofiltration swale southwest of the pond. With the existing surface
grades, the potential thickness of fill required to construct the earth berm will be approximately six to
eight feet.
Our field exploration indicates that the soil conditions encountered in a predominant portion of the pond
excavation should consist ofIoose to medium dense silty sand to sand with gravel. We did not observe
' any groundwater seepage at the time of our exploration.
Fill used in construction of the earth berms should consist of the native silty sands to glacial tills placed
and compacted as structural fill. With the soil conditions encountered, and perimeter berms constructed
with structural fill, stable slope configurations will be provided with the proposed pond grading.
However, the 2:1 interior slopes will be susceptible to sloughing caused by fluctuating pond water
levels. To mitigate this sloughing potential, we recommend a one-foot thick surface cover of four to
ten-inch size quarry rock be placed on all the ponds' interior slopes up to the maximum water level.
The first year of service will require periodic inspections to monitor the performance of the surface
cover. Additional quarry rock may be required through time to maintain the slope surface.
5.8
Infiltration
Southwest Section
The loose, near-surface soils overlying the cemented glacial till will allow infiltration of surface water
runoff. However, the underlying till is relatively impermeable. In general, water that would be
infiltrated through the upper soil zone would become perched on the underlying dense till. The till has a
relatively low permeability and will impede the downward migration of the infiltrated water. As a
result, seepage will develop and flow laterally along the till contact. The till contact typically parallels
the existing surface topography. Therefore, it is likely that infiltrated water would flow downslope to
the west and would not infiltrate into the deeper site soils. Based on these conditions, it is our opinion
that infiltration would not be feasible in the glacial till locations.
Page No.8
EXHIBIT
EXHIBIT -r
PAGE~OF
3~
c
E
February 27, 1998
Project No. T-3686-l
Northeast Infiltration Facility
The gray sand encountered in this area, at Test Pit TP-I at a depth of about 13 feet below existing
surface grade, would allow for infiltration of surface water runoff. The infiltration system should be
designed for an infiltration rate of three inches per hour. No construction stormwater should be
discharged to this facility. The system should include a pretreatment bay to remove debris from the
collected roof water prior to discharging to the ground.
5.9
Drainal!e
Surface
Final exterior grades should promote free and positive drainage away from the site at all times. Water
must not be allowed to pond or collect adjacent to foundations or within the immediate building areas.
We recommend providing a gradient of at least three percent for a minimum distance of ten -feet from
the residences perimeters. If this cannot be completed, provisions should be included for collection and
, disposal of surface water adjacent to the structures.
Subsurface
We recommend installing perimeter foundation drains. Roof and foundation drains should be tightlined
separately to the storm drains. Subsurface drains must be laid with a gradient sufficient to promote
positive flow to a controlled point of approved discharge. All drains should be provided with cleanouts
at easily accessible locations.
5.10
Utilities
Utility pipes should be bedded and backfilled in accordance with American Public Works Association
(Al'W A) or the City of Federal Way specifications. As a minimum, trench backfill should be placed
and compacted as structural fill, as described in the Site Preparation and Grading section of this report.
As noted, most soils excavated on-site should be suitable for use as backfill material during dry weather
conditions. However, if utility construction takes place during the winter, it will likely be necessary to
import suitable wet weather fill for utility trench backfilling.
5.11
Pavements
Pavements should be constructed on subgrades prepared as described in the Site Preparation and
Grading section of this report. Regardless of the relative compaction achieved, the subgrade must be
firm and relatively unyielding before paving. The subgrade should be proofrolled with heavy
construction equipment to verify this condition.
Page No.9
EXHIBIT
EXHIBIT T
PAG E~ OF
3,~
c
(
February 27, 1998
ProjcctNo. T-3686-1
The appropriate pavement section depends on the supporting capability of the subgrade soils and the
traffic conditions to which it will be subjected. We understand that traffic will mainly consist oflight
passenger traffic, with only occasional heavy traffic in the form of moving trucks and trash removal
vehicles.
Based on this information, with a stable subgrade prepared as recommended, we recommend the
following pavement sections:
Two inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over six inches of crushed rock base (CRB)
Two inches of AC over four inches of asphalt treated base (A TB)
The paving materials used should conform to the Washington State Department of Transportation
(WSDOT) specifications for Class B AC, A TB, and CRB.
Long-term pavement performance will depend on surface drainage. A poorly-drained pavement section
will be subject to premature failure as a result of surface water infiltrating into the subgrade soils and
reducing their supporting capability. To improve performance, we recommend surface drainage
" gradients of at least two percent. Some longitudinal and transverse cracking of the pavement surface
should be expected over time. Regular maintenance should be planned to seal cracks when they occur.
6.0
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Terra Associates, Inc. should review the final design and specifications in order to verify that earthwork
and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in project design.
We should also provide geotechnical services during construction in order to obSCIVe compliance with
the design concepts, specifications, and recommendations. This will allow for design changes if
subsurface conditions differ trom those anticipated prior to the start of construction.
7.0
LIMITATIONS
We prepared this report in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. This
report is the property of Terra Associates, Inc., and is intended for specific application to the Ventana
project. This report is for the exclusive use of the Wellington Monis Corporation and their authorized
representatives. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
The analyses and recommendations presented in this report are based upon data obtained trom the test
pits excavated on-site. Variations in soil conditions can occur, the nature and extent of which may not
become evident until construction. If variations appear evident, Terra Associates, Inc. should be
requested to reevaluate the recommendations in this report prior to proceeding with construction.
Page No. 10
EXH¡ä~T ,
PAGE--Œ...OF
3:¡,
c
-\
~;)~"l
T2,2N
T2Jf:I.
't
.K
~
REFERENCE:
~ TERRA
:::""...... ASSOCIATES
. .. . . .. . Geotechnical Consultants
THE THOMAS GUIDE. KING COUNlY, WASHINGTON, PAGES 714 AND 744. 1997 EDITION.
EXHIBIT
VICINITY MAP
VENTANA
FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON
Proj. No. 3686-1
Oote FEB. 1998
Figure
"
~
(
\--
+
~
100
APPROXIMATE SCALE
0 100
200 reet
LEG£ND:
-$- APPROXIMATE HANO-AUŒR lOCATION
I! APPROXIMATE TEST PIT lOCATION
REFERENCE:
SITE PlAN PREPARED Iff PINNACLE ENGINEERING,
lNG., JOB No, 97021, Do\TEO 2/98.
NOTE:
- SITE PIAN DOES NOT SHOW nNAl GRAOING.
~". TERRA
« . ASSOCIATES
GeoIechnõcoI ConUIonIs
EXPLORATION LOCATION PlAN
VENT ANA
FEOERAl WAY. WASHINGTON
EXHIBIT ---T
PAGE /s-OF.
3?-.
J:.1
u
E
x
0 c:
E en 0
tj E
]1 E<o
~ 5Q;
E 15
~ .... 8
~ g¡
¡,.
..Q
(
Competent undisturbed
native soils
Crushed rock filter
moteriol, between 2
ond 4 inch size with
less thon 2" fines.
4 in. minimum diameter
drain pipe surrounded by
clean washed pea-gravel
or gravel and wrapped
with filter fabric
NOT TO SCALE
r{
fY)
/-~
1:.: ~I
!!!W
:r:. C!J
l.1o:
--~---
- TERRA
:;;/...... ASSOCIATES
. .. . . ." Geotechnical Consultants
ROCKERY CROSS-SECTION
VENTANA
FEDERAL WAY. WASHINGTON
Proj. No.3686-1
Date FEB. 1998
Figure 3
Slope 2:1(H:V) mox.
~
ð
E
.,
~
~
1:
'"
.¡¡¡
:x:
Rockery face
3 in. min
'- 4 in. minimum diameter
drain pipe surrounded by
grovel meeting WSDOT
9-03.12(2) specifications
GEOGRID REINFORCING SCHEDULE
Rockery Height No. of Grid layers Grid
4' 2
6' 3
8' 4
length (l)
4'
s'
6.5'
r(
rf)
f-LL
0
t;~
!Bw
%(!J
lðá5
NOT TO SCALE
~~ TERRA
:~;r...... ASSOCIATES
'.'.'." Geotechnical Consultants
EXHIBIT -~--
REINFORCED FILL/ROCKERY CROSS-SECTION
VENTANA
FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON
Proj. No. 3686-1
Dote FER 1998
Figure 4
(
c
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
Ventana'
Federal Way, Washington
On September 24, 1997, we perfonned our field exploration using a mid-sized trackhoe. We explored
subsurface soil conditions at the site by excavating ten test pits to a maximum depth of 18 feet below
existing grade. The test pit locations are shown on Figure 2. The test pit locations were approximately
detennined by measurements from the existing property line, fences, and walls. Test pit elevations were
interpreted from the topographic survey, prepared by Pinnacle Engineering, Inc., dated March 1997.
The Test Pit Logs are presented on Figures A-2 through A-6. .
A geologist from our office conducted the field exploration and classified the soil conditions
encountered, maintained a log of each test pit, obtained representative soil samples, and observed
pertinent site features. All soil samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil
"Classification System (USCS) described on Figure A-I.
Representative soil samples obtained from the test pits were placed in closed containers and taken to our
laboratory for further examination and testing. The moisture content of each sample was measured and
is reported on the Test Pit Logs. Grain size analyses were perfonned on sixteen of the samples, the
results of which are shown on Figures A-7 through A-14.
EXHIBIT___~__--
EXHfiB8T T
PAGE~OF 32
Project No. T-3686-l
(
MAJOR DIVISIONS
en ~
...J 01
- ~QI
0 .!!!N
en -ëii
co
0 "" Q
w 'sãj
~ ~ëii
~ *8
CJ ¡g~
w c:~
en co
a:: =æ
« QI..c:
0 ~-
0 ~
GRAVELS
Clean
Gravels
(less than
5% fines)
More than
50% of coarne
fraction is
larger than No,
4 sieve
Gravels
with fines
SANDS
Clean
Sands
Qess than
5% fines)
More than
50% of coarse
fraction is
smaller than
No.4 sieve
Sands
with fines
en õi
...J '",0
- QlO
0 roN
en EóQ
0 ~z,!:!
W ~ c: '"
Z II) co Q
< c:=ã;
a:: co ~.-
CJ £J1'"
w ~~
Z 0",
ü: ~
SILTS AND CLAYS
Liquid limit is less than 50%
SILTS AND CLAYS
LIquid limit is greater than 50%
LETTER
SYMBOL
GW
GP
GM
GC
SW
SP
SM
SC
ML
CL
OL
MH
CH
OH
PT
(
lYPICAL DESCRIPTION
Well-graded gravels, gravel...and mixtures, litUe or no
fines.
PoorlYi/raded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, litUe or
no fines.
Silty gravels, gravel-sand,silt mixtures, non-plastic
fines.
Clayey gravels. gravel-sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines.
Well-graded sands. gravelly sands, tittle or no fines.
Poorly-graded sands or gravelly sands, litUe or no
fines.
Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic fines.
Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines.
Inorganic silts, rock flour, clayey silts with slight
plasticity.
-
Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, (lean clay).
Organic silts and organic clays of low plasticity.
Inorganic silts, elastic.
Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays.
Organic clays of high plasticity.
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
DEFINITION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS
-'
w
~
a::
C)
Densffy
Standard Penetration
Resistance in Blows/Foot
Very loose
Loose
Medium dense
Dense
Very dense
0-4
4-10
10-30
30-50
>50
õ
0
Z
ë}j
~
(J
Standard Penetration
Resistance in Blows/Foot
Consistency
Very soft
Soft
Medium stiff
Stiff
Very stiff
Hard
0-2
2-4
4-8
8-16
16-32
>32
õ
!:;
ëii
~
TERRA
ASSOCIATES
Geotechnical Consultants
Peal
I
I
rÇf
1:5
!::~
!!!W
DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic foot % ø
LIQUID LIMIT, percent >< ".
PLASTIC INDEX W à:
STANDARD PENETRATION, blows per foot
y
2" OUTSIDE DIAMETER SPLIT
SPOON SAMPLER
2.4" INSIDE DIAMETER RING SAMPLER¡-
OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER
WATER LEVEL (DATE)
Tr TORVANE READINGS, tsf
Pp PENETROMETER READING, tsf
DD
LL
PI
N
rVI "nor
~", "~,, --.
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
VENTANA
FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON
Proj. No. T-3686-1/ Date FEB. 1998 I Figure A"1
C
Test Pit No. TP-1
Approximate Elev. 306'
(6 inches TopsoiVForest Duff)
Red-brown silty SAND with some gravel. 10.3
Dry, loose, roots, fine grained. (SM)
Tan silty SAND with gravel, mois~ medium
dense, semi-cemented. (SM)
Gray-brown sand with silt and some gravel. 5.0
Mois~ medium dense to dense, fine to coarse grains.
Some thin laminated silt lenses. 7.9
Semi-cemented. (SP/SM)
- Some mottling from 11 to 13 feel
8.4
Gray SAND.
- Dry, loose to medium dense, fine to coarse grains. (SP) 3.7
Test pit terminated at 16 feet -
No groundwater seepage encountered.
No caving observed.
Logged by: DPL
Date: 9/24/97
Depth
(ft.)
0
Soil Description
Moisture
Content
(%)
5
10
15
20
Test Pit No. TP-2
Approximate Elev. 300'
Logged by: DPL
Date: 9/24/97
Depth
(ft.)
0
Moisture
Content
%
5
Soil Description
(8 inches TopsoiVForest Duff)
Red-brown silty SAND with gravel.
Dry, loose, roots, fine grained. 2 foot sized rock at 2.5 feet (SM)
Tan silty SAND with gravel.
Dry to moist, medium dense to dense, roots.
Slight cementation, fine to medium grains. (SM)
Brown silty SAND with some gravel.
Mois~ medium dense to dense, fine to medium grains.
Some roots to 10 feet (SM)
17.8
6.4
10
10.7
15
Gray SAND with trace silt.
Mois~ medium dense, fine to medium grains.
Some mottling from 13 to 14 feel (SP)
8.3
20
Test pit terminated at 18 feet
No roundwater see e observed. No cavin observed.
7.3
~
TESJft/r!iJtT LOGS_-
VENTANA- --
FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON
TERRA
ASSOCIATES
Geotechnical Consultants
Proj. No, T-3686-1 Date FEB. 1998 Figure A-2
Logged by: DPL
Date: 9/24/97
Depth
(ft.)
0
Logged by: DPL
Date: 9/24/97
Depth
(ft.)
0
10
15
20
~
~
(
Test Pit No. TP-3
Approximate Elev. 314'
Soil Description
Moisture
Content
(%)
15
12 inches ToDSoillForest Duff.
Tan-brown silty SAND with gravel. 8.0
Dry, loose, roots, fine grained. (SM)
-
Gray silty SAND with gravel. 10.8
Moist medium dense to dense, fine grained,
semi-cemented. (SM)
-
-
Some mottling below 13 feel 14.5
~:;:i¡l'~:Ju~~e~::cl,,:":O coarse orains semi-cemented. rSP-SWl 10.5
Test pit terminated at 16 feel -
No groundwater seepage encountered.
No caving observed.
5
10
20
Test Pit No. TP-4
Approximate Elev. 306'
Soil Description
Moisture
Content
%)
7.0
4.6 ~I
11.4 LL
0
11.3 Ñ/
W
(!J
~
(6 inches TopsoiUForest Duff)
Red-brown silty SAND with gravel.
Dry, loose, roots, fine grained. (SM)
5
Brown silty SAND with gravel.
Dry, medium dense, fine to medium grains.
Some thin silt laminations, roots to 6 feel (SM)
Gray-brown silty SAND with gravel.
Moist, dense to very dense, fine grained, cemented.
Glacial Till. (SM)
Test pit terminated at 12 feet.
No groundwater seepage encountered.
No caving observed.
TERRA
ASSOCIATES
Geotechnical Consultants
TEW 1:005-- .
VENTANA
FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON
Proj. No. T-3686-1 Date FEB. 1998 Figure A-3
(
Test Pit No. TP-5
Approximate Elev. 294'
Logged by: DPL
Date: 9/24/97
Depth
(ft.)
0
5
(10 in"".. TopsoiVFore.. Dul!)
~:=n~'Y. S:~Dai:i~:£'1';J¡ravel. 11.5
Tan silty SAND with some gravel. 9.0
Dry, medium dense, roots, fine grained. (SM)
- Gray-brawn silty SAND wilh some gravel 10 SAND with sill
Moist, medium dense 10 dense, fine to medium grains, 11.0
some cementing, some sill laminations. (SP-SM)
-
8.5
Gray SAND. 8.9
Moisl, medium dense, fine to medium !lrains. ISP)
Tesl pitterminaled at 15 feet.
No groundwater seepage encountered. -
No caving observed.
Soil Description
Moisture
Content
(%)
10
15
20
Logged by: DPL
Date: 9/24/97
Depth
(ft.)
0
Test Pit No. TP-6
Approximate Elev. 296'
5
18 inches TopsoillForesl Duffllandscape debris.
Red-brown 10 Tan silty SAND with gravel. 5.7
Dry, loose, fine grained, roots. (SM)
,- Gray-brown silty SAND with gravel. 10.6
Mois~ dense 10 very dense, fine grained, cemenled.
Glacial1ill. (SM)
10.1
Test pil terminaled at 10.0 feet.
No groundwater seepage encountered.
No caving observed.
,-
Soil Description
Moisture
Content
(%)
ci
Nì
15
Ll
C
('(
('(
U.
I'r
10
20
...
«
a.
~
~
TERRA
ASSOCIATES
Geotechnical Consultants
TEST PIT LOGS
VENTANA
FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON
Proj. No. T-3686-1 Date FEB. 1998 Figure A-4
Logged by: DPL
Date: 9/24/97
Depth
(fl.)
0
('
Test Pit No. TP-7
Approximate Elev. 294'
Soil Description
Moisture
Content
(%)
15
(8 Inches TopsoiVForest Dull)
Red-brown slltv SAND with some oravel, dry, loose rools fine orained.ISM)
Tan-brown silty SAND with some gravel. 7.3
Moist loose 10 medium dense fine orained, ISM)
- Gray-brown silty SAND with gravel to some gravel.
Moist, medium dense 10 dense, fine 10 medium grains. 9.0
Semi-cemented. (SP-SM)
-
7.0
- Testpitterminaled at 14 feet
No groundwaler seepage encountered.
Slight caving of upper 4 feel -
5
10
20
Logged by: DPL
Date: 9/24197
Depth
(ft.)
0
Test Pit No. TP-8
Approximate Elev. 268'
Soil Description
Moisture
Content
(%)
20
~/Foresl Duff
Red-tan silty SAND with some gravel.
Moislloose. roots, fine grained. (SM) 5.8
j- Brown silty SAND with some gravel.
Moislloose to medium dense, fine to medium grains. (SM)
Gray-brown SAND with gravel, trace sill 6.3
Moist to wet, medium dense, fine to coarse grains. (SP)
1- Gray-brown to gray SAND with some gravel.
Moist to wet, medium dense, fine to medium grains. 13.0
Some thin silt laminations, (SP)
,- 9.8
Test pit terminated at 16 feet
No groundwater seepage encountered.
Some caving of upper 6 feel
5
10
15
~
~
TEST PIT LOGS
VENTANA
FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON
TERRA
ASSOCIATES
Geotechnical Consultants
Proj. No. T-3686-1 Date FEB. 1998 Figure A-5
~
LL
C
fY)
N
¡fj II W
ø
~
€
Test Pit No. TP-9
Approximate Elev. 270'
Logged by: DPL
Date: 9/24/97
Depth
(ft.)
0
5
12 inches TopsoillForest Dull.
Tan-brown silty SAND with some gravel. 5.9
Dry, loose, roots, fine grained. (SM)
,- Brown silty SAND with some gravel. 4.1
Moist, medium dense, fine to medium grains. some roots. (SM)
Gray SAND with silt.
Moist, medium dense, fine to medium grains. (SPiSM) 16.3
Gray gravelly SAND trace sill. 5.1
Wet dense fine to coarse grains. (SP)
Gray silty SAND with some gravel.
We~ medium dense, fine to coarse grains. (SM) 9.7
Test pit terminated at 15 feel
No groundwater seepage encountered. -
No caving observed.
Soil Description
Moisture
Content
(%)
10
15
20
Logged by: DPL
Date: 9/24/97
Depth
(ft.)
0
Test Pit No. TP-10
Approximate Elev. 286'
5
~~-brown sil~ SAND with so¡§J¡ravel. 6.2
D loose roo s fine grained. S
Tan silty SAND with some gravel.
- Dry, loose to medium dense, roots. fine grained. (SM)
6.6
Two-foot diameter boulder at 3 feet.
Gray silty SAND with gravel.
- Moise, dense to very dense, fine grained, cemented. 11.4
Glacial TIll. (SM)
16.5
- Test pit terminated at 13.5 feet.
No groundwater seepage encountered.
Easily caved from 0 to 8 feel
Soil Description
Moisture
Content
(%)
10
15
20
~
~
TERRA
ASSOCIATES
Geotechnical Cansultanls
TEST PIT LOGS
VENTANA
FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON
Proj. No. T-3686-1 Date FEB. 1998 Figure A-6
VJ
¡¡:¡
>-
.....J
«",
z'"
«~
æ<.J
~¡¡j
Wz
::;¡~
0'"
æ
a
>-
:r:
VJi:s
¡¡:¡'"
~~
«=>
~ z 4
W 1/4
Q 3/8
VJ ~ 1/2
:r 5/.8
¡¡¡ 3/4
z 1
;; I I/.4
~ 1 1/2
~ 2
0
"-
0
<.J
N
¡;;
r-
(
PERCENT COARSER BY WEIGHT
.00 0
~
0
en
0
0
- .001
0
'"
0
..,
S!
0
on
g
I"!
0
'"
~
§
V)
<ñ
:;;
1
(/)
w
-'
cc
cc
0
U
.002
.003
.004
.002
.003
.004
.006
.008
.01
.006
.008
.0
.02
.03
.04
.02
.03
.04
.06
200
.06
.08
.1 VJ
æ
W
.2 ~ z
.3 :3
.4 SË
.6~
.8 La.J ~
1 ~ ~
VJ
2 ~
« ...
3 ~ ~
4 u
100
60
:r:
u
~
'"
<.J
C1.
:r
V)
~
40
20
10
6
8
10
z
20
30
40
:,¡
~
3
4
60
80
100
12
0
~
200
300
0
0
en
0
'"
0
....
0
'"
0
'"
S!
0
..,
0
'"
~
PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT
(/)
w
:z
¡¡:
N
e~
"'-
:;¡
0-
:::Eg
U
c:
.2
ã.
'5
.,
'"
CI
(/)
u
(/)
~
-'
Q.
::I
0;
>
E
'" ..
:5 :5
'. '.
CI CI
~ ~
~ :::E
(/) (/)
I I
Q. Q.
(/) (/)
~
LL
0
~I
w
(!)
~
:5~ If) If)
ls .n ~
. 0
::;""
Q. - -
'" I I
1::- Q. Q.
'c" I- I-
~,.!!!
~
><:
~~ TERRA
:'\'"...... ASSOCIATES
'. .'.' Geotechnicol Consultants
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
VENTANA
FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON
Proj. No. .3686-1
Dote FEB. 1998 Figure A-7
(f)
i/)
>-
....J
<C'"
Z'"
<c.,
eJ~
f-V>
wz
::;:~
0<'>
CI::
a
>-
::c
:z:
u
.,
'"
~
:I:
V>
""
'"
~~
(f)'"
~~
<c=>
~z 4
w 1/4
>
W 3/B
i/) ID 1/2
~ 3~~
;;; 1
to 1 1/4
;;; 1 1/2
~ 2
0
"-
0
""
N
V>
c.
PERCENT COARSER BY WEIGHT
.0010
~
0
'"
C)
C)
- .001
0
N
0
..,
~
0
on
0
<0
0
....
0
co
~
~
V>
vi
:::>
2
3
4
6
B
I i+t+t+I
2
m-titttt
'"
w
-'
en
en
0
u
.00
.00
.00
.002
.003
.004
.006
.008
.01
.00
.00
.0
.0
.03
.04
.02
.03
.04
.06
.08
.1 (f)
CI::
W
2 tï ~
.:::;:
.3 ::ï
.4 ~
.6~
.8w ~
1 ~ ~
(/")
.06
200
100
60
40
20
10
2 ~
<C '"
3 ~ ~
4 <..>
6
8
10
!;¡!
<::
20
30
40
'"
~
60
BO
100
12
0
~
200
300
0
ð:
0
co
0
....
0
<0
0
on
0
....
0
..,
C)
N
~
PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT
'"
w
Z
¡¡:
N
e~
=>-
1;¡c
'õ2
::;;g
u
c
.2
Ö.
b
'"
'"
CI
'"
u
'"
=>
-'
"-
-'
-'
CI
z .z:.
ü'i ~
:r:
'" ::;;
d. '"
'"
:S~ 0 0
~s. ~ to
0:0:
"-
'"
c-
.'" :G
~I-
~
""
~..."....... TERRA
~:;;..:... ASSOCIATES
. '.'" Geotechnicol Consultants
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
VENTANA
FEDERAL WAY. WASHINGTON
Proj. No.3686-
- '"
I I
:= :=
. 0
Date FEB. 1998 Figure A-8
CI
Z
ü'i
rí
('(j
LL1
0
~
W
~
~
(/)
ifj
~
«:E
Z:E
«~
E5~
1-'"
WZ
~~
0'"
Q:::
a
>-
:r:
UJ::S
ifj",
>-~
-':E
«::>
~ z 4
W 1/4
GJ 3/B
ifj f:G 1/2
Q 5/.B
~ 3/4
~ 1
'" 1 I/.4
~ 1 1/2
~ 2
0
"-
0
~
¡¡;
c
(
PERCENT COARSE~ BY WËIGHT
.0010
~
C>
Ch
<>
<>
- .001
0
N
<>
..,
~
0
'"
:¡:
<>
....
<>
.,
~
~
'"
v;
:;;
I
~
'"
w
--'
CD
CD
0
U
.002
.003
.004
.002
.003
.004
.006
.008
.01
.006
.OOB
.0
.02
.03
.04
.02
.03
.04
.06
.08
.1 (/)
Q:::
lLJ
I- .....
.2 ~ ;¡;
.3 :3
.4 ~
.6 ~
.8 lLJ ~
I!:::! ~
(/)
.06
200
100
60
,¿
u
~
'"
~
:I:
'"
..,
:E
40
20
10
2~
« .....
3 ~ ~
4 u
6
8
10
~
¡¡:
20
30
40
.....
~
u
60
80
100
12
0
0
200
300
0
a::
0
.,
0
....
0
<0
<>
'"
<>
...
<>
..,
<>
N
~
PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT
'"
w
Z
¡¡:
.,~
!s::-
]!~
0-
::eg
u
c:
.2
:ë-
t;
OJ
.,
Q
'"
u
'"
:::>
--'
a..
--'
--'
Q Q
Z Z
« «
'" '"
~ ~
'" '"
I I
a.. a..
'" '"
Il
CI
:S~ 0 0
~~ :! ~
u
C
. 0
u
C
<
a
a""
a.. N N
"" I I
.É 1) I?= I?=
~I-
>.
.,
:.<
~~ TERRA
:.\~."...". ASSOCIATES
..".'.' Geotechnical Consultants
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
VENTANA
FEDERAL WAY. WASHINGTON
Proj. Na.3686-1
l"-
n
Date FEB. 1998 Figure A-9
cn
ûï
>-
-'
«",
z'"
«;¡;;
est;¡
f-V>
wz
::::E~
0'"
0::::
0
>-
I:
::i'
u
;¡;;
""
~
:t:
V>
~
cni5
ûï""
~~
«::>
ZZ
«
w
>
w 3/8
ûï ~ 1/2
~ ~~~
;¡;; 1
'" 1 I/.4
;¡;; 1 1/2
~ 2
0
i5
""'
N
¡¡;
('
PERCENT COARSER BY WEIGHT
.000
0
0
0
- .001
0
'"
0
...,
0
...
0
on
0
'"
0
'"
0
<0
0
r-
~
~
V>
vi
:;j
1 -
2
3
4
6
8
1
2
3
4
I
~
<.J
.00
.002
.003
.004
.00
.00
.00
.00
.0
.006
.008
.01 .
.0
.0
.0
.02
.03
.04
.06
.08
.1 (f)
0::::
W
f- ...
.2~
.3 :3
.4 ~
.06
200
100
60
40
20
.6 ~
.8W ~
I!:::! ~
cn
2 ~
3r5
4 <.J
10
4
1/4
6
8
10
Z
20
30
40
60
80
100
12
0
0
200
300
0
0
'"
0
'"
0
r-
0
<0
0
on
~
0
...,
0
'"
~
PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT
~
z
¡¡:
N
~~
"'-
~$
::õ§
u
c
.2
ã.
'5
'"
'"
C>
'"
u
'"
::>
-'
Cl.
-'
-'
C>
Z
¡J!í
C>
.?;-z
'¡¡¡ ¡J!í
:=
::õ '"
'" d.
'"
r
('¡
~~
<:>
(\
:5~ 0 0
~~ <ri ~
:0;",
c.. ..., ...,
'" I I
'21: := :=
dJl-
'"
Lo.J
-'
CD
CD
0
U
it;'
'"
~~ TERRA
:.,::"...... ASSOCIATES
. .. . . .. . Geotechnical Consultants
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
VENTANA
FEDERAL WAY. WASHINGTON
Proj. No.3686-1
. 0
u.
(!
<!
1
Dote FEB. 1998 Figure A-10
(/)
Vi
~
«",
z'"
«;;;
~!;j
f-'"
wz
::.~
0""
0::
0
>-
:c
(/)0
Via::
~~
«:::>
~ Z 4
W 1/4
G:i 3/B
Vi 1:3 1/2
~ 3~~
;;; 1
"" 1 1/4
;;; 1 1/2
~ 2
0
ð
~
¡¡;
c
PERCENT COARSER. BY WEIGHT
.00 0
~
<>
'"
<>
<>
- .001
<>
N
<>
..,
<>
...
<>
....
<>
co
<>
.....
<>
co
~
~
'"
vi
::;j
1
2
3
4
6
1
en
......
...J
co
co
a
(J
.00
.002
.003
.004
.00
.00
.00
.00II
.0
.006
.008
.01
.02
.03
.04
.02
.03
.04
.06
200
.06
.08
.1 (/)
0::
w
2tJ ~ -
'::'
.3 :3
A:¡¡
.6 ~
.8w ~
1 N 8
- ::E
(/)
100
60
:£
u
;;;
a::
~
:r
V>
~
40
20
10
2 ~
« :,¡
3 ~ ð
4 u
6
8
10
~
3
4
20
30
40
60
80
100
~
u
12
<>
~
200
300
<>
<>
en
<>
co
<>
.....
<>
<0
<>
....
~
<>
..,
<>
N
~
PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT
en
......
z
;:;:
en
u
en
=>
...J
<l..
...J
...J
~
..~
S-
]!~
0-
~S
u
c:
.9
:ë-
t
..
..
0
ë;;
:5
'Ii
0 0
z z
¡,¡ ¡,¡
~ ==
en en
I r
<l.. <l..
en en
.,., .,.,
I r
<l.. Do
>-- >--
'Í
lY)
LL
0
-' f{
w
CJ
~
:5~ .,., 0
Æ"s. ,..: :::
::;""
<l..
""
c:-
.::: :G
~>--
~
""
~~ TERRA
:.\.; '.'."" ASSOCIATES
. . . . . ... Geotechnical Consultants
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
VENTANA
FEDERAL WAY. WASHINGTON
Proj. No.36B6-1
. 0
Dote FEB. 199B Figure A-II
If)
ü1
~
«""
z""
«~
est::!
1-'"
lLJZ
:::E~
0'"
a::
a
>-
:J:
'"
u
~
co:
~
:I:
'"
UJ
""
(.f)~
ü1ao:
~§¡
«:0
ZZ
«
lLJ
>
lLJ 3/8
ü1 ~ 1/2
~ 3~~
~ 1
'" 1 1/4
~ 1 1/2
~ 2
0
(
.00 0
~
PERCENT COARSER BY WEIGHT
~ g ~ g ~ R ß
0
'"
0
0
.001
a
~
~
'"
en
:;;;
1 -
2
3
4
6
8
1
2
...
~
u
.00
.00
.00
.002
.003
.004
.00
.00
.0
.006
.008
.01
.0
.03
.04
.02
.03
.04
.06
200
.06
.08
.1 (.f)
a::
lLJ
2t:i ~ -
':::E
.3 :3
.4 ~
.6 ~
.8 lLJ !!i
1 t:! ~
(.f)
2~
« ...
~ ~ ~
100
60
40
20
10
4
1/4
6
8
10
...
Z
¡¡:
20
30
40
L-.
0
UJ
N
'"
60
80
100
3
4
12
0
~
200
300
0
0
0>
0
a)
0
....
0
<D
0
...,
0
....
0
....
0
'"
~
PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT
en
....
::z
¡¡:
~
e~
"-
.,c:
.- OJ
0-
::Eg
u
...J
a..
...J
...J
c:
.S!
ã.
'5
.,
OJ
C1
Qj
>
0
5>
-0
c: -
0 OJ
>
0
,;; 5>
:5 :5
.¡ .¡
C1 C1
::z ::z
"'" "'"
en en
en
u
en
::>
::E ~
en en
I I
a.. a..
en en
:5~ C1 U""J
~~ N ,...;
en
w
...J
CD
CD
C1
U
:;""
a..
0>
c:-
'c: !3
.go-
~
""
~ TERRA
::~.: '.'.'. ASSOCIATES
'..."" Geotechnical Consultants
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS'
VENTANA
FEDERAL WAY. WASHINGTON
Proj. No.3686-1
(
r
..... a:J
I I
a.. a..
0- 0-
f-- l
(
íl-- (
u-. I'r
=
fr' . I
S::C
X<.
fJ. 1
. 0
Dote FEB. 1998 Figure A-12
c.n
i/j
>-
-'
«",
z'"
«;;:;
0::'"
~¡¡j
wz
:::¡;~
0<:>
0::
0
>-
I
c.ni5
i/j",
::J~
~ ~ 4
«
W 1/4
>
W 3/8
i/j ~ 1/2
~ ~~~
;;:; 1
<:> 1 I/.4
;;:; 1 1/2
~ 2
0
"-
0
...
N
V>
~
(
PERCENT COARSER BY WEIGHT
.0010
~
g
0
~ .001
0
'"
0
..,
S!
~
:i!
~
0
'"
~
~
V>
en
::>
2
4
..
1
VI
LU
...J
CD
CD
0
U
.00
.003
.00
.002
.003
.004
.006
.008
.0
.006
.008
.01
.02
.03
.04
002
.03
.04
.06
008
01 c.n
0::
W
t;:j ~ -
.2:::¡; ...
.33
04~
.06
200
100
60
,:
u
;;:;
'"
~
:I:
V>
...
'"
40
20
.6 ~
.8W ~
1 ~ ~
en
2 ~
« ...
3 0:: on
c:> ð
4 '-'
10
6
8
10
'Z'
c::
20
30
40
...
~
'-'
60
80
100
12
0
0
200
300
0
0
en
0
'"
0
....
0
<0
0
'"
0
...
0
..,
0
'"
~
PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT
VI
LU
Z
¡¡:
~
.,~
5-
-c:
.!!! '"
0-
:::eg
u
c:
.2
:ë.
t
..
'"
0
VI
U
VI
::J
...J
Q.
...J
...J
,i;
:5
'ii
0 0
Z Z
;;; ;;;
3: :::E
VI VI
I I
Q. Q.
VI VI
~-,. q 0
~Ë. - cci
5.-:
Q.
0>
c:-
'c ~
,gl-
>.
.,
'"
~ TERRA
~.ASSOCIATES
. 0"0" Geotechnical Consultants
GRAIN SIZE' ANALYSIS
VENTANA
FEDERAL WAY. WASHINGTON
Proj. No.3686-1
Figure A-13
co '"
I I
Q. Q.
I- I-
. 0
r{
('r¡
U
Ht=
¡"=
(/)
iñ
?:i
«",
z'"
«~
8S~
I-VI
~~
O~
a:::
a
>-
:I:
(/)0
iñ
?:i~
«::0
~z 4
W 1/4
>
W 3/8
iñ ~ 1/2
~ 3~~
~ 1
~ 1 I/.4
~ 1 1/2
~ 2
i5
(
(
PERCENT COARSER BY WEIGHT
.00 0
S!
R
0
N
g
~
0
'"
0
00
g
0
'"
.0
.0
.0
1
2
3
4
6
1
2
3
4
6
.00
.00
.00
.00
.008
.0
.0
200
0
~
~
VI
<Æ
:;)
100
60
:r
u
~
~
.....
a.
:J:
~
'"
40
20
10
~
iñ
12
0
0
0
'"
0
"
0
<0
0
'"
0
....
0
..,
0
N
S!
0
00
PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT
0
0
- .001
.002
.003
.004
.006
.008
.01
.02
.03
.04
.06
.08
.1 (/)
a:::
w
tJ z -
.2:::E ¡¡:
.3 :3
.4~
.6 ~
.8 w ~
1 ~ ~
(/)
2 ~
« ~
3 a::: '"
G ð
4 <..>
6
8
10
~
¡¡:
VI
w
:z
G:
~
"'~
5-
]~
;:¡¡:5
'-'
20
30
40
!
<..>
....J
a.
....J
....J
c
0
~
t;
..
'"
0
0
:z
<'i 0
~~
'"
> >-
0 -
50 =æ
VI
'-'
VI
:::>
==
VI ;:¡¡
d. VI
VI
("
1\
60
80
100
200
300
0
'É.:::;- ~ ~
¿g.::::.
L
(
VI
W
....J
CD
In
0
'-'
C¡""
a.
O'
c-
.¡;;; ¡a
~t-
~ TERRA
.:.\r...... ASSOCIATES
. '.'" Geotechnical Consultants
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
VENTANA
FEDERAL WAY. WASHINGTON
Proj. No.3686-1
0> 0
I ~
a. I
t- g:
l
C.
<
"t'\,
..
~
""
. 0
Dote FEB. 1998 Figure A-14
[
HERITAGE RESOURCE INVESTIGATIONS
of the PROPOSED VENTANA DEVELOPMENT,
FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON
T. 21 N., R. 3 E, Section 12
ftJ/jjðJ$..U¡
EXHIBIL-L~ M:~- n
Northwest Archaeclcgical Associates, Inc.
Seattle, WA. 98107 REVISION DATE
EXHIBIT _Ll
PAGE-L OF 33
DEC 0 8 1998
HERITAGE RESOURCE INVESTIGATIONS
at the
PROPOSED VENT ANA DEVELOPMENT,
FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON
T. 2 N., R. 3E., Section 12
.""
Prepared for
[ff] æ IJJ [JJiJ
Wellington-Morris Corporation
Bellevue, WA
by
Margaret A. Nelson
EXH\8\I_l%-~-
December 4,1998
.Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc.
5416% 20th Avenue NW
Seattle, WA. 98107
EXHIBIT u.
PAGE..LOF
33
'J
J
l
J
I
l
]
J
J
J
]
J
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODl)CTION ............................................................1
ProjectLocation.......................................................1
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ..................................................1
Geology.............................................................1
Vegetation ...........................................................4
Fauna ..............................................................4
Paleoenvironments ....................................................4
CULTURAL SETTING ........................................................5
Prehistory ...........................................................5
EthnohistoryandEthnography ............................................5
History..............................................................6
Archaeology..........................................................7
METHODS ................................................................7
RESULTS .................................................................~
CONCLUSIONSANDRECOMMENDATJONS ............... ..... ....... ...........8
REFERENCESCITED........................................................9
APPENDIX A: Legislation ....................................................13
APPENDIXB: CopiesofLetterstoTribes........................................14
I .d i-\-e ~
EXH\BI1~
Northwest Arr:heeolo¡jcel Assoclete., Inc.
Ore" Report-December 4, 1998
EX H I BIT ......LL.-
PAGE-2- OF 33
OJ
.I
J
]
]
]
J
]
~
J
~
]
]
]
]
]
J
]
INTRODUCTION
Wellington-Morris Corporation is planning to develop a 9.9 acre parcel in Federal Way, King
County for residential housing. The City of Federal Way requested that a heritage resource
investigation of the project area be completed prior to issuing a construction permit. Northwest
Archaeological Associates, Inc. (NWAA) was retained by Wellington-Morris to conduct
background research and a survey of the ten-acre parcel in November, 1998. Laws of the state
of Washington which may apply to the project include the Indian Graves and Records Act (RCW
27.44) which prohibits knowingly disturbing a Native American or historic grave, and the
Archaeological Sites and Resources Act (RCW 27.53) which requires that anyone proposing to
excavate into, disturb, or remove artifacts from an archaeological site on public or private lands
obtain a permit from the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) (Appendix A).
Project Location
The project area consists of a wooded block between SW 304th St. and SW 306th PI., and
between 24th and 26th Ave. SW in T. 21 N., R. 3 E, NE 14 Section 12 (Figures 1 and 2). It is
situated on a low ridge at the edge of the bluff above Dumas and Poverty bays. Elevation of the
parcel ranges from 300 to about 330 ft. asl.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Geology
The Puget Trough is part of a partially submerged regional depression that extends from British
Columbia to the Willamette Valley, Oregon. Bedrock consists of sedimentary and igneous rock
of the Tertiary, including andesite and basalt. The surface geology is largely a product of late
Pleistocene deposition, which mantled the area with sands, silts, and gravels. During the final
glacial advaAce of the Pleistocene, the ice was approximately 3,400 ft. (1,035 m.) thick in the
Seattle area. Continental ice began to retreat about 15,000 B.P. (years Before Present), and by
c. 13,500 B.P., the southern puget Lowlands were free of ice (Waitt and Thorson 1983). The
retreating ice deposited glacial drift, forming an extensive rolling plain between the Sound and
the Cascade foothills, which was subsequently cut by glacial meltwater. Many of the landscape
features are glacial in origin, formed as moraines, terraces, ridges, kettle lakes and bogs, and
broad channels cut through till by outwash streams.
During the Holocene, rivers and streams cut through the drift and occupied outwash channels,
depositing alluvium over outwash sediments. Colluvial sediments have been deposited on valley
slopes and floors, triggered in some cases by tectonic activity, which recent studies suggest has
been fairty common in the Puget Lowlands. An earthquake along the Seattle Fault dating
between 1,100 and 1,700 B. P. caused rapid uplift south of the fault and subsiden.ce to its north,
landslides into lakes Washington and Sammamish, and a tsunami in Puget Sound (Bucknam et
al. 1992; Atwater and Moore 1992).
Northwest Archee%gcel Associates, Inc.
Iqæ
Draft Raport-Decambe' 4, 1998
EXHIBIT LA..
PAGE-=LOF
[XIIIBIT
33
-1
J
]
'1
]
J
J
J
I
_J
""~-"
!
J
. '. --.-
"
,
0
Figure 1. Project vicinity.
£XHIBIT~l-!t:
ExRrsrremb'l1'998
PAGE-:LOF 33
Northwest ArchaBClogical Associates, Inc.
2
1
]
l
I
I
-1
]
I
~'~
J
1
J
J
]
]
J
J
J
J
POVERTY BAY
rk
~
~
;~
7'
'11/1
-
~~ ,,-=¥ =~~'
" '" .~
,'C"
'" '-- I I .j\" ~ ~ 4
~~ T), \ "" \ .tf~ ..:::..[,..., ", -{
-, "}\~\11/~,/"'.: ~ ~ Project Location - ~ . '," ~
'\I? .,¡I}¡\'ì))¡' ý' 'A I T N ~ - J-r \ ..x ~
¡,~ f .1; ,::; ~~~'t~J,~ -r I J r U h-r:::.'
,.}i: ~ \ -- -~~ ~ \ c1 /' r;. ::T rA- '/ Sclo -
~~. ~,. ~ Yll '-L~'¡, h~~~~r¡ ;,ì ~j' :((I¡)~L ~W; ,
'~\!.";'. ./ ~ -i::.:J/ ~ ~f".., \J ,) ?
/7,,-',' ..,~ 7' .(..(t. 8
1I:::r ~ ";/-" r ,~-: ~1¡ \'(w~~l1, ,¿l'1( ~ . ~~' ~
-t ~)<Q: 7 (' ~~~; 'Ii J H h!kh f ,- ~~)"1 -v £, . l a1 .,
\\; '\SJ; ,,' P.,k ..L... ~ ~~ ¡--., ì.. h"l'\
~ \0:: ~ ~;---------i(' ~ .(,lJI !}Dn.' IS-: LLI:~o~ ~
r=-n ;-~ I}1J¿; ~ I h~:-' ~ :! <¡¡ 'J c::~ ...J ¡:
~ ,i.öílhšd. 't~/' ,\~ ',... - ÎJ-'"
~\ft~ ~ ~ j~ ¥ (~I,..' --..~ ~~I, ~~ I r '1
~ Ji~ l~J /~ ~~~rj) \\, '(;@ ~ :! -J ,? \~
~-)., \~~~' :JI \~ c~: 'ð~ l ':~, of! ~-j If
\"~ "< ~-c ~K ~~:j ~ ~'¡i~ì/,;J ~ QtiF~œJ~
jr- .~ ~ ~-:) ~ '¡!fI 1\ ili 1" ß; ~ \, ; r
v - :-.»~ (~' ¡i/';r.f'J.. '- ;:)ì rrc~ .4i,,'
-/ -k '9 ~ t~ 'VIJIv-- y- ! ,,\~~ ø r/(\~ :
¡') 'Í "\ -J '~~ jl 8(.) '-,u.- \.I. yr \
oq" ¡ .1..x ¡;\,. (í¡ ~~! ,~'/...
, .' Sf. "'" > ' , ,'C\" 1-1IÞP-,
It D ~ . .. ~ ~. po I , "" [ 10' ."z.!, rI ..::- ~\ .¡;
"'" " ' ~. ~ J -,,~ ,It I/Y-/ I; LJ ~ I 1\,' \Lj-
If r "-õ ',;;,;ooùli. f'r~he\. "2";:",- IV/"'. ~i I Dj( Iu--- ~
Figure 2. Project location, T. 21 N., R. 3 E., Section 12 (USGS 7.5' Poverty Bay, WA, 1961,
photorev. 1994).
Northwest Archeeologlcal Associetes. Inc.
3
]
]
l
J
I
1
]
]
J
]
J
J
J
]
Vegetation
Native vegetation of the project area consists of forests of the Tsuga heterophylla (WestelT)
Hemlock) Zone, which are characterized by westem hemlock, western red cedar, and Douglas
fir, with a dense shrub and herbaceous understory (Franklin and Dyrness 1973). Vegetation in
the Puget Lowlands includes higher proportions of taxa favoring somewhat drier conditions,
including madrona, Douglas fir, bracken fern, grasses, hazel, and Oregon white oak. Parklands
and prairies were common during the early historic period, some of which were created or
maintained by American Indians, who deliberately burned them to prevent forest encroachment
and to enhance the productivity of certain plant foods and forage (Norton 1979). Along stream
courses and on floodplains, red alder, black cottonwood, bigleaf and vine maple, and other
riparian taxa predominate. Lower river valleys typically included numerous wetlands, supporting
taxa such as cattail, reeds, and wapato.
Fauna
Prior to extensive historic period settlement, the Puget Lowlands were populated by numerous
species of large and small mammals, fish, and birds. Deer, elk, cougar, and black bear were
present throughout the Puget Lowlands, along with birds such as pheasant, quail, and grouse.
Beaver, muskrat, river otter, skunk, coyote, red fox, and weasel were common in riparian
woodlands, ponds, and swamps. Lakes, ponds, and marshy areas were populated by migratory .
and resident waterfowl, including a variety of ducks, geese, and swans. Freshwater fish such as
suckers, whitefish, Dolly Varden, and steelhead trout occupied rivers, streams, and lakes, while
chinook, coho, and chum salmon spawned in local rivers and creeks (Larrison 1967; Salo and
McComas 1979). Salmon were also available in the Sound, along with cod, herring, sole, and
other fish, shellfish, crabs, marine mammals such as seals, porpoise, and otters, and waterfowl.
Paleoenvironments
Studies of pollen from dated contexts in the Puget Lowlands indicate that vegetation and climate
changed substantially during the late Pleistocene and early to middle Holocene (Whitlock 1992).
Pioneer and early successional species such as lodgepole pine, bracken fern, and alder
colonized the newly deglaciated landscape of western Washington, followed by Douglas fir.
Between c. 10,000 and 6,000-5,000 B.P., summer temperatures were higher and effective
moisture lower, conditions marked by the expansion of prairies in the Puget Lowlands and
expansion of Douglas fir, oak, hazel, grasses, and bracken fem. Cedar and hemlock began to
increase after c. 7,000 B.P., becoming dominant by about 5,000 B.P. and marking the onset of
the modem climatic regime and development of closed climax forests. No major changes are
evident between then and the historic period, when native vegetation was disrupted by land
clearance.
EXHIBIT-l ~ò~
Northwest Archaeolol1cel Associates. Inc.
4
Draft Re¡x¡rt-December 4, 1998
EXHIBIT Ll
PAGE..LOF
33
I
H
D
fJ
J
]
~
.~
~
]
]
m
1
OJ
]
]
.3
J
~
CULTURAL SETTING
Prehistory
The earliest evidence of human occupation in westem Washington consists of a small number of
fluted projectile points characteristic of the period between 12,000-11,000 B.P., and Olcott sites,
thought to represent an early period of occupation prior to development of marine-oriented
cultures (Carlson 1990; Mattson 1971). These assemblages were traditionally interpreted as
representing a subsistence strategy focused on hunting large land mammals, although they are
more likely only one component of a more diverse adaptation. Sites dating to before 5,000 B.P.
are rare on the coast, probably due to several factors including poor preservation conditions,
submersion by subsequent sea level rise, and differences in the distribution of intertidal and
marine resources.
After c. 5,000 B.P., larger populations organized in more complex ways exploited a wide range of
locally available resources, including shellfish, salmon, berries, roots, and bulbs, with an
increasing emphasis on salmon over time. Shell middens are numerous on saltwater shorelines.
Ground stone, bone, antler, and shell tools, associated with fishing, marine mammal hunting, and
plant processing, became increasingly more common and diversified. Full-scale development of
marine-oriented cultures on the coast, and inland hunting, gathering and riverine fishing traditions,
as represented in the ethnographic record are apparent after c. 2,500 B.P. A wide variety of
ground and chipped stone and bone artifacts made of both local and imported materials occur,
representing complex and diversified technologies for fishing, hunting, processing and storage
(Blukis Onat 1987; Nelson 1990).
With Euroamerican contact, drastic changes in native populations, community composition, and
cultural traditions occurred (Boyd 1990). Smallpox and other epidemic diseases significantly
reduced native populations even before direct contact, and the introduction of guns, iron tools,
processed and non-native foods, alcohol, and other goods also affected Native economies. After
Fort Nisqually was established in 1833, Indians began trading for goods on a regular basis. By
the time the first white settlers moved into the White River (now Green River) Valley, thousands
of bushels of potatoes were being cultivated by American Indians (Chatters 1981).
Ethnography and Ethnohistory
The project area is in the historic period territory of the Puyallup (Spier 1936), who utilized the
Puyallup and upper Carbon River drainages. Villages were between the mouth of the Puyallup
River and Orting, near the mouth of the Carbon River (Carpenter 1981; Smith 1940). Members
of 13 villages consisting of confederated bands from the Puyallup, Carbon, and Stuck River
watersheds were assigned to the Puyallup Reservation (Indian Claims Commission 1963:6, cited
in Carpenter 1981:488).
The Duwamish occupied the area just north and northeast, from Elliott Bay to the pre-1906
junction of the White and Green rivers at present-day Aubum. Three originally distinct bands, the
Skopamish, Stakamish, and Skulkamish, occupied the Green and White River drainages from
tXHltll1 ~~~
Dran Report-December 4, 1998
EXHIBIT u..
PAGE~OF
Northwest mheeologlcol Assocletes, Inc.
5
33
"I
Aubum to their headwaters in the Cascades. As was typical of the Puget Sound Salish, each of
these groups and villages was politically autonomous although bound to others in the watershed
by kinship, language, and social and economic interactions of various kinds (Smith 1941).
Members of the Green and White River groups were later assigned to the Muckleshoot
Reservation. The Duwamish were assigned to the Suquamish Reservation at Point Madison on
the Kitsap Peninsula, although some Duwamish from the lower White '(now Green) River Valley
went to the Muckleshoot Reservation (Baenen 1981; Lane 1973; Smith 1940).
.J
-]
]
]
J]
II
Puget Sound Salish-speaking groups, including the Puyallup, Duwamish, and Green-White River
groups (Muckleshoot), spent winters in permanent villages of cedar plank houses located mainly
at river confluences and on lower river courses. The Duwamish also had villages on Puget
Sound. During the spring, summer and fall, members of each village split up into smaller family
groups and moved to seasonal camps and locations to fish, hunt, and gather resources. The
Puyallup and Muckleshoot traveled to Puget Sound to collect shellfish and other saltwater
resources, but they focused their activities on fishing for salmon in the rivers and on hunting and
gathering in inland prairies, wetlands, lakes, and forests. The Duwamish relied primarily on
marine resources, including shellfish, fish, and marine mammals.
.'}
A network of trails provided access from inland villages and camps, including the village at the
historic Green-White River confluence, to Puget Sound. Puyallup, Muckleshoot, and other
groups traveled over them to shellfish collecting areas at Redondo Beach and other parts of
Poverty Bay between Des Moines and Three Tree Point (Robinson 1993; Smith 1940:26;
Waterman c. 1920). Several ethn09raphic myths are set in this area, and landmarks located at
and near the mouth of Mill Creek and Redondo Creek, and at Steel and Doloff lakes (Buerge
1989).
,J
I
]
]
J
J
J
History
The earliest Euroamerican settlers in the southem Puget Lowlands arrived c. 1850, claiming
lands in the Duwamish, White, Puyallup, and other lower river valleys where there was good
agricultural land and access to navigable waterways. Shortly afterward, regional discontent
among American Indians over being moved out of their lands by white settlement and
unfavorable treaty terms erupted into open conflict. In the project vicinity, there was
dissatisfaction with the terms of the Point Elliott Treaty of 1855, which assigned Duwamish,
Green, and White river groups to the Suquamish Reservation on the Kitsap Peninsula, far from
their traditional territories.
Hostilities in the White River Valley ended with the signing of the Medicine Creek Treaty, which
established the Muckleshoot Reservation for Green and White River groups in 1857. Whites
moved back into the valley slowly and by 1870, all good river land had been claimed. Less
productive agricultural land and transportation difficulties kept most settlers out of the uplands
between the White (Green) River Valley and Puget Sound until after Highway 99 was completed
in 1918. A few homesteads were established east of the project area during the .Iatter half of the
nineteenth century. Access trails and wagon roads were built off a military road to Fort
Steilacoom constructed in the 1850s (Robinson 1993).
EXHIBIT
l qtf£
.J
Notthwest Atchee%gce/ Associates, Inc.
6
Drat! Report-December 4, 1998
J
EXHIBIT Ll
PAGE~OF .33
I
I
l
I
]
"]
"]
¡
'r!
J
I
}]
J
I
.]
J
!
j
I
Archaeology
Only a few archaeological projects have taken place in the Federal Way area. All have been
small-scale investigations associated with cultural resource management requirements (Grant
1994; Robinson 1993, 1996). Earlier investigations focused on shoreline surveys (e.g., Bryan
1955; Winterhouse 1948). Four sites are recorded within approximately three miles of the project
location:
45-KI-3: This shell midden is the earliest recorded site in the area (Bryan 1953). It is
located on the shore of Poverty Bay near the mouth of Cold Brook, c. 1.7 mi. northeast of
the project area. Burials were found on the slope behind the beach.
45-PI-42: This site is located east of Dash Point and approximately 2.2 mi. west of the
project area. Human bones were found eroding out of a stream bank 0.2 mi. from the
beach. A ranger at Dash Point State Park also observed a site in this area, which was
later covered by a parking lot.
45-Kl-58: This site, a shell midden, is located on a 30 degree slope on the bank of
Lakota Stream, c. 100 m (330 ft.) inland from the beach. It is the closest recorded site to
the project area, which is about 0.5 mi. east at the top of the slope.
45-PI-41: This site is a shell midden located at Dash Point, c. three miles west of the
project area. A single burial was recorded, as well as jadeite adzes with antler hafting.
Expectations
Based on the setting, historic and ethnographiclethnohistoric information, and known
archaeological sites in the region, the project area is considered to have a moderate probability
of containing heritage resources. Prehistoric and ethnohistoric sites are likely to be temporary
camps or resource locations such as hunting or plant collecting areas. Sites could be associated
with the trail-network leading from the White/Green River valleys to Poverty Bay. Historic period
remains could include evidence of logging such as skid trails, roads, or springboard-notched
trees; structure foundations, vehicle remains, glass, ceramic, metal and other domestic debris,
non-native/planted trees or shrubs. There is also a possibility that burials are present on the site:
A long-time resident of the area stated that there had been burial plots on the Burt House Plat,
according to a woman living in the neighborhood (Clark 1998). She was unsure whether they
were white or American Indian burials.
METHODS
A crew of two archaeologists conducted a pedestrian survey of the property area on November
25, 1998. Transects were oriented north-south and spaced approximately 30 m (98 ft.) apart.
Transects deviated somewhat where vegetation growth was too thick to penetrate, although
variations were minor. Because suñace visibility was very low, the duff was scraped away with
Northwest ArchlloloficBl Assocllfls. Inc.
7
[XI1!DIT_L~QE
DflftReporl-Dec mber4, 1998
EXHIBIT_Lt
PAGE-&OF 33
J
j
I
J
J
I
I
]
J
J
]
J
J
J
shovels and the mineral soil exposed at 10 to 30 m intervals on each transect. Eight transects
were completed.
RESULTS
No prehistoric cultural material was observed during the survey. A small amount of modem
debris, including glass, plastic, and aluminum cans, was found on the surface or in the duff. Two
scraped/graded areas were observed on the top and upper east slope of the ridge near the north
end of the project area. Several mounds and borrow excavations, apparently constructed for
bicycles, were found around the graded areas. A small number of concrete blocks and bricks
were also seen in this area, several of which were stacked against the base of a tree, but no
evidence of foundations or other remains of razed structures was observed. Surface visibility
was poor throughout the project area, however, covered by a thick understory of Oregon grape,
salal, ferns, ivy, salmonberry, and other shrubs and groundcover. Several dirt paths/tracks ran
through the project area, providing somewhat better visibility, but they were substantially covered
with leaves.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
None of the debris observed appears to be associated with a potentially significant historic or
prehistoric site. Any structures that might have been located on the property may have been
razed and most of the debris removed. Although the presence of any eJdensive sites appears
unlikely based on the results of the survey, heritage resources not located by the survey could be
exposed by land clearing and construction. The Puyallup, MuckJeshoot, or Suquamish also may
have information relevant to the project area or other concerns which should be addressed (see
Appendix B). These concerns can be addressed in the final report.
If the project goes forward, personnel working on the site should be alerted to the possibility that
archaeological remains could be exposed and informed about procedures to be enacted if they
are found. œvidence of prehistoric sites that could be encountered includes concentrations of
organic material, shell, fire modified rock, charcoal, burned or oxidized sediments, bone, or
lithics. If such materials are found, work should be suspended at that location until the Office of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) and a professional archaeologist can be
contacted. If suspected historic or prehistoric human remains are found, the King County
Medical Examiner, OAHP, tribes, and an archaeologist should be contacted.
E~HIBIT==t~~
Northwest An:hee%gcel Associeles. Inc.
8
Drat! Report-Decembe, 4, 1998
EXHIBIT u.
PAGE-1LOF 33
-] - --
J
l
:¡
J
J
J
I
~
J
J
~
J
1
]
J
J
J
]
REFERENCES CITED
Atwater, B.F. and A.L. Moore
1992 A Tsunami About 1000 Years Ago in puget Sound, Washington. Science
258:1614-1617.
Baenen, James
1981 Stillaguamish, Snohomish, Snoqualmie, and Duwamish. In, Inventory of
American Indian Religious Use, Practices, Localities, and Resources, edited by
A.R Blukis Onat and J.L. Hollenbeck, pp. 395-472. Institute of Cooperative
Research, Inc., Seattle.
Blukis Onat, AR
1987 Resource Protection Planning Process: Identification of Prehistoric Archeological
Resources in the Northem Puget Sound Study Unit. Draft Ms. on file, Office of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia.
Bryan, Alan L.
1953 Site form, 45-KI-3. On file, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation,
Olympia.
1955 An Intensive Archaeological Reconnaissance in the Northern puget Sound
Region. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Washington, Seattle.
Boyd, Robert T.
1990 Demographic History, 1774-1874. In, Handbook of North American Indians,
Volume 7, Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 135-249. Series editor,
W.C. Sturtevant. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Bucknam, RC., E. Hemphill-Haley, and E.B. Leopold
1992 Abrupt Uplift Within the Past 1700 Years at Southern Puget Sound, Washington.
- Science 258:1611-1614.
Buerge David
1989 Sacred Burien. Seattle Weekly, January 4:24-31.
Carlson, Roy L.
1990 Cultural Antecedents. In, Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7,
Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 60-69. Series editor, W.C-
Sturtevant. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Carpenter, Cecilia
1981 Muckleshoot, Puyallup, Nisqually, and Cowlitz. In, Inventory of American Indian
Religious Use, Practices, Localities, and Resources, edited by AR. Blukis Onat
and J.L. Hollenbeck, pp. 473-518. Institute of Cooperative Research, Inc.,
Seattle.
Northwest Archeeologlcal Associates, Inc.
9
EXHIBI1¡)"IÍRèpO~ât~98 -
EXHIBIT Ll
P AGE --!1:.... 0 F
33
.J
J
-'1
]
]
]
J
.,
t
I
]
J
J
I
I
J
I
J
Chatters, J.C.
1981 Archaeology of the Sbabadid Site (45K151), King County, Washington. University
,of Washington, Institute for Environmental Studies, Office of Public Archaeology,
Seattle.
Clark, Patricia
1998 Letter in response to proposed Ventana development, Federal Way. Submitted to
City of Federal Way, Department of Community Development, October 26.
Franklin, J.F. and C.T. Dymess
1973 Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service, General
Technical Report PNW-8.
Grant, David M.
1994 Cultural Resources Assessment of the KC Motor Inn Construction Site, King
County, Washington. Report prepared for Goldco Development, Inc., Federal
Way, WA.
Lane, Barbara
1973 Political and Economic Aspects of Indian-White Culture Contact in Westem
Washington in the Mid-19th Century. Ms., Suzzallo Library, University of
Washington, Seattle.
Larrison, E.J.
1967 Mammals of the Northwest: Washington, Oregon, Idaho and British Columbia.
Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle.
Mattson, John L.
1971 A Contribution to Skagit Prehistory. MA Thesis, Washington State University,
Pullman.
Nelson, Charles M.
1990 Prehistory of the Puget Sound Region. In, Handbook of North American Indians,
Volume 7, Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 481-484. Series editor,
W.C. Sturtevant. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Norton, Helen H.
1979 The Association between Anthropogenic Prairies and Important Food Plants in
Westem Washington. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes 13(2):175-200.
Robinson, Joan M.
1993 A Cultural Resources Survey of SR 5: Federal Way Park and Ride Lot #2, King
County, Washington. Short Report DOT93-16, Archaeological and Historical
Services, Cheney, WA.
1996 A Cultural Resources Survey of the Washington State Department of
~~ ---
txtiIt'11=_-_c ,- --
Draft Repo~Docember 4, 1998
Northwest ArcheeologicaJ Associates, tnc.
10
EXHIBIT u.
PAGE~OF 33
I
]
-1
]
1
]
J
)
=J
,OJ
J
J
j
J
j
]
]
I
j
J
Transportation's SR 99: Junction South 279th Street Project, King County,
Washington. Short Report DOT96-13, Archaeological and Historical Services,
Cheney, WA.
Salo, LE. and RL McComas
1979 Aquatic Resources of the Green-Duwamish River, with Enhancement
Possibilities. Appendix B in A River of Green, Report to the King County
Department of Planning and Community Development by Jones and Jones, Inc.,
Seattle.
Smith, Marian W.
1940 The Puyal/up-Nisqual/y. Columbia University Press, New York.
1941 The Coast Salish of Puget Sound. American Anthropologist 43:197-211.
Spier, Leslie
1936 Tribal Distribution in Washington. General Series in Anthropology 3. George
Banta, Menasha, WI.
Waitt, Richard B., Jr. and Robert M. Thorson
1983 The Cordilleran Ice Sheet in Washington, Idaho, and Montana. In, Late-
Quatemary Environments of the United States, Volume 1: The Late Pleistocene,
edited by S.C. Porter, pp. 53-70. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Waterman, T.T.
c. 1920 Puget Sound Geography. Ms, Microforms Division, Suzzallo Library, University
of Washington, Seattle.
Whitlock, Cathy
1992 Vegetational and Climatic History of the Pacific Northwest During the Last 20,000
Years: Implications for Understanding Present-Day Biodiversity. Northwest
- Environmental Jouma/8:5-28.
Winterhouse, John, Jr.
1948 A Report of an Archaeological Survey of Lower Puget Sound. Report on file,
Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia.
Northwest Archeeologce' Assocle'e.. Inc.
11
(~--
Drofl Report-Decembe' 4, 1998
EXHIBIT u.
PAGE-I!::LOF 33
EXHIBIT
J
,J
l
J
J
~
i
"
]
J
J
]
J
J
J
J
APPENDIX A: State Laws
l. ~~--
DrIll Report-December 4, 1998
EXHIBIT u..
PAGE~OF 33
Northwest Archee%f1ce/ Assocle/es, Inc,
12
rXHISIT
j
j
-1
]
]
1
]
)
~
J
J
]
J
J
]
J
I
J
J
'. CHAPTER 27.44. RCW
INDIAN GRAVES AND RECORDS
Sections
27.44.020 Examination permitted--Removal to archaeological repository.
27 44 030 Intent.
27 44.040 Protection of Indian graves--Penalty.
2744050 Civil action by Indian tribe or member--Time for commencing
action-- V enue--Damages--Attomeys' fees.
2744900 Captions not law--1989 c 44.
2744901 Liberal construction--1989 c 44.
RCW 27.44.020 Examination permitted--Removal to archaeological repository.
Any archaeologist or interested person may copy and examine such glyptic or painted records or
examine the surface of any such cairn or grave, but no such record or archaeological material from any
such cairn or grave may be removed unless the same shall be destined for reburial or perpetual
preservation in a duly recognized archaeological repository and permission for scientific research and..
removal of specimens of such records and material has been granted by the state historic preservation'
officer. Whenever a request for permission to remove records or material is received, the state historic
preservation officer shall notify the affected Indian tribe or tribes. [1985 c 64 § I; 1977 ex.s. c 169 § 6;
1941 c 216 § 2; Rem. Supp. 1941 § 3207-11.]
NOTES:
Scverability--Nomcnclature--Savings--1977 ex.S. c 169: See notes following RCW ~.
RCW 27.44.030 Intent.
The legislature hereby declares that:
(1) Native Indian burial grounds and historic graves are acknowledged to be a finite, irreplaceable,
and nonrenewable cultural resource, and are an intrinsic part of the cultural heritage of the people of
Washington. The legislature recognizes the value and importance of respecting all graves, and the
spiritual significance of such sites to the people of this state;
(2) There have been reports and incidents of deliberate interference with native Indian and historic
graves for profit-making motives;
(3) There has been careless indifference in cases of accidental disturbance of sites, graves, and
burial grounds;
(4) Indian burial sites, cairns, glyptic markings, and historic graves located on public and private
land are to be protected and it is therefore the legislature's intent to encourage voluntary reporting and
respectful handling in cases of accidental disturbance and provide enhanced penalties for deliberate
desecration. [1989 c 44 § 1.] LXH'BI1'~-.-l~~~-
EXHIBIT U
PAGE..11LOF 33
RCW 27.44.040 Protection of Indian graves--Penalty.
J
']
,]
J
J
.1
.....
I'
'1
<1
~
~
]
]
J
I
.J
J
]
(1) Any person who knowingly removes, mutilates, defaces, injures, or destroys any cairn or grave of
any native Indian, or any glyptic or painted record of any tribe or peoples is guilty of a class C felony
punishable under chapter 2A.2Q RCW. Persons disturbing native Indian graves through inadvertence,
including disturbance through construction, mining, logging, agricultural activity, or any other activity,
shall reinter the human remains under the supervision of the appropriate Indian tribe. The expenses of
reinterment are to be paid by the office of archaeology and historic preservation pursuant to RCW
27 34.220.
(2) Any person who sells any native Indian artifacts or any human remains that are known to have
been taken from an Indian cairn or grave, is guilty of a class C felony punishable under chapter 2A.2Q
RCW.
(3) This section does not apply to:
(a) The possession or sale of native Indian artifacts discovered in or taken from locations other than
native Indian cairns or graves, or artifacts that were removed from cairns or graves as may be authorized
by RCW 27 53 060 or by other than human action; or
(b) Actions taken in the performance of official law enforcement duties.
(4) It shall be a complete defense in the prosecution under this section if the defendant can prove by
a preponderance of evidence that the alleged acts were accidental or inadvertent and that reasonable
efforts were made to preserve the remains, glyptic, or painted records, or artifacts accidentally disturbed
or discovered, and that the accidental discovery or disturbance was properly reported. [1989 c 44 § 2,]
RCW 27.44.050 Civil action by Indian tribe or member--Time for commencing
action-- V enue--Damages--Attorneys' fees.
(1) Apart from any criminal prosecution, an Indian tribe or enrolled member thereof, shall have a civil
action to secure an injunction, damages, or other appropriate relief against any person who is alleged to
have violated RCW 27.44.040. The action must be brought within two years of the discovery of the
violation by the plaintiff. The action may be filed in the superior or tribal court of the county in which.
the grave, cairn, remains, or artifacts are located, or in the superior court of the county within which the
defendant resides.
(2) Any conviction pursuant to RCW 27.44 040 shall be prima facia evidence in an action brought
under this section.
(3) If the plaintiff prevails:
(a) The court may award reasonable attorneys' fees to the plaintiff;
(b) The court may grant injunctive or such other equitable relief as is appropriate, including
forfeiture of any artifacts or remains acquired or equipment used in the violation. The court shall order
the disposition of any items forfeited as the court sees fit, including the reinterment of human remains;
(c) The plaintiff shall recover imputed damages of five hundred dollars or actual damages,
whichever is greater. Actual damages include special and general damages, which include damages for
emotional distress;
(d) The plaintiff may recover punitive damages upon proof that the violation was willful. Punitive
damages may be recovered without proof of actual damages. All punitive damages shall be paid by the
defendant to the office of archaeology and historic preservation for the purposes of Indi.a.n h istP. ri~c . I Le..
preservation and to cover the cost of reinterment expenses by the office; and ¡....Ij~ l í"C.:
EXHn,' I H'-U- ---
PAGE.JLOF 33
]
j
l
]
I
]
J
]
~
]
]
tl
]
J
J
J
.,]
]
I
(e) An award of imputed or punitive damages may be made only once for a particular violation by a
particular person, but shall not preclude the award of such damages based on violations by other persons
or on other violations.
(4) If the defendant prevails. the court may award reasonable attorneys' fees to the defendant. [1989
c 44 § 3.]
RCW 27.44.900 Captions not law--1989 c 44.
Section captions used in this act do not constitute any part of the law. [1989 c 4~ § 10.]
RCW 27.44.901 Liberal construction--1989 c 44.
This act is to be liberally construed to achie\"e the legislature's intent. [1989 c 4~ § 11.]
CHAPTER 27.48 RCW
PRESERV ATIO:'í OF HISTORICAL MATERIALS
Sections
27.48.010
Public purpose declared--Powers of counties and municipalities.
NOTES:
Preservation and destruction a/public records, state archivist: Chapter 40./4 RCw.
RCW 27.48.010 Public purpose declared--Powers of counties and municipalities.
The storage, preservation and exhibit of historical materials, including, but not restricted to, books,
maps, writings, newspapers, ancient articles, and tools of handicraft, antiques, artifacts, and relics is
declared to be a public project carried on for public purpose and the legislative body of any county, city
or town, may provide quarters therefor within the territorial limits thereof and may provide funds
necessary for the proper operation of any such institution already in operation, or otherwise provide for
the preservation of historical material co\"ered by this chapter. [1957 c 47 § 1; 1949 c 160 § 1; Rem.
Supp. 1949 § 8265-9.]
EXHIBIT -~
EXHIBIT 4
PAGEJLOF
33
¡
HJ
]
-]
"']
'-'
J
J
]
]
]
-.J
J
CHAPTER .27.53 RCW
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AND RESOURCES
f'ections
27.53.010 Declaration.
2753020 Archaeological resource preservation, etc., declared public functionsnArchaeological
research center designated state agency--Cooperation enjoined.
27.53.030 Definitions.
27 53 040 Archaeological resources--Declaration.
27.53.045 Abandoned archaeological resources--Declaration.
27.53 060 Disturbing, etc., archaeological resource or site without written permit or permission
unlawful--Conditions allowed--Exceptions.
27 53 070 Field investigations--Communication of site or resource location to research center.
27.53080 Archaeological activities upon public lands--Entry--Agreement--Approval of activities.
27 53 090 Violations--Penalty.
2753100 Historic archaeological resources on state-owned aquatic lands--Discovery and
report--Right of first refusal.
2753110 Contracts for discovery and salvage of state-owned historic archaeological resources.
27.53120 Recovery of property from historic archaeological sites--Mitigation of damage--Refusal to
issue salvage permit to prevent destruction of resource. .
27.53 130 List of areas requiring permits.
2753 140 Rule-making authority.
27.53.150 Proceeds from state's property--Deposit and use.
2753900 Severability--1975 1st ex.s. c 134.
2753.901 SeverabilitYn1988 c 124.
~~
0
RCW 27.53.010 Declaration. ~ 0--1
The legislature hereby declares that the public has an interest in the conservation, preservation, and M-
protection of the state's archaeological resources, and the knowledge to be derived and gained from th= W
scientific study of these resources. [1975 1st ex.s. c 134 § 1.] ::c (!:J
ra1~
NOTES:
Office of archaeology and historic preser,ation: RCIV 27.34.200 through 27.34.240.
RCW 27.53.020 Archaeological resource preservation, etc., declared public
functions--Archaeological research center designated state agency--Cooperation enjoined.
The discovery, identification, excavation, and study of the state's archaeological resources, the providing
of information on archaeological sites for their nomination to the state and national registers of historic
places, the maintaining of a complete inventory of archaeological sites and collections, and the providing
of information to state, federal, and private construction agencies regarding the possible impact of
construction activities on the state's archaeological resources, are proper public functions; and the
Washington archaeological research center, created under the authority of chapter .32..34 RCW as now
existing or hereafter amended, is hereby designated as an appropriate agency to carry out these
functions. The director, in consultation with the Washington archaeological research center,.shall
provide guidelines for the selection of depositories designated by the state for archaeological resources.
The legislature directs that there shall be full cooperation amongst the department, the Washington
archaeological research center, and other agencies of the state. [1986 c 266 § 16; 1977 ex.s. c 195 § 12;
1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 82 § 1; 1975 1st ex.s. c 134 § 2.) ~./!, C iT_m_-m- \ ~~_.
j
l
J
}
J
]
1
~
J
I
]
J
)
J
J
]
J
]
1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 82 § 1; 1975 1st ex.s. c 134 § 2.]
NOTES:
Scvcrability--1986 c 266: See note following RCW~.
Scvcrability--1977 ex.s. c 195: "If any provision of this 1977 amendatory act, or its application to any person or
circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act, or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is
not affected." [1977 ex.s. c 195 § 20.]
RCW 27.53.030 Definitions.
Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions contained in this section shall apply
throughout this chapter.
(1) "Archaeology" means systematic, scientific study of man's past through material remains.
(2) "Archaeological object" means an object that comprises the physical evidence of an indigenous
and subsequent culture including material remains of past human life including monuments, symbols,
tools. facilities. and technological by-products.
(3) "Archaeological site" means a geographic locality in Washington, including but not limited to,
submerged and submersible lands and the bed of the sea within the state's jurisdiction, that contains
archaeological objects.
(4) "Department" means the department of community, trade, and economic development.
(5) "Director" means the director of community. trade, and economic de\"elopment or the director's
designee.
(6) "Historic" means peoples and cultures who are known through written documents in their own
or other languages. As applied to underwater archaeological resources. the term historic shall include
only those properties which are listed in or eligible for listing in the Washington State Register of
Historic Places (RCW 27 34.220) or the National Register of Historic Places as defined in the National"
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Title 1, Sec. 101, Public Law 89-665; 80 Stat. 915; 16 V.S.C. Sec.
470) as now or hereafter amended.
(7) "Prehistoric" means peoples and cultures who are unknown through contemporaneous written
documents in any language.
(8) "Professional archaeologist" means a person who has met the educational. training, and
experience requirements of the society of professional archaeologists.
(9) "Qualified archaeologist" means a person who has had formal training and/or experience in
archaeology over a period of at least three years, and has been certified in writing to be a qualified
archaeologist by two professional archaeologists.
(10) "Amateur society" means any organization composed primarily of persons who are not
professional archaeologists, whose primary interest is in the archaeological resources of the state, and
which has been certified in writing by two professional archaeologists. "
(11) "Historic archaeological resources" means those properties which are listed in or eligible for
listing in the Washington State Register of Historic Places (RCW 21...3:\.220) or the National Register of
Historic Places as defined in the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Title 1, Sec. 101, Public
Law 89-665; 80 Stat. 915; 16 V.S.C. Sec. 470) as now or hereafter amended. [1995 c 399 § 16; 1989 c
44 § 6; 1988 c 124 § 2; 1986 c 266 § 17; 1983 c 91 § 20; 1977 ex.s. c 195 § 13; 1975 1st ex.s. c 134 §
, EXHIBIT u..
EXril31T -- V~~ PAGE 20 OF 33
:J
]
)
:J
J
.
'1
~
J
J
J
J
,j
j
3.]
NOTES:
Intent--1989 c 44: See RCW ZLMJUQ.
Captions not lawnLibcral construction--1989 c 44: See RCW ZI.M.2QQ and Z1M.2!ll,
Intent--1988 c 124: "It is the intent of the legislature that those historic archaeological resources located on
state-owned aquatic lands that are of importance to the history of our state, or its communities, be protected for the people of
the state. At the same time, the legislature also recognizes that divers have long enjoyed the recreation of diving near
shipwrecks and picking up artifacts from the state-owned aquatic lands, and it is not the intent of the legislature to regulate
these occasional, recreational activities except in areas where necessary to protect underwater historic archaeological sites.
The legislature also recognizes that salvors who invest in a project to salvage underwater archaeological resources on
state-owned aquatic lands should be required to obtain a state permit for their operation in order to protect the interest of the
people of the state, as well as to protect the interest of the salvors who have invested considerable time and money in the
salvage expedition." [1988 c 124 § 1.]
Application--1988 c 124: "This act shall not affect any ongoing salvage effort in which the state has entered into
separate contracts or agreements prior to March 18, 1988." [1988 c 124 § 13.] For codification of "this act:' see
Codification Tables, Volume 0,
Severabilityn1986 c 266: See note following RCW ~.
Effective date--1983 c 91: See RCW ll.3A.2lQ.
Severability--1977 ex.s. c 195: See note following RCW ~.
RCW 27.53.040 Archaeological resources--Declaration.
All sites, objects, structures, artifacts, implements, and locations of prehistorical or archaeological
interest, whether previously recorded or still unrecognized, including, but not limited to, those pertaining
to prehistoric and historic American Indian or aboriginal burials, campsites, dwellings, and habitation
sites, including rock shelters and caves, their artifacts and implements of culture such as projectile
points, arrowheads, skeletal remains, grave goods, basketry, pestles, mauls and grinding stones, knives, .
scrapers, rock carvings and paintings, and other implements and artifacts of any material that are located
in, on, or under the surface of any lands or waters owned by or under the possession, custody, or control
of the state of Washington or any county, city, or political subdivision of the state are hereby declared to
be archaeological resources. [1975 1st ex.s. c 134 § 4.]
RCW 27.53.045 Abandoned archaeological resources--Declaration.
All historic archaeological resources abandoned for thirty years or more in, on, or under the surface of
any public lands or waters owned by or under the possession, custody, or control of the state of
Washington, including, but not limited to all ships, or aircraft, and any part or the contents thereof, and
all treasure trove is hereby declared to be the property of the state of Washington. [1988 c 124 § 3.]
NOTES:
IntentooApplication--1988 c 124: See notes following RCW lliJ.QJQ.
RCW 27.53.060 Disturbing, etc., archaeological resource or site without written permit or
permission unlawful--Conditions allowed--Exceptions.
(1) On the private and public lands of this state it shall be unlawful for any person, firm, corporation, or
any agency or institution of the state or a political subdivision thereof t1!XfIIfB1T' alter, dig Ll
c . T ,J~~-'#:é
,;: . -=;;!::n--.
PAGE~OF
33
j
J
J
]
.]
J
J
'1
3
]
I
j
J
1
,]
]
]
J
]
into, or excavate by use of any mechanical, hydraulic, or other means, or to damage, deface, or destroy
any historic or prehistoric archaeological resource or site, or remove any archaeological object from such
site, except for Indian graves or cairns, or any glyptic or painted record of any tribe or peoples, or
historic graves as defined in chapter ~ RCW, disturbances of which shall be a class C felony
punishable under chapter 2A.2Q RCW, without having obtained a written permit from the director for
such activities.
(2) The director must obtain the consent of the private or public property owner or agency
responsible for the management thereof, prior to issuance of the permit. The property owner or agency
responsible for the management of such land may condition its consent on the execution of a separate
agreement, lease, or other real property conveyance with the applicant as may be necessary to carry out
the legal rights or duties of the public property landowner or agency. The director, in consultation with
the affected tribes, shall develop guidelines for the issuance and processing of permits. Such written
permit and any agreement or lease or other conveyance required by any public property owner or agency
responsible for management of such land shall be physically present while any such activity is being
conducted. The provisions of this section shall not apply to the removal of artifacts found exposed on
the surface of the ground which are not historic archaeological resources or sites, [1989 c 44 § 7; 1988 c
124 § 4; 1986 c 266 § 18; 1977 ex.s. c 195 § 14; 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 82 § 2; 1975 1st ex.s, c 134 § 6.]
NOTES:
Intentu1989 c 44: See RCW Z1..41JUQ,
Captions not lawuLibcral constructionu1989 c 44: See RCW ~ and~.
IntentuApplication--1988 c 124: See notes following RCW ll.5.3..IDQ.
Se\'crabilityul986 c 266: See note following RCW~,
Sc\'crabilityul977 ex.s. c 195: See note following RCW~.
RCW 27.53.070 Field investigations--Communication of site or resource location to research
center.
It is the declared intention of the legislature that field investigations on privately owned lands should be
discouraged except in accordance with both the provisions and spirit of this chapter and persons having
knowledge of the location of archaeological sites or resources are encouraged to communicate such
information to the Washington archaeological research center. Such information shall not constitute a
public record which requires disclosure pursuant to the exception authorized in RCW 42.17.310, as now
or hereafter amended, to avoid site depredation. [1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 82 § 3; 1975 1 st ex.s. c 134 § 7.]
RCW 27.53.080 Archaeological activities upon public lands--Entry--Agreement--Approval of
activities.
Qualified or professional archaeologists, in performance of their duties, are hereby authorized to enter
upon public lands of the state of Washington and its political subdivisions, at such times and in such
manner as not to interfere with the normal management thereof, for the purposes of doing archaeological
resource location and evaluation studies, including site sampling activities. Scientific' excavations are to
be carried out only after appropriate agreement has been made between a professional archaeologist or
an institution of higher education and the agency or political subdivision responsible for such lands.
Notice of such agreement shall be filed with the Washington archaeological research center and by them
to the department. Amateur societies may engage in such activities by submitting and having approved
by the responsible agency or political subdivision a written proposal detailing the scope and duration of
the activity. Before approval, a proposal from an amateur society shall be submitted to the Washington
EXHIBIT lot
PAGE Z'Z. OF 33
.,~K:t~
~~~
,j
]
I
]
J
I
-,
'I
I
J
]
1
,]
]
1- -
archaeological research center for review and recommendation. [1986 c 266 § 19; 1977 ex.s. c ] 95 § 15;
1975 1st ex.s. c 134 § 8.]
NOTES:
Severabillty..1986 c 266: See note following RCW 38.5.Z.005.
Severability..1977 ex.s. e 195: See note following RCW~.
RCW 27.53.090 Violations--Penaity.
Any person, firm, or corporation violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor. Each day of continued violation of any provision of this chapter shall constitute a distinct
and separate offense. Offenses shall be reported to the appropriate law enforcement agency or to the
director. [1986 c 266 § 20; 1977 ex.s. c 195 § 16; 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 82 § 4; 1975 1st ex.s. c 134 § 9.]
NOTES:
Sey'erability..1986 c 266: See note following RCW~.
Severability..1977 ex.s. c 195: See note following RCW ZI.5JJ12Q.
RCW 27.53.100 Historic archaeological resources on state-owned aquatic lands--Discovery
and report--Right of first refusal.
Persons, firms, corporations, institutions, or agencies which discover a previously unreported historic
archaeological resource on state-owned aquatic lands and report the site or location of such resource to
the department shall have a right of first refusal to future salvage permits granted for the recovery of that
resource, subject to the provisions of RCW 27 53 110. Such right of first refusal shall exist for five
years from the date of the report. Should another person, firm, corporation, institution, or agency apply
for a permit to salvage that resource, the reporting entity shall have sixty days to submit its own permit.
application and exercise its first refusal right, or the right shall be extinguished. [1988 c 124 § 5.]
NOTES:
Intent..Application..1988 c 124: See notes following RCW~.
RCW 27.53.110 Contracts for discovery and salvage of state-owned historic archaeological
resources.
The director is hereby authorized to enter into contracts with other state agencies or institutions and with
qualified private institutions, persons, firms, or corporations for the discovery and salvage of
state-owned historic archaeological resources. Such contracts shall include but are not limited to the
following terms and conditions:
(1) Historic shipwrecks:
(a) The contract shall provide for fair compensation to a salvor. "Fair compensation" means an
amount not less than ninety percent of the appraised value of the objects recovered following successful
completion of the contract.
(b) The salvor may retain objects with a value of up to ninety percent of the appraised value of the
total objects recovered, or cash, or a combination of objects and cash. IË,fAtlB ITtotal ~
:¡\i'i"í~~f1-,e ---PAGE~OF
33
!
I
-1
]
]
-1
J
I
~
J
I
J
J
1
I
J
j
J
objects and cash exceed ninety percent of the total appraised value of the objects recovered. A salvor
shall not be entitled to further compensation from any state sources.
(c) The contract shall provide that the state will be given first choice of which objects it may wish to
retain for display purposes for the people of the state from among all the objects recovered. The state
may retain objects with a value of up to ten percent of the appraised value of the total objects recovered.
If the state chooses not to retain recovered objects with a value of up to ten percent of the appraised
value, the state shall be entitled to receive its share in cash or a combination of recovered objects and
cash so long as the state's total share does not exceed ten percent of the appraised value of the objects
recovered.
(d) The contract shall provide that both the state and the salvor shall have the right to select a single
appraiser or joint appraisers.
(e) The contract shall also provide that title to the objects shall pass to the salvor when the permit is
issued. However, should the salvor fail to fully perform under the terms of the contract, title to all
objects recovered shall revert to the state.
(2) Historic aircraft:
(a) The contract shall provide that historic aircraft belonging to the state of Washington may only be
recovered if the purpose of that salvage operation is to recover the aircraft for a museum, historical
society, nonprofit organization, or governmental entity.
(b) Title to the aircraft may only be passed by the state to one of the entities listed in (a) of this
subsection.
(c) Compensation to the salvor shall only be derived from the sale or exchange of the aircraft to one
of the entities listed in (a) of this subsection or such other compensation as one of the entities listed in
(a) of this subsection and the salvor may arrange. The salvor shall not have a claim to compensation
from state funds.
(3) Other historic archaeological resources: The director, in his or her discretion, may negotiate the'
terms of such contracts. [1988 c 124 § 6.]
NOTES:
IntentnApplicationn1988 c 124: See notes following RCW n.5l..Q1Q.
RCW 27.53.120 Recovery of property from historic archaeological sites--Mitigation of
damage--Refusal to issue salvage permit to prevent destruction of resource.
The salvor shall agree to mitigate any archaeological damage which occurs during the salvage
operation. The department shall have access to all property recovered from historic archaeological sites
for purposes of scholarly research and photographic documentation for a period to be agreed upon by the
parties following completion of the salvage operation. The department shall also have the right to
publish scientific papers concerning the results of all research conducted as project m,itigation.
The director has the right to refuse to issue a permit for salvaging an historic archaeological
resource if that resource would be destroyed beyond mitigation by the proposed salvage operation. Any
agency, institution, person, firm, or corporation which has been denied a permit because the resource
would be destroyed beyond mitigation by their method of salvage shall have a right of first refusal for
that permit at a future date should technology be found which would make salvage possible without
destroying the resource. Such right of first refusal shall be in effect for sixty days after the director has
determined that salvage can be accomplished by a subsequent applicantl!XHTBti"the reì~urce.
EXHIBIT: t õblfC eAGE£lOF 33
J
I
-¡
]
J
-',
1
I
J
J
1
J
J
j
J
No person, firm, or corporation may conduct such salvage or recovery operation herein described
without first obtaining such contract. [1988 c 124 § 7.]
NOTES:
Intcnt--Application--1988 c 124: See notes following RCW~.
RCW 27.53.130 List of areas requiring permits.
The department shall publish annually and update as necessary a list of those areas where permits are
required to protect historic archaeological sites on aquatic lands. [1995 c 399 § 17; 1988 c 124 § 10.]
NOTES:
Intcnt--Application--1988 c 124: See notes following RCW 2L.5..1.QJQ.
RCW 27.53.140 Rule-making authority.
The department shall have such rule-making authority as is necessary to carry out the provisions of this
chapter. [1995 c 399 § 18; 1988 c 124 § 11.]
NOTES:
Intcnt--Application--1988 c 124: See notes following RCW 2L.1.1JUQ.
EXHIBIT
1~ffé
EXHBBßu L{
PAGE zs- OF 33
¡
I
J
']
]
']
']
)
;J
;'
!
I
J
J
I
]
J
I
J
I
APPENDIX B:
Copies of Letters to Tribes
EXHIBIT
(~Hf
Nollhwost Arr:hooolog/col Assoclstos. Inc,
DrsftRoporl-Docombor4.1998
11
EXHIBru u
PAGE~OF 33
]
J
.J
]
]
-I
-J
1
--,
'1
1
B
]
J
]
]
J
J
APPENDIX B:
Copies of Letters to Tribes
EXHIBIT~
Northwest Archeeologce' Associates, Inc,
Draft Repotf-December 4, 1998
13
EXHIBIT u.
PAGE..3LOF 33
I
l
]
]
]
]
J
~
J
J
J
]
]
J
]
-1
J
~
~
Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc.
Cultural Resources Managemant Services
5416U 20th Avenue NW S..ttIt, WA 98107
To/: (206) 781.1909 Fox: (206) 781-0154 EmIl: nwlrch@/ttclly.com
December 1,1998
Puyallup Tribe of Indians
Tribal Council
2002 East 28th
Tacoma, WA. 98404
Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc. is conducting a heritage resource investigation of a
10-acre parcel at the top of the bluff facing Poverty Bay, west of Federal Way (see attached
maps). A residential development is proposed on the site, which is currently wooded. No
archaeological sites are recorded on this property, although one (45-KI-58) is approximately 0.5
mi. west on Dumas Bay, and two others are about two miles away. No ethnohistoric or
prehistoric cultural resources were observed during the survey. If you have any information
about this area or any comments about the project, please let me know. Thank you.
Sincerely,
~~
Meg Nelson
Senior archaeologist
cc: Cultural Resources Division
EXHIBIT
I ~tW
EXHIBIT lÁ
PAGE~OF
33
jÑ
~
~
~
C) \j~
~ ~~
~~
~
j45
]
t4
FEET
~
~
(J ~~
\) POl'ERTr
~ ~~
]
~TrlJ
..\
t3
J
]
l
:]
]
]
J
]
~
J
]
~
J
]
]
]
J
J
'.'.[J
i!
m'"
. '.' I ~ fft
1Il/...-.--
Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc.
Cultural Resources Managemant Services
5416)(, 20th Avenue NW Seelthl, WA 98107
ToI: (206) 781-1909 Fox: (206) 781.0154 Ems': nwarr:h@/etc/ty.com
December 1,1998
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
Tribal Council
39015 172nd Avenue SE
Aubum, WA. 98002-9763
Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc. is conducting a heritage resource investigation of a
1D-acre parcel at the top of the bluff facing Poverty Bay, west of Federal Way (see attached
maps). A residential development is proposed on the site, which is currently wooded. No
archaeological sites are recorded on this property, although one (45-KI-58) is approximately 0.5
mi. west on Dumas Bay, and two others are about two miles away. No ethnohistoric or
prehistoric cultural resources were observed during the survey. If you have any information
about this area or any comments about the project, please let me know. Thank you.
Sincerely,
/~ (w).r. ---
Meg Nelson
Senior archaeologist
cc: Walter Pacheco, Community Service Coordinator
~ 6btfr
EXHØB~T u.
PAGE ?o OF 33
EXHIBIT
tÑ
~
~
~
]
]45
-]
1
()
~
(j4ì
~~
~~
-Q,
J44
FEET
~rlJ
<\
~
(j ~~
"Ú POYERTr
~ 1>~
~
]
I
l
J
]
1
']
]
~1
J
)
~
J
J
]
]
J
J
, ]
~
~
Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc.
CuNural Resources Management Services
5416" 20lIl Avenue NW Seetlle. WA 98107
Tel: (206) 781-1909 Fer. (206) 781-0154 Erne': nwerch@/etc/ty.com
December 1,1998
Suquamish Tribe
Tribal Council
P.O. Box 498
Suquamish, WA. 98392
Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc. is conducting a heritage resource investigation of a
1D-acre parcel at the top of the bluff facing Poverty Bay, west of Federal Way (see attached
maps). A residential development is proposed on the site, which is currently wooded. No
archaeological sites are recorded on this property, although one (45-KI-58) is approximately 0.5
mi. west on Dumas Bay, and two others are about two miles away. No ethnohistoric or
prehistoric cultural resources were observed during the survey. If you have any information
about this area or any comments about the project, please let me know. Thank you.
Sincerely,
jh~ M~
Meg Nelson
Senior archaeologist
cc: Charles Sigo
( óbHt
EXHIBIT
EX~=flü[8~u Ll
PAGE 3~ OF
33
J
I
rOoN
-<v
~
~
a ~'-.)
~ ~~
~~
~
]"'45
1
J
~
þ
0 ~~
\J pOVERTr
1 ~~
]"'44
hET
,JUTHI
"40
1
,
ét
Ò'
RECEIVED BY
COMYIINITY DEVELOPMENT DEPAR1V,
DEC 3. 6 1998
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY, TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
420 Golf Club Road SE, Suite 201, Lacey' PO Box 48343 . Olympia. Washington 98504-8343 . (360) 407-0752
.. FaxNumber(360)4D7-6217
December 14,1998
Ms. Deb Barker
City of Federal Way
33530 I" Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6210
Re: Ventana Subdivision
Log No: 1l0298-03-KI
Dear Ms. Barker;
We have reviewed the draft professional archaeological survey report for the Ventana Subdivision by Ms.
Meg Nelson. We would suggest that information regarding the local history and, in particular, any
. information on the Burt House Plat that is found be incorporated into the final version. Any subsequent
fieldwork should be guided by this information. We would also recommend a monitoring plan be
developed to assure that any graves or burial not found during the survey phase are identified early in any
subsequent land clearing activities. We would appreciate receiving the final version when it is available.
These comments are based on the information available at the time of this review. Should additional
information become available, our assessment may be revised. In the event that archaeological or historic
materials are discovered during project activities, work in the immediate vicinity should be discontinued,
the area secured, and this office notified.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment and a copy of these comments should be included in
subsequent environmental documents.
Sincerely,
~-
Robert G. Whitlam, Ph.D.
State Archaeologist
(360) 407-0771
email: robw@cted.wa.l!ov
(61~
EXHIBIT V
PAGE-LOF
EXHIBIT
------ -~ -------
NW1/4, NW1/4, NE1/4, SEC, 12, lWP, 21N~ AGE. 3E~ W.M.
~I~U
I TTCH.JE 8EEPLAN ON LEFT
I I
I I
I I
I I
~--_.J
I
I
I
I
I
I
'-----
1t
"""-" ,'.",'
Iil"IiiI5õI
. 50
is
~~i
II UI
~ §
lI!s
-_u_---~...~,~---~..,..
L,~',U' ,u, :',U,L::',~Ut:~ :J:~,"
.
~ia
.. ~
~
....
..
!i!1~~!
a :¡~~
~-'
.......
I --~-sr:-----
I -----
I /'
I I
I ~ I
I uf I
I:> I
« I
f I
I'"
I
1'--""
r
I.
;1:
PROPOBED SAN. SEWER EXTëNT1ON ...
"""-" '"..... IJI
u:ŒIÐ
---- ÐOS11NO GRAD(
----- PROPOSED ""TARY SOÐI
+-- PROPOSED """" SOÐI
-.....-.- PROPOSED WA lER
--« PROPOSED FIlE H'tDIWIT
Lp,KOTA PAliSADES DiV_"
VICNTY MAP ...
"""-" '".2000' IJI
.. PROPOSED S11IŒJ UCHT
u-
; -- .. ----------~-
, -------C-
. /~---- "'......
,/
¡;¡
:;:
t.
I
\
:
,
,
,
,
II
" ~
, I
"I
I
,
I
I
,
t
,,/
_/
I
o¡w
0 TRACT -
N.T.s.
<o¡w
"" I I
~
~
! ~
I ~
..
111
EXHIßIT I~
EXHIBIT.
PAGE-LO
r
,
0 5W 3O4TH ST.
N.T,~
.,,-,C,'" ,°, "'U"',,",;"'::,
'0
~
TYPICAL ROAD SECTION
N.T,~
I
fl--
I
I
-------------
I
c
Co
Memorandum
Public Works Traffic Division
To:
. Deb Barker, Associate Planner
Rick Perez, City Traffic Engineer fèI
From:
Date:
March 9, 1998
Re:
Ventana Petition
I have reviewed the petition submitted on February 11, 1998. The petitions request that 25th
Avenue SW, currently ending in a temporary cul-de-sac in the plat ofViewclifi: not be connected
to the proposed Ventana subdivision. The petitioners are concerned that extending-25th Avenue
SW will generate more traffic, disrupt the quality of life, and expose residents ofViewcliffto
more crime, speeding, and traffic safety hazards. Based on my review of the Federal Way City
Code and the Comprehensive Plan, I have the following technical comments responding to the
petitioners' request:
Federal Way City Code
Below are the Federal Way City Code sections applicable to the petitioner's concerns:
(2)
Section 20-2. Purpose.
This chapter is adopted in Júrtherance of the comprehensive plan of the city. It is hereby
declared that the regulations contained in this chapter are necessary to:
(1) Promote the health, safety, and general welfare in accordance with standards established
by the state and the city;
Promote effective useòf land by preventing the overcrowding or scattered development
which would injure health, safety, or the general welfare due to the lack of water
supplies, sanitary sewer, drainage, transportation or other public services, or excessive
expenditure of public funds for such services;
Avoid congestion and promote safe and co11Venient travel by the public on streets and
highways though the proper planning and coordination of new streets within subdivisions
with existing and planned streets in the surrounding community;...
Provide for proper ingress and egress;...
(3)
(6)
This section finds that the requirements of Chapter 20 are necessary for general safety and
welf'are. Particular note should be made of subsection 3, requiring "coordination" of
existing and new streets. EXHIBIT ( ~ ~
EXHIBIT x:
PAGE-LOF ---=L-
(
c
(c)
(d)
(e)
Section 20-151. Subdivision design
(a) Subdivisions should be cksigned so that traffic is distributed in a logical manner toward
a collector street system, to avoid intrusion and overburckning ofresickntial streets. and
to connect with planned or existing streets.
Streets should be coordinated with existing intersections to avoid offsetting new
interse~tions. and should intersect at a 90-degree angle plus or minus five ckgrees.
Cul-de-sac streets should be no longer than 600 feet.
Blocks should be no longer than 1,200 feet without an intersecting connector road.
Subdivisions on steep slopes should be cksigned so that streets are constructed generally
parallel, rather than perpendicular, to the slope;
Streets should be cksigned in conformance with adopted standards for sight distance at
intersections, as prescribed in section 22-1151 et seq.
(b)
(f)
"Overburdening of residential streets" cited in subsection (a) is defined as exceeding the
traffic volumes for each street classification in the Comprehensive Plan. All streets
abutting and within the proposed Ventana subdivision are çlassified as local streets. Table
III-3 in the Comprehensive Plan shows that local streets can be expected to handle up to
1,500 vehicles per day. Based on Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip'Generation.
a street would have to serve as the sole access of more than 150 single-family homes to
exceed 1,500 vehicles per day. Nothing in the Ventana subdivision proposal would result
in any local street carrying more than 1,500 vehicles per day.
Subsection (a) states that subdivisions should be designed to connect with planned or
existing streets. It should also be noted that the existing cul-de-sac in Viewcliff is shown
on the face of the plat as temporary. It was intended, at the time of plat approval by King
County, that 25th Avenue SW be extended southward. Additionally, requiring 25th
Avenue SW be to the existing plat of View cliff would eliminate the non-conformance of
the existing cul-de-sac in Viewcliff.
Subsection (d) requires that the block formed by Viewcliff and Ventana streets combined
be no longer than 1,200 feet. To meet this requirement, S 304th Street could be extended
trom 24th Avenue SW to 25th Avenue SW.
Land Use Goals and Policies of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan
Below are the Comprehensive Plan Goals and policies applicable to the petitioners' issues:
Land Use Goal 3:
Preserve and protect Feckral Way single family neighborhoods.
LUP 14:
Maintain and protect the character of existing and future single family
neighborhoods through strict enforcement of the City's land use regulations.
This policy presumes that existing city codes provide standards that serve to
maintain and protect single family neighborhoods. A substantial amount of text in
the Comprehensive Plan reflects principles of nee-traditional neighborhood J .-/
EXHIBIT l~ iff
EXHIBIT
PAGE k OF t.{
(
(
planning. This school of thought suggests that providing a smaller grid of streets
disperses velûcular traffic more effectively, provides shorter walking distances
between origins and destinations that in turn reduces vehicular use, improves air
quality, improves safety, and encourages a feeling of community. Hence, the
.existing code's limits on the length of blocks and cul-de-sacs are intended to meet
the adopted goals and policies.
LUP 17:
Encourage the development of transportation routes and facilities to service
single family neighborhoods. Special attention should be given to pedestrian
circulation.
This policy reinforces the concept of providing multiple paths between destinations
to reduce the negative impacts of auto use and improve pedestrian circulation.
LUP 25:
Encourage the establishment of street patterns and amenities that encourage
walking, bicycling, and transit use.
This policy is also consistent with nee-traditional neighborhood planning and
supports multiple paths between destinations.
Transportation Goals and Policies of the Federal Wa,y Comprehensive Plan
The Transportation chapter of the Comprehensive Plan establishes the fuunework for providing a
transportation system (facilities and services) and focuses on actions needed to create and manage
the transportation infi'astructure and services.
Transportation Goal 1:
b.
c.
d
Maintain mobility for residents and business through a balanced
integrated system of street alternatives thaJ:
Reduce auto dependency, especially single occupant vehicle use
Support the land use vision and plan
Protect and enhance the environment and quality of life
Tlûs goal is consistent with the principles of nee-traditional neighborhood planning.
IP5: Protect neighborhoods from traffic impacts.
This policy is intended to encourage development that channels large volumes of traffic
away fÌ"om existing development while still providing connectivity between
neighborhoods. The Ventana subdivision's street network would not add significant
volumes of traffic to streets within Viewcliff. The connection to the proposed Ventana
subdivision would provide an alternative velûcle and pedestrain route for the residents of
Viewcliff.
Transportation Goal 2:
Provide' a safe efficient and economic street system with sufficient
capacity to move people, goods, and services at an appropriate
E~~BIT ~~tfé -
PAGE~OF l.f
c;
(
level of service. The City shall develop and adopt policies for the
construction, reconstruction, maintenance, and preservàtion of
ncw and existing facilities, such as gravel and substandard streets.
TP20: Take advantage of opportunities to open new road connections to create route
alternatives, especially in areas with few access choices.
Viewcliffhas one source of access, at S 304th Street. By connecting Viewcliffthrough
Ventana to the plat of Lakota Highlands, Viewcliff will obtain an alternative route.
1P 21: Enhance traffic circulation and access with closer spacing of through streets as follows:
a. Arterial streets at least every 1,200 feet in single family zones and every 600 feet
in non-single-family zones.
Collector streets every 600 feet in single-family zones and every 600 feet in non-
single-family zones.
b.
If this policy had been carried out before and during the platting ofViewc~ coUector
streets would be located at SW 30Oth Street, SW 302nd Street, and SW 304th Street, as
wen as 24th Avenue SW and 26th Avenue SW. However, the nearest coUector to
Viewcliffis 21st Avenue SW. The plat of View cliff Phase 2 has addressed neighborhood
connectivity by providing a stub street (a temporary cul-de-sac) at 25th Avenue SW.
Connecting the plats of View cliff and Ventana would help meet the policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
TG4: Enhance community livability and transportation by providing a connected system of
bike and pedestrian ways that is also integrated into a coordinated regional network.
1P 52: Work to extend the existing system of sidewalks bikeways, and equestrian ways in the City
to provide safe access to public transit, neighborhood and business centers, parks,
schools, public facilities, and other recreational attractions.
Connecting Viewcliff and Ventana subdivisions will provide alternative routes for vehicles
and pedestrians, thus improving circulation within the vicinity of both subdivisions.
Summary
The proposed street layout of the Ventana subdivision is consistent with existing codes and
Comprehensive Plan goals and policies.
\ ~H-£
EXHIB~T X.
PAGE-i-OF -.£L
EXHIBIT
, '. . - -
... . ,
.'
, .
,,'
.,'
..
'1'~~~(~.~. ~~~fl ~
';~..i(~&f ~ WAYPUB1.iC WÒRiœ
¡~,;t ~ ~ ---
',.;~?~~ ~:' "
;:';';~,'+"',':'d'-,~///Z
jr~i:V,:,'iJ'~':' /ff~ '.' ~,;~,- ..'
i;': ,. , ~ ~~~
"" """""', do "~
~-~,:,.,:.;~,;;F"R,Ô, M TH,' EDESKOF zannp "bav , '--
.. "'" - -, ' Å~b~~DrÆ~N ENT
,,';" ,.',"""-,,',>' , --' ",X HI BIT I?
"_.. - 'FEa 1EXHIBIT
PAGE-LOF q
': .,
..
f.
R~'.
FEB 1 I 1998
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC WORKS
ADMIliISTRATION DIVISION
,.
January 21,1998
Subject;
Petition to the City of Federal Way City
Council:
We the following, all residents of VIEWCLIFF Subdivision,
bordering on the north of the proposed VENTANA Subdivision,
hereby petition and request that 25th. Ave SW, currently
ending in a cul-de-sac in VIEWCLIFF, not be COnnected into
the proposed VENTANA subdivision. 25th Ave SW should be
allowed to rema.in as it is, a ' dead end' in the VIEWCLIFF
subdivision.
VIEWCLIFF has been in existence since 1960. Access has
always been from sw 304th street ONLY, and has never been a
problem.
Crime in VIEWCLIFF has increased in the past few years with
breaking into cars, theft of electronic equipment, threatened
assault to a homeowner, theft of a mans business tools, to
name a few instances. Traffic is currently a concern with
several young people driving at excessive rates of speed
through the neighborhood which is a concern to all,
especially families with small children. Opening up 25th.
Avenuesw will only increase traffic though VIEWCLIFF.
Opening up 25th Ave SW will generate ~ore traffic, not so
much from the residents of VENTANA, as using 25th through
VIEWCLIFF would be out of their way for access to their
homes, but from casual traffic that has no need to be in
VIEWCLIFF. Additional traffic into our neighborhood will
disturb the quality of life we now enjoy and will expose us
to more potential criminals, ~edinq and safety threats to
all, especially children. Crime has already become a problem
as stated above and documented in Federal Way Police records.
Access for emergency vehicles is not a concern. VIEWCLIFF
has existed with one entrance-exit for approximately 38 years
with no access problem. We have no concern for having SW
304th the only access to our neighborhood.
&.'x!J.~
/(. /~
1(. ~.i IJ,
EXHIBIT ~-l
~~~W V OF q
.: :. .
(
"f
"---...,..,-~~:--~_.....
WE THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTS OF VIEWCLIFF PETITION AND REQUEST
THAT 25TH AVE SW NOT BE EXTENDED FROM VIEWCLIFF INTO AND
CONNECTED WITH THE PROPOSED 25TH SW IN THE VENTANA
SUBDIVISION. "
eX;;;~IT ( ÿ ~-
PAGE_c~~OF q
.' .
. .
( -
. ,
f-
"t.
,".,~~:::,",~_.
WE THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTS OF VIEWCLIFF PETITION AND REQUEST
THAT 25TH AVE SW NOT BE EXTENDED FROM VIEWCLIFF INTO AND
CONNECTED WITH THE PROPOSED 25TH SW IN THE VENTANA
SUBDIVISION.
Name/printed Signature Address Phone
I1NNA CAIl¡//l3L ~ . .J-iP¡~~f!J.~~---f!§f!::Æ.!.!-':¡i'/1
~:~-- -- _'!Ji;r¥¥j~Ïi.~-jffjJtl_ìif-~~¥
H~fE-i!:!,j.};~:~:..::æ' . -_A't~'!.~!!.1..!__.:zs.3:.1~.:-"t877 ../
.J:fe,.'7=!-.Æ.:..6!;qéL--- _:..._~ß:.ß~_;JlCJ1p__~~-----~=r~~- 9 ç 77-
~~ó~~~-- ---~~-~~~------~S3~~Q~U
~~~~~ ---- _:=~~~-02~~~~~~i~~~~¿
~n~=":"!'i~_-.J- - ---- OO~;r-.
t'1CU::.nM\ JO -----i<f:--- JJt-------~:..~
- -h~~~~- - - -- ---~~,-- --------~-------
~.u!I.!.~~~'!....... - - _"':fQ.~~~"------~-~::ÐLI§
* ~~~-~==~~~~
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
. w-tÇ:;~:~:-~==2~ 1= ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
~~;',-;.,:;:'"~.:'. '/'~~.'
. .~,,:,:,,_.._-j.
(~~-
EXHIBIT Y
-PAGE-ÏOF q
EXHIBIT
.;;:. ...
. .
: ~" - ~- ' . '( . . . , ','
WE '!'HE FOLLoWING RESIDENTS OF VIEWCLIFF PETrTION AND REQUEST
THAT 25TH AVE SW NOT BE EXTENDED FROM VIEWCLIFF INTO AND
CONNECTED WITH THE PROPOSED 25TH SW IN THE VENTANA
SUBDIVISION.
Name/printed Signa~ure Address Phone
hi Q.~..Ll!!l!L/L4J1jß.œ~-_- ( w 4'!-" _.3.Q;y¿"~~-~?¿l iJ ,? -7(, 0 ;J
~~~~~.4.I~~ ~~::~...E'¿';¿~~~- -%5R-7ç.of
C!/D.Î.5-S:..d§7.ß.oJtld___.- ----------~~-~,</-,3~-_tt_-----.$.?8-03 7 (
[1{t-é --
EXHIBIT .r
PAGE£OF q
EXHIBIT
".'.
, (,- "~
WE THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTS OF VIEWCLIFF PETITION AND REQUEST
THAT 25TH AVE SW NOT BE EXTENDED FROM VIEWCLIFF INTO AND
CONNECTED WITH THE PROPOSED 25TH SW IN THE VENTANA
SUBDIVI~ION .
Name/printed
Signature
Address
Phone
-------~-----------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
WE THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTS OF VIEWCLIFF PETITION AND REQUEST
THAT 25TH AVE SW NOT BE EXTENDED FROM VIEWCLIFF INTO AND
CONNECTED WITH THE PROPOSED 25TH SW IN THE VENTANA
SUBDIVISION.
Name/printed signa~re J. f:'" Address Phone
L::.Mr¿f t.h~j).£J~~fL__~£ ~_~!L~~!?!._-
::=================::::::::=::::::::=::::::::::::::::::::::::~::::::::==::::::::::::=::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~á3:: ~ 7 - ~ 9 {:. 7
EXHIBIT"' (60tI-é'
EXHIBIT ~
PAGE~OF .
"
'.
. .,..,.",.----:--...
c- . c' -'.
",- "-
WE THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTS OF vrEWCLIFF PETITION AND REQUEST
THAT 25TH AVE SW NOT BE EXTENDED FROM VIEWCLIFF INTo AND
CONNECTED WITH THE PROPOSED 25TH SW IN THE VENTANA
SUBDIVISION.
Name/printed Sign~ _./ Address Phone
~~~.o~-~~_f!£~~~-:?6!:::'~uI._¿sg- ~~ 7 -S-s,;z,
------------------ ------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
l~~
EXHBSBr Y
I?AGE2..0F q
EXHIBIT
_. - . -
. '. _c. .
- (' ;- - - .: ".c - .
WE THE FOLLOWI' REsIDENTS OF VIEWCLIFF P~:rTION AND REQUEST
THAT 25TH AVE SW NOT BE EXTENDED FROM VIEWCLIFF INTO AND
CONNECTED WITH THE PROPOSED 25TH SW IN THE VENTANA
SUBDIVISION.
Name/printed Si~~ ~~s ~~.
el/lu jt(¡¡J ?"OLol ""2..y/L. 27S1:;.-o,J;>-
~~---~--~'X_- - --- -----~-"2õ~-. :zn-~1í.;"3iU--~""'T
,:""-~~-- . -_óJ~~ i1r.-'7~7'f.,.T":-.:;'h\-cr~ I/OS5",>
-- tlRsF---- - ---_a.:.l.- ',o..1-~fP-""~f9.IJat""¡"Ir;(f>
\4ltL -
EXHIBIT -4- ---
~~~~i~"Ö~ ~
"
.t. . WE THE FOLLO~IN{r~ESIDENTS OF VIEWCLIFF P!r~ION AND REQUEST
THAT 25'l'H A VB SW NOT BE EXTENDED FROM VIEWCLIFF INTO AND
CONNEC'l'ED WITH THE PROPOSED 25TH SW IN THE VENTANA
SUBDIVJ:SION.
Name/~rinted Si~;~~ f2v.,,'J/YI Address V- Phone
;SJ1~ r.Lf¿Q~ 1 L -.fA 111 Jf {?- :LWl.l1I-- - Q.D ~~ ~~L _:2~ - - - - ~ J:!+'5=f
~~~~-~-------~--------------------Œ--~-----(Þ~T-<n
~-!!i'E~- - ~----_2t>-~~._~~--~---- --- ...Ji.1.'1.~¡f 1
EXHIBIT~--
EXHiB~T '1
PAGE-Ø-OF q
,
c
(253) 661-4000
FEDERAL WAY. WA 98003-6210
March 20, 1998
Mr. Robert F. Jones
29847 - 24th Avenue SW
Federal Way, WA 98023
FILe
Re:
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF VENTANA, SUB97-O005
Dear Mr. Jones:
Thank you for your comments on the proposed Ventana Subdivision received February 11, 1998,
and submitted to the City Council on March 2, 1998. Your comments have been addressed in the
attached memorandums. The technical memorandum ftom Rick Perez, Traffic Engineer, details
how the proposed preliminary plat application responds to traffic and safety provisions of the
Federal Way City Code (FWCC) and the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP). The
technical memorandum ftom Officer Bob Schubert, Department of Public Safety, provides a
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) response to crime issues.
Review of this subdivision application will include further public process. At this time, the
proposed preliminary plat is under environmental review through the State Environmental Policy
Act (SEP A). City staffis currently reviewing the environmental documentation submitted by the
applicant. At the conclusion of this review, the Director of Community Development Services will
issue an environmental decision on the subdivision.
All property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject property, and those residents
requesting notification, will be mailed a copy of that environmental decision. All petitioners will
also be sent a copy of that environmental decision. A 15-day comment period will be provided
following issuance of the environmental decision. A 14-day appeal period begins at the conclusion
of the comment period.
At the conclusion of the environmental review process, city staffwill prepare a staff report
containing findings, conclusions, and recommendations about the proposed subdivision and
forward it to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner.
. ........-
EXHIBIT. .. t6þ ~t'
EXHIBIT ~
PA.GE-LOF Cf
(
c,
.'
. Mr. Robert F. Jones
March 20, 1998
Page 2
The Hearing Examiner will conduct a public hearing on the preliminary plat and will also hear any
appeals on the city's environmental decision. The Hearing Examiner will take oral and written
testimony. ~O~d>wners and residents within 300 feet of the subject property will be notified
of thé1)UMiá!b~'fIate at least 14 days before it is scheduled. An petitioners will also be
notified of the public 'hearing date at least 14 days before it is scheduled.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Hearing Examiner will review the preliminary plat
application and issue a recommendation on the proposal. His recommendation will be forwarded
to the Land Use and Transportation Committee (LUTe) of the Federal Way City Council. The
LUTC will review the proposal at a public meeting and make a formal recommendation to the full
council for final action.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at (253) 661-4103 should you have any questions about the
preliminary plat process.
Sincerely,
!Jdy ~
Deb Barker
Associate Planner
enc:
Tecbnical Memonmdumfrom RickP=z, TrafficEngineer,Man:h 18,1998
TecbnicaI Mcmorandumfrom Officer Bob Schubert, Man:h 3, 1998
c:
Greg Moore, Director of Community Development Services
Cary Roe, Public Worlcs Director
Rick P=z, Traffic Engineer
Bob Schubert, Public Safety
Lisa Read, Contract Engineer Plans Reviewer
Greg Sahar, Wellington-Monis Corporation, 10335 Main Street, Suite 8, BeIlcvue, WA 98004
File
"""""'""""""_.001
(dW€'. .
EXHIBIT~
EXHIBIT ~
PAGE...LOF q
/ '.
ROBERT F JONES
29847 - 24TH AVE SW
FEDERAL WAYWA 98023
SHARON KLINE
30224 - 24TH AVE SW ,
FEDERAL WAYWA 98023
RONALDSECRETO
30017 -24THAVE SW
FEDERAL WAYWA 98023
BETTY & ROBERT COLLINS
30235 - 25TH AVE SW
FEDERAL WAYWA 98023
DAVID & SUSAN KOEHLER
30214-25THAVESW
FEDERAL WAYWA 98023
TOM & PATRlCIA DONICH
30012 - 24TH AVE SW
FEDERAL WAYWA 98023
BARBARACASTROW
2324 SW 300TH ST
FEDERAL WAYWA 98023
ROY & JENNY WEMYSS
29815 - 23RD AVE SW
FEDERAL WAYWA 98023
SYLVIA JONES
29847 -24TH AVE SW
FEDERAL WAYWA 98023
CINDY & G KENT NELSON
30206 - 25TH AVE SW
FEDERAL WAYWA 98023
c
HAYNES
30200 - 24TH AVE SW
FEDERAL WAYWA 98023
JENNI NELSON
30245 - 24TH AVE SW
FEDERAL WAYWA 98023
SHEll.A & JOHN EL TlNG
2408 SW301STPL
FEDERAL WAYWA 98023
ROGER LEVY
30245 - 25TH AVE SW
FEDERAL WAYWA 98023
FRED NADEAU
30155 - 25TH AVE SW
FEDERAL WAYWA 98023
WILLIAM & JENNIFER
BLACKSTONE
2250 SW 300TH ST
FEDERAL WAYWA 98023
JULIE & GARY GILLESPIE
29844 - 24TH AVE SW
FEDERAL WAYWA 98023
GERALD & JO ANN KURE
29800 - 24TH AVE SW
FEDERAL WAYWA 98023
RONALD & INGRID GINTZ
29825 - 24TH AVE SW
FEDERAL WAYWA 98023
CHRIS & ANNA CARREL
30234 - 24TH AVE SW
FEDERAL WAYWA 98023
é:
JEAN HOLMES
30217 - 24TH AVE SW
FEDERAL WAYWA 98023
FREDIMARGARET EDMONDSqN
30001-24THAVESW
FEDERAL WAYWA 98023
LARRY &: PATRlCA BORGESON
30165-25THAVESW ~
FEDERAL WAYWA 98023
COLLEEN ROTT
30244 - 25TH AVE SW
FEDERAL WAYWA 98023
JOHN COX
2415 SW301STPL
FEDERAL WAYWA 98023
MARLE & ANNETTE IDLLMAN
2323 SW 300TH ST
FEDERAL WAYWA 98023
ROY &JENNYWEMYSS
29812 - 24TH AVE SW
FEDERAL WAYWA 98023
PATRlCIADAY
29833 - 24TH AVE SW
FEDERAL WAYWA 98023
JACKLUN & RlCHARD LEISY
30234 - 25TH AVE SW
FEDERAL WAY W A 98023
EXHI~ONUA&lfHN
30244 - 24TH AVE SW
FEDERAL WAYWA 98023
EXHIBIT ;2
PAGE~OF q
/ '..
MILTON & BETTY HUFF
29824 - 24TH A VB SW
FEDERAL WAYWA 98023
SHELLEY AYERS
30224 - 25TH A VB SW .'
FEDERAL WAYWA 98023
MARY HUNTER
30205 - 25THAVB SW
FEDERAL WAYWA 98023
CAROLINE QUINNELL
30050 - 24TH A VB SW
FEDERAL WAYWA 98023
BEN GILLESPIE
'9844 - 24THAVB SW
ÆDERAL WAYWA 98023
c
~~
BARBARA POOLEY
30009 - 24TH A VB SW
FEDERAL WAYWA 98023
PENNY FULLA VA
30215 - 25TH A VB SW
FEDERAL WAYWA 98023
BONNIE, JENNY, &
MARSHALL JOHNSON
30032 - 24TH A VB SW
FEDERAL WAYWA 98023
FRED & DIANNE RAY
2405 SW 301ST PL
FEDERAL WAYWA 98023
HOWARD & DARLENE WHITE
30212-24THAVBSW
FEDERAL WAYWA 98023
CHRIS CASTROW
2324 SW 3OOTH ST
FEDERAL WAYWA 98023
JAMES AlLEN CRAIG
30234 - 24TH A VB SW
FEDERAL WAYWA 98023
KEVIN & MARY KING
30201-24THAVBSW
FEDERAL WAYWA 98023
ROBERT & SHERI BOWELL
30235 - 24TH A VB SW
FEDERALWAYWA 98023
EXH'BIT_L~(fé
EXHIBIT :¿-
PAGE~OF --1-
c
c
Memorandum
Public Works Traffic Division
To:
., Deb Barker, Associate Planner
Rick Perez, City Traffic Engineer f?t
From:
Date:
March 9, 1998
Re:
Ventana Petition
I have reviewed the petition submitted on February I I, 1998. The petitions request that 25th
Avenue SW, cun-ently ending in a temporary cul-do-sac in the plat ofViewclift; not be connected
to the proposed Ventana subdivision. The petitioners are concerned that extending 25th Avenue
SW will generate more traffic, disropt the quality oflife, and expose residents ofViewcli1fto
more crime, speeding, and traffic safety hazards. Based on my review of the Federal Way City
Code and the Comprehensive Plan, I have the following technical comments responding to the
petitioners' request:
Federal WIlY Ci~ Code
Below are the Federal Way City Code sections applicable to the petitioner's concerns:
(2)
Section 20-2. Purpose.
This chapter is adopted in furtherance of the comprehensive plan of the city. It is hereby
declared that the regulations contained in this chapter are necessary to:
(1) Promote the health, safety, and general welfare in accordance with standards established
by the state and the city;
Promote effective use of land by preventing the overcrowding or scattered development
which would injure health, safety, or the general welfare due to the lack of water
supplies, sanitary sewer, drainage, transportation or other public services, or excessive
expenditure of public funds for such services;
Avoid congestion and promote safe and convenient travel by the public on streets and
highways though the proper planning and coordination of new streets within subdivisions
with existing and planned streets in the surrounding community;...
Provide for proper ingress and egress;...
(3)
(6)
This section finds that the requirements of Chapter 20 are necessary for general safety and
welfare. Particular note should be made of subsection 3, requiring "coordination" of
existing and new streets.
~ ~~~--
EXHIBIT -¡;:
PAGE$ OF q
:{ \~! R!1
. .
c
(
. Section 20-151. Subdivision design
(a) Subdivisions should he designed SO thai traffic is distributed in a logical manner toward
a collector street system, to avoid intrusion ar'" overburdening of residential streets, and
to connect with planned or existing streets.
Streetf should be coordinated with existing intersections to avoid offsetting new
intersections, and should intersect at a 9~gree angle plus or minus five degrees.
Cul-de-sac streets should be no longer than 600 feet.
Blocks should he no longer than 1,200 feet without an intersecting cormector road.
Subdivisions on steep slopes should be designed so that streets are constrocted generally
parallel, rather than perpendicular, to the slope;
Streets should he designed in conformance with adopted standards for sight distance at
intersections, as prescribed in section 22-1151 et seq.
(h)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
~
"Overburdening of residential streets" cited in subsection (a) is defined as exceeding the
traffic volumes for each street classification in the Comprehensive Plan. All streets
abutting and within the proposed Ventana subdivision are ç1assified as local streets. Table
ill-3 in the Comprehensive Plan shows that local streets can be expected to handle up to
1,500 vehicles per day. Based on Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip Generatio1'\, .
a street would have to serve as the sole access of more than 150 single-family homes to
exceed 1,500 vehicles per day. Nothing in the Ventana subdivision proposal would result
in any local street carrying more than 1,500 vehicles per day.
Subsection (a) states that subdivisions should be designed to connect with planned or
existing streets. It should also be noted that the existing cul-de-sac in Viewcliff is shown
on the face of the plat as temporary. It was intended, at the time of plat approval by King
County, that 25th Avenue SW be extended southward. Additionally, requiring 25th
Avenue SW be to the existing plat of View cliff would eliminate the non-conformance of
the existing cul-de-sac in Viewc!iff.
Subsection (d) requires that the block formed by Viewcliff and Ventana streets combined
be no longer than 1,200 feet. To meet this requirement, S 304th Street could be extended
ITom 24th Avenue SW to 25th Avenue SW.
Land Use Goals and Policies of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan
Below are the Comprehensive Plan Goals and policies applicable to the petitioners' issues:
Land Use Goal 3:
Preserve and protect Federal Way single family neighborhoods.
LUP 14:
Maintain and protect the character of existing and future single family
neighborhoods through strict enforcement of the City's land use regulations.
This policy presumes that existing city codes provide standards that serve to
maintain and protect single family neighborhoods. A substantial amount of text in
the Comprehensive Plan reflects principles of nee-traditional neighborhood Ki
EXHIBIT~ ~J ~~
EXHIBIT "2
PAGEJLOF ocr
. .
c
planning. This school of thought suggests that providing a smaller grid of streets
disperses vehicular traffic more effectively, provides shorter walking distances
between origins and destinations that in turn reduces vehicular use, improves air
quality, improves safety, and encourages a feeling of community. Hence, the
- existing code's limits on the length of blocks and cul-de-sacs are intended to meet
the adopted goals and policies.
LUP 17:
Encourage the development of transportation routes and facilities to service
single family neighborhoods. Special attention should be given to pedestrian
circulation.
This policy reinforces the concept of providing multiple paths between destinations
to reduce the negative impacts of auto use and improve pedestrian circulation.
LUP 25:
Encourage the establishment of street patterns and amenities that encourage
walking, bicycling, and transit use.
This policy is also consistent with nee-traditional neighborhood planning and
supports multiple paths between destinations. .
Transportation Goals and Policies of the Federal Wa;y Cofl1Prehensive Plan
The Transportation chapter of the Comprehensive Plan establishes the fuunework for providing a
transportation system (facilities and services) and focuses on actions needed to create and manage
the transportation Înfi1Istructure and services.
Transportation Goal]:
b.
c.
d
Maintain mobility for residents and business through a balanced
integrated system of street alternatives that:
Reduce auto dependency, especially single occupant vehicle use
Support the land use vision and plan
Protect and enhance the environment and quality of life
This goal is consistent with the principles of nee-traditional neighborhood planning.
IPs: Protect neighborhoods from traffic impacts.
This policy is intended to encourage development that channels large volumes of traffic
away fi'om existing development while still providing connectivity between
neighborhoods. The Ventana subdivision's street network would not add significant
volumes of traffic to streets within Viewcliff. The connection to the proposed Ventana
subdivision would provide an alternative vehicle and pedestrain route for the residents of
Viewc1ift'.
Transportation Goal 2:
Provide a safe efficient and economic street ðystem with sufficient
capacity to move people, goods, and services at an appropriate
EXHIBiT
.'~ EXHIBIT C
\Æ:l---- PAGF -1.. OF 4
. -' . .
, . .
c
(
level of service. The City shall develop and adopt policies for the
construction,. reronstruction, maintenance, and preservation of
new and existingfacilities, such as grlT~el and substandard streets.
TP20: Take {If/vantage of opportunities to open new road connections to create route
alternatives, especially in areas with few access choices.
Viewcliff has one source of access, at S 304th Street. By connecting Viewcliff through
Ventana to the plat of Lakota Highlands, Viewcliff will obtain an alternative route.
TP 2J: Enhance trqffic circulation and access with closer spacing of through streets as follCTWs:
a. Arterial streets at least every 1,200 feet in single family zones and every 600 feet
in non-single-jamily zones.
Collector streets every 600 feet in single-jamily zones and every 600 feet in non-
single-jamily zones.
b.
If'this policy had been carried out before and during the platting ofView~conector
streets would be located at SW 300th Street, SW 302nd Street, and SW 304th Street, as
well as 24th Avenue SWand 26th Avenue SW. However, the nearest collector to
Viewcliffis 21st Avenue SW. The plat of View cliff Phase 2 has addressed neighborhood
connectivity by providing a stub street (a temporary cul-de-sac) at 25th Avenue SW.
Connecting the plats of View cliff and Ventana would help meet the policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
TG4: Enhance community livability and transportation by providing a connected system of
bike and pedestrian wqys that is also integrated into a coordinated regional network
TP52: Work to extend the existing system of sidewalks bikewqys, and equestrian ways in the City
to provide safe access to public transit, neighborhood and business centers, parks,
schools, public facilities, and other recreational attractions.
Connecting Viewcliff and Ventana subdivisions will provide alternative routes for vehicles
and pedestrians, thus improving circulation within the vicinity of both subdivisions.
~
The proposed street layout of the Ventana subdivision is consistent with existing codes and
Comprehensive Plan goals and policies.
EXHIBIT
lî~
EXHIBIT .;E
PAGE~OF ~
\
. ~ , ".
c
c
~~
. ~~ERRL
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
Memorandum
TO:
Commander Annette Spicuzza
FROM:
Officer Robert K. Schubert
DATE:
March 3, 1998
SUBJ:
CPTED forVentana
I have looked over the proposed plat ofVentana and have conducted a Crime Analysis-report
fÌ"om our Records files. During the calendar year of 1997 in reporting district 018, which is
bounded by Puget Sound on the north, 21st Ave SW on the east, SW Dash Point on the south
'. and an area parallel to 28th Ave. SW on the west, there were sixty-three reports filed.
I have listed the calls and percentage of each for the given area:
Assault Domestic Violence 9%
Burglary 15%
Misc. Non Criminal 32%
Dru~ 1%
Frnud 1%
Prop. Damage Accident 9%
Recovered Veh. 1%
Theft's 19%
Threatening 1 %
Warranw 5%
In regards to a CPTED impact at this time from the proposed Ventana plat, I do not believe that
this will have a directed bearing on our agency in the beginning. The traffic concerns have been
addressed and the area is single family housing. The impact would be gradual over a period of
time of construction of homes and being occupied.
When construction does begin I would suggest that CPTED be taken into account and the use of
strategic placement of street lighting and signs.
~XHIB!1 ( 6'b~~
RECEIVED BY
COMMUNllY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MAR n 6 1998
EXHIBIT Z-
PAGE.!i.OF q
C'
(
DATE:
June 8, 1998
TO:
Deb Barker, Associate Planner
Lisa Read, Contract Plan Reviewer
FROM:
Rick Perez, City Traffic Engineer ~
SUBJECT:
Plat of Ventana
During the preapplication meeting for the Ventana Subdivision, Public Works staff called out
pedestrian connection connecting 26th A venue SW to proposed 25th Avenue SW. The connection
was intended to provide pedestrian linkage between the proposed subdivisions and the
neighborhood to the west. Right of way improvements along 26th Avenue SW frontage were
waived with the installation of the pedestrian connection.
Based on further review of the existing conditions at the site and in the vicinity, the pedestrian
connection from 26th Avenue SW to 25th Avenue SW may be eliminated for the following
reasons:
L
Unusual topographic or physical conditions preclude the connection of the improvements
as required. Specifically, slopes excess of 40 percent in the area proposed for the
pedestrian connection would create pedestrian corridors with grades which exceed those
established for accessibility.
2.
The pedestrian connection would provide access to a low density residential area that is
unlikely to redevelop with any substantial increase in pedestrian trips.
These two factors combined suggest they such a connection would have infrequent use. If 26th
Avenue SW is ever improved north of the existing paved roadway, pedestrian access between
25th A venue SW and 26th A venue SW can be established northward of the proposed
subdivision, where grades are less steep.
RAP:jg
k:ltrafficldevrevlventana.mem
EXHIBIT
l~t(-C
EXHIBIT AA
PAGE...LOF I
£2 =0G.¥.,
QS8L1J
~
~
~J
0
!::~
!!!W
:cc)
~~
-
----
...-
CD
:r:
x
'..u
\"
. ",;~, ti
::ljj~~~. ,~-.,- :.:%-:; -~ ¥ ~~-~
/-"""-.....~r'ß"~'~--- -Y--':> /-.',_8 ø,.../- "J~#,ØJ,'" r-_--~,..~~""
.....1'/04 Þ17 /:.:;'6' !:IN/O''a't.'7::J.5I'ð''
~TGf7T"".r""'.y--:-~TÞ --".
113fìO.1.30
""'::_" "
. >:;~1~<;>; -
:~;,!,{r:'}- /' z'_-:-~~'::::=~~
...,.~ ,-!-,/:-_Þ". ....,~/~......;.~-s.
~.;.¿.~~ Y.*a ~..z~~~~
"<-~.*-~..,...::" .7 .;;.:~;--;...;::;::;. -:;- ';<;:-7~ z--.~
-~- ~ - ';;<j.;;' oJ "'" ;/:-;::~,?:¿;;~ 1'::::;- ç,; =:.::-
H ,. .."" ..-.~, -:'."/-:> ",:..-.....-"-- '.S> ...-,....... ""--1 .-
, ..,....-Z~',../_~~- -""-f'u..--."... '--.;-,.
-- " -......,..~~ - r"W~""-=> ~ '? -r-- - --'
. .. , .J".J" r -"--,,, _..<J...........
. , {#A.<'.-,."...r- --=' .>u«.,U
, ;.,..LIY.?W:r!J(7;'7/W'C"y,,:y.;¡V
":~l~/~' ...,- ;:~~Jj~
,'>;'iF:"õr~~' ---,', , '--'-,,"jr~
-'~:""""':"':~"'-"-",.-""""-- ",v-r~£í7'-,~~
, O#'JÞ~-=W.r e>roø.tYdF
',,- ..<~ .~-- AUp "';r .r,.........
"'- -#' - ,,-I' 'Y-~", ~ ..... ./~'- J-"".y,- - .
,-,1':~",;~-;::'" ,..- ~=.?J..4'.. ~~~a
.;v'y'-,~ ::::4'J~ "<'ø.r.r'5'~- ø",._rý "..- ..",
"':;;;';~-;:::;/::;~~,..7" -" ~'j"::::":- J"£;:.
,'- -~..... -- J~- - J"'~ ..- :=/ .,../""",
:::::;,t;- 7,J"....:J'Ç ;:::..::-..;;;-y.."'.~....::; ø~.".=-Z/:'r.. 7~:
,""...-'" ~1Y- ...... ",* '~-J7"'"" """...oJ:,.,g Nõ'- .",... ..............
NC/..Lb'://Q5(7
-."r . . .-.-._"...c.....,... -- -.t::.r -~
- ~ '-~ .::ç~..c7'~ ~:::;/"" i;:~$-' k...w-
-J<;J!4.~-Ÿ:~"";.'~ ~;"E'!;;.7~~'-..-:'_~
~P"' .., /~.r ~ 'I'~ ~ "'" 'J" "'!'"....~ ,,-/ ~
.f"yI?/..t.::W;Y~.J'J?;¥ ,
.._,v.,'~ /., ....,oøcl.,... - -ø ~.;.." #."",'" --$ ....~
~~~ :;;;-"'::...~-r- ;;;:;:'-7;" t;, .f'.~L::.. ~:.~
, ..~...7:æ',¿"~f~:.--~.,; ~lt;;~ -:::::~::::~~:-
~. ~~.". '-u;...."." '7_~...,..'r --"""d~;"-,~r
-.,;."""7Z.;5p..v~~/:;-'::~;~'7;.--.:L (~/~;J-o'~
p-,;:;:.;:,..-;ç;:i:r?;::~..r~ of': .ø~,:;;%?: ;r:"-:-;;.
i*";;',:,;,-':'~;:::',.;,..;~ø~~ '7:.~:;'~~:""~
ur.rr~".-"""----"" '.ow ..._~... ...../-~,... .,
'-"""""- ~.r /, .......... ~-..- iØ - .,.. ..- ¿¡."...,..;::.,
.'--,v ---........ ""'- '1,..- '....,0:..£ .,. .....-..-
.7- ~ ",.-,.,-..,,!'t'/, "",-"'-<S"W'J""""J_",'<U
NO/..Ld/êY:/f.E?O'
~~'~~
j' J_'---"";'~~~
- -r.:r Ztr ~ ,...;, ~;; .;t
.;¿:.;~~"":"'#',... "...-,"...:JZ..;'.,f"'"
".~-;::,. 7'-- ~~~ ~ .~~<;¡;..
~- -- --~ H ,.--=_...
.7'ø "..,1'1" ~-:ft" #Þ' ð"j-- ......~~.-'"
"-<?,fð'/2f' .;t't? Uð'..//.:/~ð.5.:J ,
,N
:,':,~,!.,:þ"'~-' ...:.;>".'
~~~.:.:;.:"h~";" '
i
>,¡
~
'r-
I\: ;
\ ~ I
',1, ,"::'.r~ :'("'XN-::~.:TT6'.:lS""
~"1~ ~
'~;.~~i,t " i
~i:h' :>
:, '~~ ~ : ""~J ~~ø..-tl'~-;~ RP ,"'R ~~:::~~~~
(. ~),... ~~.{ --~
,~::~ .~'~ ,JI. :~'i:' .,..,.,- 'fl '.J....,()/ø"""-,,-s,,~: ";"
., ~ ~, " ~ ,<'"-S"~"':;:;.r¡:::: ":':_:ç..:¡Z".:~,:",~~ 7-
t",. ",: ~...,.,.-...~~-....",. """"""""';~.f'-.r---.r,
~ :::: ,oø",,(.,,-N;:':;"fZ.;~::tJi:..;';:"-:Þ;;:.I""~:4.- -:.~::..<z..;
;' ~ ~ :,~ p,., ~""...... ~ ,.,.:...;-- .../' ""J>'" ~..,...." ..<,""'¥ .7
, ~ ;J#-='/""/.J"£;> .l'lY.?iY/?rðJ;><Jc.L.
Jþ"~ I
~~
t
..'
. E'
,?
~~ """
.
;, ~
I
'n'
.:~~!~~
," .
'. ' .' .
f
;:;-:~-- "":-~'7~'~7-«-~"'-d'
,C'
'¿'
.i
é"
'" p <o~ ,.,-,J"?'"-,, -",,-,~,
J7ð"AO'ð'dd&'
'r"Ç"'~7-"<~'"
'NO.L9NfHStfM 'Á.LNfJOD 9NI)I ';W'M'3£H. 'N(,Ç"J.'I NOU:;3S
ël ON ',.::1.=1 /7DM.3:'/11
NWt/4. NWt/4. NE1/4. SEC, 12. TWP, 21N, AGE, 3E.. W,M,
I!h
IB5:i
~~II
f~!i
1Jt ~
sc..u:','
~:
I
~
J
..1
iil
~~ló
--..",~---""-\ -;;r;.~lN'
"""".'~ ._.:m.Ul"""", "
":c" -'-w,,'
....'"
"""
Lort
...........
-"-'
I
~I
I
,!!
280
DA rtJJf lllZY
250. 00
II!!"~
) JJ~~-,
, ,..
T
270
....,..
)" "'~"jf"""'"
~ "",
I ..:eoj~~c>
280
JlO
300, m..r..~
29O11/"l",::~-\
'"._------,-~,~,,~..,' ,
""Jt,..,~ "":
3OO1""~, """"',>
~cc'c~-~-,-,,-~--,:,
2901.
i
,
!/ I
~;
L ~II
I
2801.., "~"'~I"":"""
2701_~~~__JLj.~~¡þ,<~~<;
270
280
270I"""""lt"L"":"""""
....,....~.. """~:.:cC~-'C'C
e ".' :
2801>cc'cc~"=,,: . i"¡""""'"
260
280
280
280
DArtJJf lllZY
265. 00
DArtJJf /lIlY
~
DArtJJf /lIlY
250. 00
DArtJJf lllZY
28D.00
DArtJJf lllZY
-moo--
ì
I
0+00
@ HALF STÆET SECTION
A ""'" ,'-19:<""")
,'."""",,)
0+00
@ HALF STÆET SECTION
B ""'" """1""",)
,'.,0'",.,,)
0+00
@ HALF 8TÆET BEC1ION
E ""'" ,'°1!1:I.....,,)
,'-"""",,)
0+00
@ HALF 8TÆET BECT1ON
C ""'" ':-1!1:I_O
, -"""",,)
0+00
@ HALF STÆET BECT1ON
D """, "'1!1:""")
,'-", "'",)
0+00
@ HALF STÆET SECl1ON
F ""'" '-'20',1"_""', 0
"0""\""'.)
tXHIBI1
J
,
!
.II
I,
I
i
r\
rws cortJf1calo provldos HIO
'OPB/tmonl 0/ HoBllh and /he
)øpatfmonl 0/ DeveIOpmonl and
:nv/ronmønlBl Sarvlcos wfUr
nfonnoUon nocossory 10 oyoluOlo
ioYOlopn ant proposal.. .
<"".'~H.';"".;' OCT 171997
EU:C.DING DEer
KING COUNTY CERTIFICATE OF SEWER AVAILABILITY
ðô not "'H. .n en.. _x
.~ n_.r
RPL='S IW1I:
nœOS!:D uS!:
.ocAT:lDH
Pion"""" ìum 10:
../i
Š'tI
-11
,an.
ð M.
~.81
=-'
51=¡:
5,lIi
I!! flc
g~:
~ð~
7á~t
e--
Q~(
:)J~
-ice\<
f-r-¡
RECE'VED
OCT " 7 "997
n....
0 $u,jJd,jng I'erllltt
0 Short SubcUvldon
m. PreJ,jllltn...y 1'.1. t or I'UD
(J no.one or other
'!!"1'o,"-R.TA F ~A'Dp..,fi&o.¡
1U;";'bFÙ""Jd
t;l<l-ra MIS' "'lL'\ ,¡.. S."\ ,~<I"T'.. <;:"7'
-TA<.'JI"T'::I:>, )E.I"-SLj-~
l.\t..Gh ...p . log&J. 0I..edpt1on U noe"'&J:YJ
. . . . . . . .
..
1.
A,' 0
SEliE II AGENC~ Jl/rOIUlA'UOH
Co..,tI
$ov"" ""vLe. "**" 1>. p"ovLhoi I>y dolo uv"" eoÞAoeUoA OAly to
an axLotLAV d&8 uv... hot ho. th. dto
AAd th. 08"'" .y.t.. hu th. OApAoHy to u"vo tho P"opouol 1108.
01\
h. Œ9 ' Sov... u"vLe. v1.1l nquho AA L..prdvo..oAt to tho uv... o)'ot.. ot.
'-
2.
A. ßJ
oj¡,
b.o
J. A.~
011
b.o
4.
JSl (1) XÒ'!:.
AAoI/o"
het ot' 08""" truAk or l&ttorAl to rueh the dt..
tp (2)
tho eoAOtrueUoA 0' 'A eo11ect.LoA oyoto. on the dtol
enol/or
othor (ducrLbo)
om
Tho oo..or .yat.. iIIIprov...ent J.s Ln COA'O""",,cO with a County approvod oovor
compreho...Lvo plan.
Tho uvo" .y.to.. .I."P"OV...At v.l.11 nqll.l.n A uvor co.p"OhOAdvo
pl..., A.oAd.OAt.
Tho propoud proj oct 10 vLthLn tho eorporAto lL.Lt. ot th. dbtrLct,
or bAo buA VrAAtod BOIIAdAr)' lIovLo" Board approVAl to>: oxtolldoll
ot u>:vlco olltoLdo th. dht>:lct or clt.)'.
AnAoxaUOA 0>: 0110 approvAl v111 bo noccsury to provide u>:vlco.
So>:v.l.co is .ubj.ct to tb. 'ollo"LAg,
COAAOCUOA charvo, '11> U (' "'.l!.(J.J "7"¡:;r-,
c. Oth.>:;
* ::~~~:'A iita~ Othe>: Purveyo>:
I' haroby c.rtlly th.." th. ..bov. sa.er "¡reAcy LAtorm..t.l.oll La "rue. 'l'bJ.s
o.~"'..,,= .~, .. ..,'" ...... ,." ;:6:" " ';Qïk~",-, ,
LakehaveA UtilLty District ~ ~~~
Ac¡enc)' HA.. 'Uc¡n&t.or)' No..
.0>
F279
a.
_!>-,_F~.!..o.!!!~,!!--I.' I
- 01":: "., " n or-.
'tLtlo
'-
a1la
.....
'J,
, ,pt.~SQrølumIO:
@ ,- f'¡ f-'1
KIN.. ..:oUNIY
* Dcpa/ImcIII olDavcloplllClll UId
I!n~ ScMca
IJOO 0akcIdII0 Ayo... SouIhWOll
1IcnÆ~\.,~~~I'
COMMUMIY O~OPMEN¡ UEPP.91MENT
..., r=:r r=:~"E!:)
¡Jt; I 1 ? í99í
",,' .' -.."c ..,n
BUILDING DEPT.
KING COUNTY CERTIFICATE OF WATER AvNft!M1Ilr¥~7
. ox
number
ne..e
a JuJJdjng Perm1t
a short subdJvJdon
¡g PreJJraJnuy PJet or PUD
a Rezone or other
'.r'S WAHl: 1<."""';.""A e (;ITDAARR.'¡
1<!.F<'N~ù-11 AL
'Hat.. a..vieo vill requlre an improv...ont to tho vater ayat.. of,
a (1) foot of vot.. lllAin to roach tho altAI and/or
(¡J(2) tho conat""ction o'f a distribution oyato.. on tho oito, Indlor
a (3) oth.. (d..cr1l>0) ,
1;
1'9 :;
1; ~
5~âI
. B::I
ë I
CI> I,
i"!
;)1
~ð~
!II
:iel
I -
..
',',,'"
:~~;: - ,
:;th,.'vat.. IYlte.. is in confomanco with a County approved vat.. comprobonsi"a pl;"'. -
~1h., i.at.. syat... i1>¡>rovo..int vill requ1ra a vat.. compnhondva pl~ ....nclmant.' -'
"',proPolOd projact is vi thin tho corporoto liraJ.t. of tho district, or has b~on ,_C:
ntad' Bound..y a.vhw Bo..d approval for axtenalon of aorvieo ouuido tho j!J.ab:ict"
-!,;',9lty, or -i~ vithin tho county Approved ao.vlco ana of .~ privat. vat.r purvoyor.,
~~'¡ati~n'~r' Ji¡ui ~pprovai will bo noce..o1')' to provido' .¡'ivic~.
1.1.. , " """, ' ,
¡£~;"'¡0/~~-vÙ~-1'oaVaÙohle at tha rato ofnowand-'¡ura';¡~~'~dJ.ci~t;4¡;Üow at
n,o 10" than 20 pai ....aur.d' at tho no&r..t fire hyclrant 1- Is-a.. foot from .tho/.
I>u;1l,ding/propo..ty (0.. .. lIIA..ked on tho attached IU » I ./ /' - '
¿. ~ PJ:ess":t~¡ r~t Elevation of ~~a~ Pœssure ~ ~, .
f~ ,,'
-"-0 '1.88 than SOO!/pm (app..ox. t¡pJI) 01.88 than 1 hour ..
' 0 SOO to 999 !/PII 01 hour to 2 houri
- 0, 1000 9PII 0" ma... 1'01\ BJ 2 houra 0" 110...
.. 0 Llowt..t of qpII\. 0 ath...' ,
-:0 ca1'C1Ilation of qpII\ (C.......cial Building P.rmita ...qua. flow
, ' tost 0" calculation) ,
Hat.. oyato.. is not capohle of providing fin flov.
"~'~~~:: ='~~:""r;j)~ '
,r,'1'hä D1strict~"..t its sole discretion. - the ht to '- '.
:,"~'!!'I~,"""pac1., t Other Pun>eyor fðc1J.i~.
,I~1¡ereby :certity that thB above water purveyor in-tcrmaUon is true. This
~~\;!",'.',,"'ll bo "ad to' ... y.~, ,
,:x.åkeluoven Qtility District . ' -
'";;~"',,, -Agency NOllIe ory
":;~;;:'¡!;>-Iîl"¡f.M""'~ '7Þ.c.H~I<"r...ù":t. E .. . - - ,-- ~J
,-r,"',-',;e, P,A ¡rtu a.
~~~~~> ~ /17
,;t.B'll'l.c, , -
- -- ,---------
'"
Au¡'-LJ-~~ HI 4:UU fl.1
LA!\EHA~E/t UTILITY DIST.
(
FAX /to.
206946955l
~~],
f. t
~
hl'lLITY DIST1iíé1
316271st Avenue South. P.O. Box 4249
FcderalWay, WA 98063
FAX TRANSMITTAL
DATE:
TO:
August 20, 1998 C'Rf:.'7EJJ" 1JIZllif)
Ms. Deb Barker FROM:
COlIUttunilY Development
City ofFedcral Way
MæyE. YoWIg
Development Services Supervisor
Phone No.: (253) 946-5400
Fax No. (253) 529-4081
FAX NO.:
(253) 661-4129
TOTAL
PAGES:
1 (including this cover page)
COMMENTS:
The developer extension agreement for the plat ofVentana has expired. The developer will need to reapply
to proceed with this project.
l6b~
. If you did not receive all pages or received this fax in error, ~~~~TII.(Z53)946~5400-.----
EXHIBIT ~ .
PAGE~OF ...I:.-
08/21/98 FRY 16: 55 [TX/RX 'NO 5573]
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF VENTANA
Federal WI{V File No. SUB97-0005
THESE ARE EXHIBITS
2 THROUGH 7
OF THE
HEARING EXAMINER EXHIBITS
TO HIS REPORT AND DECISION.
(
Chris Carrel
('
30234 24th Ave. S.w. Federal Way. WA 98023
Phone: (253) 874-8270 Fax: (253) 874-8599
Email: ccarrel@Wolfenet.com
January 31, 1999
Department of Community development
City of Federal Way
33530 First Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003
Re: Preliminary Plat of Ventana
Please enter these comments into the official record of the Hearing Examiner for the
February 2"", 1999 hearing regarding the preliminary plat of V entana. I own a house near
the comer of 24th Ave. SW and S. 304th S1. and have lived in the neighborhood for all of
my 34 years.
I oppose connecting the Ventana subdivision to 25th Ave. SW. I believe this action is
unnecessary and will degrade the quality of life in our neighborhood by creating higher
traffic volumes on poorly designed streets where traffic speed is already a neighborhood
concern.
The City Traffic Engineer provides several reasons why the streets should be connected
at 25th Ave. SW, including a smaller grid,ofstreets that would encourage pedestrian and
bicycle use, encourage a feeling of community, enhance traffic circulation and increase
route alternatives to View Cliff.
These are laudable goals but unfortunately the proposed connection would not benefit our
neighborhood. View Cliff residents have long been concerned about high-speed traffic on
their streets, primarily 24th Ave. SW. This concern is evidenced by a 1996 petition
submitted to the City Traffic Engineer in which more than 90 percent of the residents of
24'hAve. SW requested speed bumps on 24th Ave. SW because of a chronic problem with
speeding traffic. The City Traffic Engineer has never responded to that petition.
I have witnessed one accident due to high speed in front of my house in the past year. My
neighbors on the comer of 241h Ave. SW and S. 304'h S1. have witnessed several more in
that same time frame. Accidents aside, I have seen far too many people speed up and
down the street in front of my house. Many of these people are not neighborhood
residents.
High speeds are encouraged by the substandard street design of 24th Ave. SW and 25th
Ave. SW, roads that were built in the 19605. The streets are wide with no centerline, no
sidewalks, gentle curves, and generally feature long stopping sight distances. Drivers tend
to travel faster on roads that are wide, curve gently, and allow the driver to see a longer
distance ahead.!
Moreover, this type of road design creates a psychological environment that encourages
speed.
I Wolfgang S. Homburger, editor. Transponation and Traffic Engineering Handbook. 2'" edition. Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs. NJ. 1982.
~XHIB'T l1 the~.r;.~
~~I~?
Ventana Subdivision C
January 31,1999
(
Chris Carrel
Page 2
"A wide pavement exerts a strong influence over a motorist. First, it puts
someone in a car or truck at a greater distance from objects on either side.
Looking at objects that are farther away creates the feeling that a vehicle is
moving more slowly and prompts a motorist to compensate by speeding
up. Second, by making the motorist survey a broad field in front of his
vehicle, a wide pavement provides an assurance that he is in command of
that field, which in turn induces him to increase his speed." 2
Even drivers who practice safe driving are tempted to speed on streets such as this
because the street design encourages it. I witness this on a daily basis as drivers passing
my house at the south end of 24th Ave. SW, through a stretch of the street with a long
sight distance, invariably surpass the speed limit as they travel by my house.
Adding the connection at 25th Ave. SW will allow more drivers entry into View Cliff,
adding traffic volume. Many of those entering through 25th Ave. SW will be channeled
out through 24th Ave. SW, past my house, almost certainly exacerbating the sg,eeding
problem there. Connecting 25th Ave. SW to the Ventana Plat will lengthen 25 Ave. SW,
thereby encouraging greater speed through this area and creating a speeding problem that
doesn't currently exist.
In addition, the cul-de-sac at the end of 25th Ave. SW features a neighborhood basketball
hoop that has been there since the early 19705. I personally played hundreds of pick-up
games there myself. This hoop was built by neighbors and is maintained by current
residents. It provides recreational opportunities for children within the neighborhood.
Without it, many would have to travel down to Adelaide Elementary School for a public
accessible basketball hoop. This hoop would be eliminated by the street connection,
thereby ending nearly three decades of neighborhood recreation.
The connection will burden poorly designed streets with additional car traffic,
exacerbating speeding problems and threatening neighborhood safety. The longer street
will also create a speeding problem on 25th Ave. SW. Destruction of the basketball court
will remove a long-lived neighborhood recreational amenity.
Therefore, the connection will result in a degradation of the neighborhood's current
quality of life, contrary to city Land Use Goal 3 ("Preserve and protect Federal Way
single family neighborhoods.") and Land Use Policy 14 ("Maintain and protect the
character of existing and future single family neighborhoods through strict enforcement
of the City's land use regulations") and Transportation Policy 5 ("Protect neighborhoods
from traffic impacts.")
The City Traffic Engineer argues that the connection at 25'. Ave. SW will encourage
alternatives to automobile traffic. This is doubtful. "The most important factor for
pedestrians on the street is the speed of vehicles. High-speed traffic is intimidating for
pedestrians because it increases road noise and shortens reaction times for drivers.
Drivers are less likely to yield for pedestrians and, when collisions occur, serious
pedestrian injuries are more likely to result.")
The prime detriment to pedestrian and bicycle movement in View Cliff is the unsafe
conditions fostered by the design of View Cliffs streets not the lack of a connection
between View Cliff and Lakota Highlands.
When I bicycle with my children or take my family on a walk, I am very concerned about
traffic speed and the lack of sidewalks. Many of the parents of young children in the
2 Conservation Law Foundation, Take Back Your Streets: How to Protect Communities from Asphalt and
Traffic. May 1995.
'Washington State Energy Office. Municipal Strategies to Increase Pedestrian travel. P. 7.1994.
. EXHIBIT2~-t1,e liE. r~vf
p~-oz..~3
Ventana Subdivision (
January 31, 1999
(
Chris Carrel
Page 3
neighbomood that I have spoken to, feel the same way. Because the connection of the
View Cliff to Ventana at 25'0 Ave. SW will likely increase traffic and speeds on
substandard streets, exacerbating unsafe conditions, the connection will likely create a
further impediment to pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
In addition, while the connection would provide an additional automobile alternative, it
would not, in fact, provide an alternative pedestrianlbicycle rout Ventana's proposed
street system corresponds roughly to a footpath/bikepath that currently connects foot and
bike traffic to Lakota Highlands. As a child, I helped build that path and I know from
firsthand experience that this path serves the neighbomood's bicycle and pedestrian
needs.
Ventana can be developed while maintaining a pedestrian-bike connection into the new
development, where pedestrians and bicyclists would fmd modem, pedestrian- and
bicycle-friendly roads. However, that connection does not as a matter of course have to
be an automobile connection as well.
Further, the city's Natural Environment policy 2 from the comprehensive plan aims to
"preserve and restore ecological functions and enhance natural beauty by encouraging
community development patterns and site planning that maintains and complements
natural land fonns. Channeling additional traffic through View Oiff via 25'" Ave. SW
will create new hazards for resident wildlife of Poverty Bay Park, an undeveloped city
park west of 25th Ave. SW.
This park is home to a rich variety of wildlife, including but not limited to bald eagles,
northern goshawk, deer, raccoon, sknnks, and porcupines. Foxes and coyotes are also
likely residents of this park, though adequate surveys haven't been conducted to identify
all the park's wildlife. Traffic is one of the major threats to wildlife, especially large,
wide-ranging mammals like deer, which have been observed by residents on 24th Ave.
SW. By increasing traffic on 25'0 Ave. SW along the park's eastern boundary, the city
will be encouraging development patterns that conflict with the park's ecological
functions.
While increasing connections between developments and providing shorter street grids
may in general be a good thing for neighborboods it cannot be a one size fits all
prescription. In the fmal analysis, it must make sense for the specific neighborbood
within which it is proposed. This is not the case in View Cliff, where connectivity would
spill more traffic on streets that do not meet city road design standards.
The Ventana connection at 25th Ave. SW threatens the quality of life of the View Cliff
neighborhood without providing sufficient counterbalancing benefits. It will increase
threats to public safety through increasing traffic and speeds along substandard streets,
eliminate recreational facilities, and discourage foot and bicycle traffic. In addition, it
will pose additional threats to resident wildlife of the Poverty Bay Park.
For these reasons, this portion of the Ventana Preliminary Plat should be denied.
Thank you for your attention to my concerns.
Sincerely,
tL c. cJ
Chris A. Carrel
EXHIBIT 2-6ó-/i¡eH-.ç:.~
- - f~3~3:>
c
c
David L. Halinen, P.E.
HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S.
A Professional Service Corporation
Bellevue Place I Seafirst Building
10SOONE 8th, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(425) 454-K
Fax (425) 646-3461
MEMORANDUM
Date:
February 2, 1999
David L. Halinen ~ 1if---
Stephen K. Causseaux, Jr.
City ofFederai Way Hearing Examiner
From:
To:
Subject:
Proposed Plat of"Ventana"
Tbe Applicant's Proposed Revisions to Certain of the City Staff-Recommended
Conditions of Approval
I represent Wellington-Morris Corporation ("WMC"), the developer-applicant of the above-
referenced proposed plat. WMC hereby requests that the following revisions be made to certain of
the City Staff-recommended Conditions of preliminary plat approval (with the changes illustrated by
red-lining and strike-out) with the reason(s) for each change noted as follows:
Condition 1
Because the plat proposed to redirect surface water runoff from the northeast basin
into the western basin (the net result of which is an increase in the md-size of the
plat's westernmost drainage basih, Ai) .cqui.(,d by 11.(. Fubl;" Wolk~ Di.cctol), and
prior to constructing the plat improvements, the conveyance system downstream of
this basin shall be analyzed in sufficient detail to insure that the increased volume of
water discharged from this basin can be accommodated. A level three downstream
analysis shall be performed from the plat to Puget Sound for engineering plan review.
Additional hydrologic/hydraulic analysis shall be required if the level three analysis is
not sufficient to determine all drainage problems.
Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT
§l ~M.F-
p~1 ,3>
c
c
;...",v..,...':'..t.. ........':'5Sa') tv ..';1;15,,1(. MI ;dGhl;fi.....1 Gv......y""e<. f>."bk.ns, ..1.(.(1.....
GxiSb.'ð en .~t¡ìl5 hv... II.... pltd'& ..1.......10.,........1, & ;d':'IIi£....:I du.;"g ~ng;.Ie<..;..g piA..
.....;....., COo> . "'Iu;'....:1 by tI.... Publ;" '.Yo.L.~ D;.G.:.lv.. E..~Ie."";"ð "I',uv..d ~1,aII..vt b...
g.....("d ;f;t;~ da"...';.."..1 tl.4ll'tUl'vsGd "';(;ð"t;OIl;S ..ot "d'-' uat(. 10 aJd."ss the.
impaas vf(he. I'.vj......t.
Reason for Change(~:
The word "real" has been stricken ITOm the first paragraph because it adds nothing to the
meaning while the phrase "as required by the Public Works Director" has been stricken because the
Public Works Director did not require the drainage basin modification but, rather, approved a
variance request for the modification.
The applicant proposes substituting Condition 3 of the approved variance (see the October
1, 1998 letter fi"om the Public Works Director, a copy of which is included as Exhibit K to the Staff
Report) for this condition's second paragraph. The applicant contends that the variance condition's
language more equitably addresses the subject of potential downstream improvements and that the
original second paragraph set forth in the Ventana preliminary plat Staff Report is too rigid in relation
to its requirement that "[t]he applicant shall be required to construct all improvements necessary to
mitigate all identified conveyance problems, whether existing or resulting fi"om the plat's development
. . . ." Depending upon the nature and circumstances of existing downstream conveyance problems,
the City or other property owners or developers may fairly have some responsibility for sharing in the
expense of remedying such problems.
Condition 4
The final plat drawing shall establish the open space in an open space tract to be
owned in common and maintained b ro ert owners of the proposed subdivision
and prohibiting removal or disturbance of landscaping within the tract,
except as necessary for maintenance or replacement of existing plantings and as
approved by the city. Additional vegetation may be located in open space(s) and
Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE) tracts to meet the MDNS conditions as
approved by the city.
Reason for Changers):
The applicant wishes to have the option of setting up a homeowners' association for the
Ventana subdivision and having it own and maintain the open space tract.
Condition 6
Page 2 of 3
EXHIBIT
.3 6b -thtL f+-E
'p~ 2-ëß-3>
(
(
u.... of .cgcl"l;uu, m.d t<'Atu..ål.GAlhlCht.
Reason for Change(s):
The original condition seems too vague. To address the underlying concern, the applicant has
had the geotechnical engineering firm Terra Associates prepare the attached "Tiered Rockery
Section" design detail sheet to set forth a specific design solution that is acceptable to the applicant.
Condition 7
~e,!l.Pl!~~~'~~i~~' develop written p:~~edures ~?,!~form pers?nnel wo~king on the
site tiJ1~Ç jþe þ!t\m¡¡jalerteè-to-the possibilIty that (Il~rchaeologlcal remams could be
exposed during construction;-that ~D}.!:evidence ofg1!the remains can include
concentrations of organic material, shell, fire modified rock, burned or oxidized
sediments, bone or lithic, and ~g~"that should remains be exposed, personnel must
foUow specific procedures to notifY the Washington State Department of Archaeology
and Historic Preservation, the City of Federal Way, and archaeologist. The written
procedures shall be reviewed and approved by the city prior to beginning
construction.
Reason for Change(s):
Clarification.
Condition 8
To provide a safe route of travel for school children, the applicant shall install aîî
1~¡mtfP~V~~ pedestrian p~mW~Ycon;dor from the subject site, west along the
southern side of SW 304th Street to Adelaide Elementary School, subject to review
and approval by the Public Works Director.
Reason for Change(Ù
Clarification.
Some or all of these requests may be further addressed during the preliminary plat hearing today.
Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT
¿ ~ --f1.-e. H- k
~ $06 3-
(
(
I
~
I
/
ST1I\ICI\Ik
FIlL
/
FIRM UIIOISIIJRB[D SOQ. TO
BE VEI!IFIm BY CE:cm:CIINICAL
ENGINŒR
NOT TO SCALE
NOTE:
,. ROCKERY CONSTRUCTION TO FOlLOW ROCK WAIl. CONSTRUCTION GUIDEUNES
AS ISSUED BY ASSOCIATED ROCKERY CONTRACTORS (ARC).
2. LOWER LWO COURSES OF ROCK SHALL BE MINIMUM 3 AND 2 \.tAN SIZE
ROCKS. RESPECTIVELY.
3. KE'MAY SHOULD BE SLOPED DOWN TOWARDS FACE BEING PROTECTED.
- TERRA
"~.'1 . .. ASSOCIA rES
. ~eclm~1 ~~nb
TIERED ROCKER'!" SECTION
VENTANA
FEDERAL WAY. WASHINGTON
Proj.No. 3686- t
f:l--L r:
EXHIBIT '::--. /' .6[)-f1-v /ht::
(
c
f'f"b. 7,
1"
'" :
CedE"'d.' W¿w He,3t-ina Examiner' Mr, ste~n Caussedux.
r~e ,
Ventana Subdivision street olan as submitted.
We. the citizens ot Viewclitf a's 1& 11 are reauestina that yOU recommend
to the Federal WaY City Coueil that a variance be aranted reaardina the
connectina ot 75th AVe SW from Vieweliff to Ventana. We as a community
feel that the Federal Way City Code Section 20-151 subsections a&c are
contrary to the desires of the residents of Viewcliff and do not increase
the safety of the residents. Continuina 25th Ave SW will areatlv alter
the Dualitv of life Viewcliff residents have enjoyed to date.
Ùt!1 concern5 dre'
V,'.hic'lE' tr"",Yilr' on 75Lrl AVE' SW
7,
Children's safety (no sidewalks in Viewcliff)
,) .
C,t-lme
We aocreciate your atention to our concerns and welcome an open dialoaue
wi th YOU,
Sincerely,
~~~
enc
I-=: '" s
EXHIBIT t;;X, 5~fu [t,e-
~l õ1ì o¡
(
('
January 21,1998
Subject;
Petition to the city of Federal Way City
Council:
We the following, all residents of VIEWCLIFF subdivision,
bordering on the north of the proposed VENTANA subdivision,
hereby petition and request that 25th. Ave SW, currently
ending in a cul-de-sac in VIEWCLIFF, not be connected into
the proposed VENTANA subdivision. 25th Ave SW should be
allowed to remain as it is, a 'dead end' in the VIEWCLIFF
subdivision.
VIEWCLIFF has been in existence since 1960. Access has
always been from SW 304th Street ONLY, and has never been a
problem.
Crime in VIEWCLIFF has increased in the past few years with
breaking into cars, theft of electronic equipment, threatened
assau1 t to a homeowner, theft of a mans business tools, to
name a few instances. Traffic is currently a concern with
several young people driving at excessive rates of speed
through the neighborhood which is a concern to all,
especially families with small children. Opening up 25th.
Avenue SW will only increase traffic though VIEWCLIFF.
Opening up 25th Ave SW will generate more traffic, not so
much from the residents of VENTANA, as using 25th through
VIEWCLIFF would be out of their way for access to their
homes, but from casual traffic that has no need to be in
VIEWCLIFF. Additional traffic into our neighborhood will
disturb the quality of life we now enjoy and will expose us
to more potential criminals, speeding and safety threats to
all, especially children. Crime has already become a problem
as stated above and documented in Federal Way Police records.
Access for emergency vehicles is not a concern. VIEWCLIFF
has existed with one entrance-exit for approximately 38 years
with no access problem. We have no concern for having SW
304th the only access to our neighborhood.
EXHIBIT
tS ð(; -f'lr¿ ~ . C
'2- rib q
(
(
WE THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTS OF VIEWCLIFF PETITION AND REQUEST
THAT 25TH AVE SW NOT BE EXTENDED FROM VIEWCLIFF INTO AND
CONNECTED WITH THE PROPOSED 25TH SW IN THE VENTANA
SUBDIVISION.
Name/printed Signatu e Address Phone
RoBI:"tõ r::;ro/..J<s.".:,tf - ).'U¡91 ;;J.<I~"" ItUb- <.U(;Hi)f381c.."2.~
-"7frñ:.T,¡T77"":fDYfJ/Z:Y;- !.ãr5".r--' - ~\171t~-1"!fþ~-,P
--'-----__-_,Jum ---_Z~ ~-1.J._-j..,;.2.o;u-""'.2f!10
~.J.J:pJ~- 3p..aL.2- - 'J!~--:t.;¡nj.r¥-=IJ.7J;'
~arOLL!:\.I.1 r: - .!J () ~ tJ:. = d.!f.11l £l!I ~-~rs J,3 oS" j.l S.3ß.:_CfS:>7
~~»~:Ñ.ü.~~ - ?àQ.;":l~~~\2.L'i:""":_~7~:.5a&\
F-!!:Ií ~Ü¿'- 1;;t1.!!:'..!"-'" .!.:!'!. '::. - ~f2G!O- 1-:.!!!f - ".11 '£.!" - ~~.::.- f! ~ ~ £H.::. ':. L4.: Y ¥
æ"!1-""""~-~~-~'m-:" ---~---
,-LS£c.~'1D ..:J1lf21_7--A¥!'.fiJj.~.J.L ":I 'Ja/=I.i9!i
~~~~---- ---~~~~~ -- l2q~o7
--r~£:~-Ž=-- -- -d~!.~~-~-9.!~ .~(~¿~~~~~
~t~r-~~ - - ~~_7-.eD=-Z:~7!~~9ß"2"7"O7~
~~~;.;.;'~~~~~~~,.- 07,-,
~ .J:t~~ - - - - 3.ø.u. ~ .ltsnJ!.l~C2£ä.62 ø --t) :7(.4
7-tt/;~~~- - -- __3~~:!.L_Z;£~- -~~~~':~b
__'UL%d;:J:!'fE--- - --~--~.¿~- '¿,-.(l¡)-~..f.Jð"-O7O<f
~~'i[~~- __===It===~======~~~-b~<¡(.,
~~-- -~~~-6t14.~.61L.L_~m-¿;,¿.f'7
-~J2HI:II- - - ~-J;EtT5:.:J~a: -__.íl.~:::_e1 :-..5-
-T.~~~~ ~-- ":1"4l«--J/JB.l- ___3",11._~ --_____z.5;'::.~::4~ '
~TIT~l~:ð,!>.N :d;¡t¿~.,~:w.d¡A ",:___gj)Eg~_-t'.!.~_"¿----W-~-:--c!i-<t"Zï 7
"':_.lli....."'l.Þ~ ~ ~-_. ~25P-..\I..I.~~---~~=~_L-_Q.7.29
_.:r~j~_~L- --- -~_!ã~-~~.tir_--~"':_~.:.{XJj..?
--tl~'!:~.J....1hJh~"l.- - 2:22-2J~~~_.l.Í~:LL'L':.'U1o1
~~~...t:I.Jb.l1.1J.....~- - ~J:..3_.5.Yd_.1Q~-:ih_l.-2¿::'~7'i.~7J~
- .l'Ld:1:III,,'L__- -~2-t~~~~--__~~3.:..1R:Qnl
....I..\4Le.....~. i\l~~e.... . ';"'\..~_'L'L...k'i._~-~---~~2-t...l~.J~J3
~£ _H,['t.'t.1.!:tJb:t..-~--_:.. ~,{,l -
_~~_i~~- ~~!_-- - ___29'~~_~_-~~-_____=9_~~iL-
£¡yy '¡;T~ ...,~~ , I/> ~ .,v .r.w ",,1 06",....,.0
=~-Ÿ'9'~=~;;~~=------ - - - =_29.k~:?:;'~~:;:~;::==-i£i-=f~!~
~~~~ ~-=£:---~:Bti~~==~1~l~~
--~ . .1!t~- ~ 3.fi'iÞl'l.!jfÚlpJ__dl.5ìßJ.Æ-.../ß.;I
-- &'L_;.__lfi.!.4:"1:_- ~" __~.!l=-':"~::_---~.. _-r--~2.:.2.L'.:.!:!,,-7
r/'../ L77'aJ-z.. "'ð~~-ouL:t"'I'""u<L5tu ...,-~-I7'1."'_"dL1...,
....o.._--~'-,----- - -- - """,,'p"<;Z_':T";--::;.Iiõ,-:.---~-:'(""~""J
. ~~\."::I , ~~~~_a5:?>..::~L.,,\:;-'\.'ìl>D
- ~ - - .:?.I:Q3'i_~-~ ~.Àì..'\..~'l ~ö
- 'lJ~~~¡;T;--' ~-- ~~.l-5'::k_:t&)____253:...J.J'i.-.ßi'1 i
- . . K.J:.fit_.LJLf<.Q.../L1I -" -- -- _-:3.I22.Cl.L~~!::_>1r'~.h.'¿:..._~~=.!¿.J - þJ I
_~L~§__~~.!tJ_~_-'L -- '---~?::5_1f.2C~~~:.?Yl___~2J..:.~t'i"ff.liJ
EXHIBIT
~~~ ~f ~
S 6bq
,
(
"
c
WE THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTS OF VIEWCLIFF PETITION AND REQUEST
THAT 25TH AVE SW NOT BE EXTENDED FROM VIEWCLIFF INTO AND
CONNECTED WITH THE PROPOSED 25TH SW IN THE VENTANA
SUBDIVISION.
Name/printed Signature Address Phone
~!!!_-~J!:f.~l;.~---:~-- 1¿¡I'¡fL4f!!:.-1!J;~~____f!1ff':~!!-':¡ I'll
c..:<;./;;~IJ:::i2_@~VJ.- 3CJ2....<t':fT::.:2...-Z::¡ç- (K-6ú.J.ÞIf2a:i# ¡-3?a3
O~__~lL <22_.:J.'l.:L:.¿t¿_- ~i5æel¡¡3_-M-J -38'33
li~fE_~J..j-.!'~-""_:.._-~ - ---_:tt.~':L~~~~~-_:z.s,3.:.ß.#i.:::"t1177
~t!:!t...Ll:..!:k-.!.(5I~--ifÓJl:=; . ~-__Z!.i'£:<Æi_;¿,,--:'L1:/__~~:"----_d£Lr::!~- 98-71-
.B....ó':~Jl----Xj.. __-.3Ac.ð.L3...'LiJd...s.IoL____.2SJ-~ÜB /I
~4"1!J1..F....1 -" - ~!.~.-a$..A.&,-~-~--:5'.-~~=.1!Z'¥-õl.7'.:t.
~~~ - - -~..D2.:i.~~--~-~.fl.=~;1J.o~ð
~d~~_:::_:. :--~i~~:::::::gf=~œ
~~.uÞ~- - - -- 1:12.Q3L---~"------§:-~~
_9D-1tL._-f~---- . . -'- -----~'1'l..r:..ÆI!!s1.P..L~J!<. f.-. --R. -~:f~~. rL::~ZIO
f?Jèo.wJ.t£J......i:1r:.:..._...,f; - - ---~'Y.!J.s:.,¿...~~L't:'L_- ;;-~~"-C--¡ C
.M~-J:t!.:¡.~t~~ /' - -----~~"'i~~.&~~~-- ~..)X~'i-p:ßÎ
.tl.-...- ~- - y- -...4. -h ~- -'1!:1..:: ~L~~ ~ - ~~_.?;. <:::-:_'-(~ ~~ ~ §':"1 -::",3e:.¡
I . 'l .
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
----------------~--------------------------------------------
.:~~~:~---~~~--------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
~ ::.::;-.-
'"
",It--.
EXHIBIT~
Lf 6b q
c C
~E THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTS OF VIEWCLIFF PETITION AND REQUEST
THAT 25TH AVE SW NOT BE EXTENDED FROM VIEWCLIFF INTO AND
CONNECTED WITH THE PROPOSED 25TH SW IN THE VENTANA
SUBDIVISION.
Name/printed Sign~ Address Phone
~==~~~~=~~~==========~~~==:=- ~~ 7 -S-s;;¿/
-------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT
tiôù {!ell-of -
- -cç; ~ c;¡
( (
WE THE FOLLOWING RES1DENTS OF VIEWCLIFF PETITION AND REQUEST
THAT 25TH AVE SW NOT BE EXTENDED FROM VIEWCLIFF INTO AND
CONNECTED WITH THE PROPOSED 25TH SW IN THE VENTANA
SUBDIVISION.
Name/printed Sig~~ure Address Phone
Ct¡( U f( I ¡J -<........- >- 0 "¿ 0 ( -¿ ÿ /r-, .3 7 c.¡ >' ú .;,7"-
~--~--r/".X. -- - --.- -----:!r:~- -y-:"27r~ëZ.;.~-. -?$"-r.T
..\....~~--- --;;J~ - --_'7'~.rfr..-£_-:-ç-...._4..L"t. 4oS~
--/L£$~--- - - ---- - ~ -LL.,')~--fP-~~-~~-1 ç~s
EXHIBIT
g~~ 4.(Ç
&~1
( C
WE THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTS OF VIEWCLIFF PETITION AND REQUEST
THAT 25TH AVE SW NOT BE EXTENDED FROM VIEWCLIFF INTO AND
CONNECTED WITH THE PROPOSED 25TH SW IN THE VENTANA
SUBDIVISION.
Name/I(rinted Si~~~~ L.. Address V- Phone
:2.11~-!J - 6-Q~ i toe - _tA 1L.1J {p-J.11J.liJ;L - - QD ~ 22 _?~ - - S~L - - - 'M:l ~
"V~;;;.::. -i!::- -- - - - - ~ --------- --~ 'i.~ ç '-z.:ïIl--;J------U1i-;-£"i"ç 1
~-~~~--~----------------~-------~-~---
EXH'B'T~l~ If,~~
f-tDq
( (
WE THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTS OF VIEWCLIFF PETITIÒN AND REQUEST
THAT 25TH AVE SW NOT BE EXTENDED FROM VIEWCLIFF INTO AND
CONNECTED WITH THE PROPOSED 25TH SW IN THE VENTANA
SUBDIVISION.
Name/printed Signature Address Phone J
Ii.q~..fiti£.lLUYf!..Œ.~---- ~L-4._3..CiZJ~~!I:t!~. ~_~:!~~3.r- 7't,~ 0
-:::!Ji¡Jt:k-tV-_I:?Jdjl/r~ ~XZ:--~.Æ.t.2.~1!!1 ___.25~%3.?-'ï,", 7'
C!Jf!..k._S:...~§7'p.:o~__- "_¿. -----_____~1~-:t_~"""_~W::~--------8'..?8-o.3 7(
EXHIBIT
f?~-fk /t.e
1) 1/~
(
. WE THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTS OF VIEWCLIFF PETITION AND REQUEST
THAT 25TH AVE SW NOT BE EXTENDED FROM VIEWCLIFF INTO AND
CONNECTED WITH THE PROPOSED 25TH SW IN THE VENTANA
SUBDIVISION.
(
Name/printed
Signature
Address
Phone
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
WE THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTS OF VIEWCLIFF PETITION AND REQUEST
THAT 25TH AVE SW NOT BE EXTENDED FROM VIEWCLIFF INTO AND
CONNECTED WITH THE PROPOSED 25TH SW IN THE VENTANA
SUBDIVISION.
Name/printed Signature! ~/ Address Phone
,--'J.Æ rllIA '" j) £L.. '¡;¡""!"" L '- - -~ ~ ~.D.~ ~.! L - ...:3p~~ Q - ¿£ :!~-~ !? L -
===================================================~á~£:J, 7 - if 9þ
EX\-l\B\1~
~ 1 c¡
c
Febru<C' 2, 1999
To The Attention of:
Deb Barker, Associate Planner of Federal Way, and
stephen Causseau, Hearing Examiner of "Ventana Subdivision.
I make the appeal for our two-block neighborhood on 25th Avenue, S.W.,
that it remain a dead-end street, rather than 25th Avenue, S.W. be extended
into the "Ventana Subdivision Development"': for.the following reasons:
Disruption of Neighborhood Character:
1. Living here since 1974, the neighborhood has known each and all
their neighbors, and were aware of the comings and goings in our
neighborhood. I made it a point to keep an eye out for the grade-
school children's safety coming home from school.
2. The end of the road, closest to the development site has been a
playground area for our tots to teens. This recreational area
will be lost if ~e are connected to the Subdivision.
S.'tJ.
3. with the present thinking and planning of 24th Avenues, and 25th
Avenue, S.W., the picture becomes an ideal setting for a speed
runway for cars, motorcycles and motor bikes. There will be many
late-night and early-moring disturbances made by those who .~ll
take advantage of a speed-way like this.
4. Because this wooded area is a form of water shed and holding of
soil/ground, with the trees and their root system, how will the
underground seepage and run-off of water affect those of us living
around and below the Subdivision, when the trees and their root
systems have been removed? When living in Kelso, Washington, years
back, we experienced flooding in our basement and settling of the
house', foundation each Spring from the underground water flow and
seepage.
5. Sincerely, I believe the future residents of the homes abutting
25th Avenue, S.W., will apprÿ~~~te knowing they are living at the
end of the road, as we do.for safety it provides for all concerned.
l\ tdú',,- C(uv'1L
EXHIBIT
,d í -rk- 4L-. ~
PUf l~{
(
RECEIVED
(
J¡H! ;1 :'j;c'J9
CiTYC'--
CITYO. ..
- .=:CE
,LWAY
29847 24Th Ave. S.W.
Federal Way, WA 98023-2300
January 18, 1999
Department of Community services
City of Federal Way
ATTN: Mr. Stephen Causseaux, Hearing
33530 First way south
Federal Way, WA 98003
Examiner
preliminary Plat of Ventana
Dear Mr. Causseaux:
The proposed Ventana subdivision borders the view cliff
subdivision on our south border. Part of the Ventana
proposal includes connecting 25Th Ave S. W. from Vent ana into
view Cliff.
Of the fifty property owners in view Cliff, only one
desires this connection to occur. Our petition, reflecting
97% of the View Cliff residents opposed to connecting 25Th.
Ave. S. W. from Ventana to View Cliff, was presented to the
Federal way city Council in March of 1998.
view Cliff representatives have met with Mr. cary Roe,
Public Works Director, Ms Deb Barker, Assistant Planner, Mr.
Rick Perez, Traffic Engineer, as well as Mr. Gregory Moore,
Director of community Development Services in follow-up
meetings subsequent to our presentation to the City Council
to appeal that 25Th. Ave. S. W. not be connected into view
Cliff.
While the survey of October 19,1964 notes the 25Th Ave.
S. W. cul-de-sac in view cliff a "Temporary turn-a-round to
become void on extension of 25Th. Ave. S. W.", this was a
county stipulation. As we are now a City we ask this
notation be removed by the City of Federal way & that the
25Th. Ave. S.W. cul-de-sac in view Cliff remain as it is &
has been for approximately 35 years.
We additionally ask that S.W. 304Th street never be
extended from 24Th Avenue S.W. to 25Th Ave. S.W. on the
viewcliff-Ventana border & wording to that effect be placed
in the City's records.
(C@[P1(
EXHIBIT --==r~ ~.t ~
--"" r':..P I ff/--. '2 /
(
(
Preliminary Plat of Ventana (2)
I am enclosing copies
and appeals to document
connection does not occur.
that is a valuable feature
drastically reduced should
occur.
of our petition, various letters
our concern that this street
Our peaceful quality of life,
of our neighborhood, will be
this un-necessary connection
Robert F. Jones
0210
?J(Jd-
Diane Ray
Dale Kure
253 838 0809
(
(
EXHIBIT
1.üfJ~~,e
'2. 8f> -Z~
('
\
c
March 03, 1998
~
To:
The Federal Way City Council
From:
The residents of View Cliff
Subject:
Petition to not continue 25Th Ave. SW from the
proposed Ventana development into View Cliff.
Presently, 25Th Ave. SW ends in a cul-de-sac in View Cliff.
There are a total of 54 lots in View Cliff, 4 are not
developed. Of the 50 owners, we were unable to contact 7.
Of the 43 owners contacted 'with our petition, 42 or 97.67%
are opposed to opening 25Th Ave SW into Ventana.
The developer, Wellington-Morris, Inc. also would like to NOT
connect 25Th Ave SW from Ventana into Viewcliff.
This folder contains the petition as well as an area map for
orienting you to the View Cliff & Ventana developments as
well as maps of both the proposed Ventana and View Cliff.
Please note on the preliminary plat of Ventana, 25th Ave SW
is shown as ending in Ventana. Wellington-Morris is
agreeable to providing sufficient area for a turn around of
large vehicles, such as a Fire Truck at the north end of 25Th
Ave SW in Ventana.
Should you have any questions, please contact:
Robert or Sylvia Jones
29847 24Th. Ave SW
Federal Way, WA 98023-2300
-or-
Fred or
2405 SW
Federal
(253) 838 1625
Diane Ray
301st PL.
Way, WA 98023-2300
(253) 838 0210
We ask the Council for a favorable decision to not connect
25Th. Ave. SW from Ventana into View Cliff.
Sincerely
Robert F. Jones
representing View Cliff
EXHIBIT
t 1 ftt.L- H ,r::
3 6b 2.2-
:S~.'\iJ, 0 cc (l, 'Pk. n.f¡
0,-::,)<- )
I
,
!
(
(
@9
R~
FEB 1 t 1998
January 21, 1998
FEDERAL WAY PUBUC WORKS
ADMINISTRATION DMSION
Subject;
Petition to the City of Federal Way City
Council:
We the following, all residents of VIEWCLIFF subdivision,
bordering on the north of the proposed VENT ANA subdivision,
hereby petition and request that 25th. Ave SW, currently
ending in a cul-de-sac in VIEWCLIFF, not be connected into
the proposed VENTANA subdivision. 25th Ave SW should be
allowed to remain as it is, a 'dead end' in the VIEWCLIFF
subdivision.
VIEwCLIFF has been in existence since 1960. Access has
always been from SW 304th street ONLY, and has never been a
problem.
Crime in VIEWCLIFF has increased in the past few years with
breaking into cars, theft of electronic equipment, threatened
assaul t to a homeowner, theft of a mans business tools, to
name a few instances. Traffic is currently a concern 'with
several young people driving at excessive rates of speed
through the neighborhood which is a concern to all,
especially families with small children. Opening up 25th.
Avenue SW will only increase traffic though VIEWCLIFF.
Opening up 25th Ave Sw will generate more traffic, not so
much from the residents of VENTANA, as using 25th through
VIEwCLIFF would be out of their way for access to their
homes, but from casual traffic that has no need to be in
VIEWCLIFF. Additional traffic into our neighborhood will
disturb the quality of life we now enjoy and will expose us
to more potential criminals, speeding and safety threats to
all, especially children. Crime has already become a problem
as stated above and documented in ,Federal way Police records.
Access for emergency vehicles is not a concern. VIEWCLIFF
has existed with one entrance-exit for approximately 38 years
with no access problem. We have no concern for having sw
304th the only access to our neighborhood.
\! i:- ìVÍ)!\vf} ':) ù c
EXHIBIT
{!¿1,'J;~
¡(. / J'U{.,(.U
l.¡ )þ
~ ciGiÌ<e- ~.~
Lf ~ 22--
" I
I
(
(
WE THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTS OF VIEWCLIFF PETITION AND REQUEST
THAT 25TH AVE SW NOT BE EXTENDED FROM VIEWCLIFF INTO AND
CONNECTED WITH THE PROPOSED 25TH SW IN THE VENTANA
SUBDIVISION.
pn'
WJh',
,----"
i
I
I
I
!
I
.
I
¡
I
Name/printed Signatu e Address Phone
;.\l,- Ro9.I:'tT.t=:J"OA.J£"S,-r-,. t<M, ,HEn ;J.<I.-rt,~UE" '-<) (,¡s-iJ.'iJe/Cø.L.:>
!.., "'Nrñ~ÃT77 'r/)/l~- . líT:. ~ -<V~---- - -. 7'tJ - ¡;¡'"
,L______--J/iE ~ - ---- ------~-2a ?J1L51.L_JJ1=zilw.:.'á
~.L\...H.<2.l~--- 3.P.dL2_R. .!!sS,',_L..(.~'ff~=t-'.Lç,
lib arDLL !:<J.l. r: , J. ß Cl. ~ 'i. = /J.!f.ló. ßJi ~- ~ <ß .I.2 .5?¿1 $,$15... -_'1SP7
~f.-J>J~ .Ñ1.\.~~ -- :!àC:.\~~~'-L~~L'i:.....:_~_~~:.5a.~\
E¡J:I:i~) Q.£b".. ~~ þ~= - - ~~!..:'~!!_~'!..!:_~Y.:._E!¿-¿¿~':.L~Y~
~lf'~;"'~ --.,,-. " " "
~~~~-- -- ~æøi~-~~~7
..::r~~.£t~~- -- -ð~~.-..$.h¡-~'p.J~~-(~~~:;';.~:sl
- -¥-£~~ - ~~-~P-~~--Z=o--zt...a~~Ðß'7'Y-o?~
~~-~~~:;;;~~~~~" - 07,--,
~..fI-~ ,, ,J..f'.' - --_.3P-".3.£~~'/l'-'-~~ (M1)_!l.2ß_-().7<:"4
f!J:j,-~~- - -- --3~.!-:!C_2£_RJ¡¡l. _.:_9-!t~.?:"-Ø'.b
-_£lL%!:\=ß{íl.-_- - - --~__4.;;[~- :£_,,(ltL..2.Q.,ð,;ð-.o7o/
- ~&"~-"'~~ fi- - - --""'-""-~~- -~,,-"'~ -,<""' ~ 0""'- M., '-
.:5vs.hl.:ï. Kt:>£~ ~ "" 1/
~j[~=== -~~5:~~=~çß-)==~~~-~r7
_.._LQ..JihLC~~- ~-~15:..Y~ß: ~---.a'f::2=_91 :::-53
~. ~~~-ï.::-;r:t"~-J,.J.ÆL ___30fll. ~-~---____~5';;-=~9.::4n
=;;r.\i¿~ ~. <>II ~-" ~Pib'Æ<"""'__-- ~ S'!."'~1 ¡'L 7~ 7
__~li~"1.Þ~ %~-kt...._- -' :3-~5P-~~~---~.53=~~L-_Q.7.:z9
_.J:'.w~~~~~-- --- -~_fa~-~"!:.tir_--7¿¡¡}::_~~I:.ÇXJY
_t:l~>:::,=-.)...1+--Llh<\",,>-- - ---~.22.2.J~-~~_.~..:i.¿-Y-L'L-:"'i:.Iý1
~~Æ.:.1þ~~- - ---~l-':>--'Jd_lg2h~_~:2¿::'Ã7'1.-::..7jf..:..'ì
- 1l.£.4.s'D3H&___- _.z.l2-ï.~~~~---_?:.~:i:..!iI'...:QUI
-.lw.e.....~. il..l~2Çif.....' - .Þl'L'i'_'l'l..k'lA..<..__t~---';~~_"'il:...!~~3
.û!J,.!: - _~1'ð..'t.'t.J.!1../b:f..-~---:,,_.r,1Ll -
-~~-~~~- ~~~~----- - ---~9~-~-~--~~-----~g-~:?JL-
UlT tf;T~ """")ts" In .u "v .r.w -'lJ1 ~I "'_0
=~q¡Z.Ek~:ë~ - -- - =-:i9~~;?:;'Æ~=~===Z¡L~f¿~i~~
~ ~~- ~ .t'-'!..JU!. ~ ~ -~s.fr)...2.!1: ~~ 1.'-:-- - ~2I. -:JI~~.: e &-r:>,!
- 5 ~_. 'ß ~~!ÌLL _:"::9.ÞÞ.A~~~--~_<i"~~:.~~-
-_YJ;l-.Júß...J1~.h ~---- ~ _,i!fitJ:..¿L.M¿¿"e..6.:.tk__d.S'.2... ßdÆ-"/"þþr
-Á1:2b!'J'd. L.. 6,.¿-<.- .~, .2f(¿/ ~&-.J,...,.. 007- 7Z7-h.7
~;:'--z---- -m m~. --~-;--:.a¡;;;5t;T. --:';'"'-::ã.-------;-
4:._-"-.'.!:t..----- - -- - -2,fJ..'J_P:!E::"'-.::::i£.~---2.5:.l._:E~!fJ
~~ - ~.cl;)~:::-~~a:B:~î..."tc-'\.'ìflD
- . ~- . - . ~':L~~~-~L'\..-:~n ~()
- '!1~~T;:-- ~ ':t::..-- 'j¿~.15::.tM_J&)_--_ð3.:j-'~ßV( l'
-~,r.JS. .t.1;t:_.L.IlI1:(')-<2../Lg,.~..J_- 7r--.-rr--3.az.Q.L~~!:::_1!'!'-..£~:.._~S.3..=J'¿~5ï Þ,J /
- ~ - JÈ- - ~ W_rlJ - - - u...d..J -.R. -~ - --¿;¿ ~- If. ~[~.!\~:.?.!-£ - - - !:;¿-I..: 8'!.'f..:ff.!rJ
EXHIBIT ~6D-f1.<.e-H-E
. f 6D ~-z--
c
(
WE THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTS OF VIEWCLIFF PETITION AND REQUEST
THAT 25TH AVE SW NOT BE EXTENDED FROM VIEWCLIFF INTO AND
CONNECTED WITH THE PROPOSED 25TH SW IN THE VENTANA
SUBDIVISION.
Ç.\
~~~:)
Name/printed Signature Address Phone
/lN~\4,__~~~,¡¿,L____~, --~~ci--, _..?!¿!!L - -1f, -~-,~-iL~---¿§§::Æ, H-2?/7
z?'6.t?JJ:::i;L@4LL .ltÇ22..<t77:::.:2...~:i-rr~_6tù.Þ1.Q.a:::w ¡.Jð';3:3
O.£¿g~__Ç1pl2{L- _-2lJ_<1.'f.:L:.¿~-_Lf..~.:5££2¿~3_-_~/- 3~ 3>3
~!ff-'~l.iJ-E~_I¿)_c._-~ - ---_:!"T...8:J!j..¿,-'L~"-~~~__:z..s.3-=.!.?i.::cr.877
'>,-'-'-<, 4, "-'-<1"7~ '-'>:ZZ-" 'A_"" c:.':"o,'.;:(,~,' .:;ú' .;~C;¡,-f:~."'-9....,-1
:s.::¡:~~;~===:sB::¿ - -P-- "'-==~~j=:i>;ctL::i:kI======Jšj=i£¡ã~ 1/
_~a'i!}L.F~" - ~!.~.-cãI':;~'-';:¡,-~--~-~J:,::_(!Z~-;;J3?;l..
:§tL~~£~~ s.. - ~.d~~~--~_8?ff...:l=l?2""O ~"ó
D~PQ~ - -~~%rl'J=Wt=======Æi~
~~.....Lt!~ - J:QQ3L2"L~ïr-----§--'FM'¿:.1::Qji
-* _Æ.iæ;;'¿._~~--- . __,J:1~~..Æ1d;..PL_~f______¿f:~:.Uf:p2ID
'D,"'-" ,...-, "'~. C""-"'\"~'z )'->"'~'I'
' __ð!:dlL.:_i....,' '---/:'.{:a';.7.";;"'>s;. ~___~':L~;,:...........:;fCL._t'!.:r:---, Z:..¡>...;~..é._-_C...... (
Jl.1'1"~~'-F" ..J, ,2ìj7'J, ..."","':¡.<;t!t,I.""s'l,,-' ..,.c.~)<rTL¡.c.:.-'::)
:.1"-1.- --:,¡c..-..~-~, - ~ ------^'-"-, , ""L~_____------- ~--"-",--:-
-\ .'1-<." ,-./. ,=-~,-..J.~......v....< '>,'-.,:, '.U.~ e:J'1-<'3e',¡
~::L_-=======-~~~-~==:_=:==~=================:==========
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
::~~===::====~~~::============================================
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
,. .;::.::.-~:,.
I
f
L
"Iio-o.
EXHIBIT ~üC~ ~.e- -
(p 1J ~2-
f. WE THE FOLLOWING ~ISIDENTS OF VIEWCLIFF PET~ON AND REQUEST
, THAT 25TH AVE SW NOT BE EXTENDED FROM VIEWCLIFF INTO- AND
¡I CONNECTED WITH THE PROPOSED 25TH SW IN THE VENTANA ~
, SUBDIVISION. ~¡!
I Name/printed Signature Address Phone
~~i~~~~~~t~i~~~~l:t;
EXHIBIT
1-: ~ ~ . ~,t::
-:¡- ifó --¿~ - .
. ~. ~
WE THE FOLLOWINGrtESIDENTS OF VIEWCLIFF PETITION AND REQUEST
THAT 25TH AVE SW NOT BE EXTENDED FROM VIEWCLIFF INTO AND
CONNECTED WITH THE PROPOSED 25TH SW IN THE VENTANA
SUBDIVISION.
Name/printed
Signature
Address
Phone
ç
~~/
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
WE THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTS OF VIEWCLIFF PETITION AND REQUEST
THAT 25TH AVE SW NOT BE EXTENDED FROM VIEWCLIFF INTO AND
CONNECTED WITH THE PROPOSED 25TH SW IN THE VENTANA
: :::;::::::~ 'ignature" ~ ,Addre"" . Phone
'- jJß..çjÚJ.~j).f.:.L~L'-__~'f'./-j~h~I'!:!:!!J {' --3.P::..á.jL¿Jf:"'~_':¡!I!._-
====================================================2š-=á~~;( 1 . <¡ Yþ 7
EXHIBIT
}- ~~I~.e
3 rt6 'Z.-- 'Z-
C
¡'¡ETHE FOLLOWING RESIDENTS OF VIEWCLIFF PETITION AND REQUEST
THAT 25TH AVE SW NOT BE EXTENDED FROM VIEWCLIFF INTO AND
CONNECTED WITH THE PROPOSED 25TH SW IN THE VENTANA
SUBDIVISION.
(
Name/printed signa~~~ Address Phone
. . .w': ," '. '¿=-o . , ' 3C'~5-'¡:;z. rA' 5 / -<53-:;"..;! --.
-~~-:{]~~-- ~~-------__~__'4e.k_.fL___- 7 s-=>.,¿/
------------------~-----------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT.
1vD~ ~e
112-7-
wE THE FOLLOWING ~SIDENTS OF VIEWCLIFF PETI~ON AND REQUEST
THAT 25TH AVE SW NOT BE EXTENDED FROM VIEWCLIFF INTO AND
CONNECTED WITH THE PROPOSED 25TH SW IN THE VENTANA
SUBDIVISION.
r~'
1,f.,CO..
Name/printed Si¿~ure / A~.dress.. Phone.
Kú,,',:) K,¡)y ~>v'U( ?.'(/I-, 3J'I>,ú~./,-
~---'n.---g;..J.._===. --- -- -----3--21;7-:~Tr.J~-Sc:ù--1::r""T.
.L~.L~ ~ -- !Q~_:t._-_::r.!~.,.-þ- -r--~_a...L"t. 1./055
. . - ~,<;;t.( r'-e' '-"'--""
-- .1..~ s:p-- ---, - "---- _L!:I-__)!:I.-- --ili.L-~L I'" 8' >
EXHIBIT. '1-~ ~E
(0 "12...-7-
(" ~
WE THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTS OF VIEWCLIFF PETITION AND REQUEST
THAT 25TH AVE SW NOT BE EXTENDED FROM VIEWCLIFF INTO AND
CONNECTED WITH THE PROPOSED 25TH SW IN THE VENTANA
SUBDIVISION.
r ,
(CG~"\'!
',-~
Name/~rinted . S~:2a~u~~ ~ Address Phone
5JJ~,rL 6-Q~ ll- -- 1LY JjLtW- - -)1).£ 25. _?-~~ S~ - -- - 23!-1.7--4'74
~=~~ =~= = = = = = === =~ :?-3£~'= ~~~=~ ~ = == = =][1 <I:f{Ç 1
EXHIBIT . . .--:t-õb~~'~
{( âD 'Z- '--
t (NORTH)
~
<C
0..
><
<C
~
><
'--<
ò::
¡.I.)
>
0
0..
(
\C)
t?">
::r-
¡{')
~ C'I. "'t-
~ \[)
t<')
'"
IS"-
<:>
"'"'
:...
:::¡
\.)
3
¡.I.)
:>
-3
--
::1'
t{)
tB
#1 ~
~ ~
~
\)Q ~
~
~ ~
~ W-
~.
~
~
~
h
'"
-
I'(
t--
.....
"i
Qo (¡)
~
c- <::¡:
- :£
\()
~ \'I
ç{
~
r
~
VENTANA, (PROPOSED)
EXHIBIT
/Z:t. 'IT
'I ~. .
'.R.ëA?f ~RT/,.r:-/C#T-= ~ I)
. '. .: ~ /4
,p// þ-~y' ~"'-=r ""- ,0-,,;,; ~H ;-::.
<:/77" f~C/;"/ <?r.r~J:r~"'rf a_~;r:;...'/ ..:: ~ .'
,¿-ae."-",;""" J'/?"" ~d'" d// s~"'ø/ ',". p¡'.i' ..
':"'ø r,.;.,:r «>;;:'r-/<=.: r:"ør c...ðac-:..ç,;"", ....... ....."........ :'. I.. -"",0:1
..,. c"""""h:Þ""'c""'d~;Cd~ "'.S"J"~,.n ~,. 'I . ~
-.ð/...é. e.-J'é ...~ ,0"",;"" ,;" fl// ".sf....;. ':" \ .': ".,~;\
. ."",~ . . o.~t;:
~ c,:T. 13/ /ge:..r. . . . ..:! ,':' "! I~- .\~, ~.
"'" rZ"k! ;z&;~ ~ ~~;ø ,~' n~~
... .. ~~
"I) . ~ Ii ~. ,~
~ lCo .,,'! ~~.
I) " ~ .. ,1'~
H ~. /'.ZJ' 'q ~,
~C"-9L.E:./..lt:JO,r:r. E"A' ì.
/':1.23
:\
,'j ,....
. ~~ "
-,L 4.../ ~/.,/ co""p/~;'.r ,.....,.i,~é' <:,...",d',;,t',;""'f .
. I
c;.v...'-;'" :ZVdh,.,.,o/ Cd-h'J';ff"""4' dhd' /f ¿!'ý !
- c{,y <?/ (JCT tJR £R /ý'c;",:. /ý;','40'e:
() . ~.....'"
P~ß.'~ ';":1/.'="'<,
~NN""'C """';";'C'LYO« .
,5"
,1'"..
~
c-c/ /4':'"
~m
.
I)
II
& 4"~~~'
~"'.rr
~ZI..s-4
I)
0
I.;
01
It!
~
,3Z.3; .
0
0
0
\)
,
I~
- -¡;;m,P'¡;;'-i/;ÿ TT.tr/7-0.n7V/7d h ;,r.--,
;'17/0" P/7 6"xÝ',./7s/,/7H '?f.L~J"í', :f,,/f(
0
I)
õ
0
,
.e-"'.rT
,.r7'.9.S"
/7
. ,
~'!
~~
~
~
:
~
..,
.:.
,,;
-.
. ,.
,.:
':,
~.
~.
-::
":
¡ .
~);
~./ ."'
.' :~:
, "
'\
(
(
29847 24th Avenue SW
Federal Way, WA 98023
October 26, 1998
Mr. Gregory D. Moore,
Community Development
City of Federal Way
33530 First Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003
AICP
Services Director
MITIGATED ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
(MDNS)
Ventana preliminary Plat
Federal Way File No: SEP97-0036, Related File No: SUB97-0003
Dear Mr. Moore:
The homeowners of vièwCliff do hereby appeal paragraph 5 of
the City of Federal Way's MDNS, dated October 16,1998.
Our specific objection is to what the MDNS refers to in
paragraph 5 as "roadway improvements for 25th Avenue SW." We
do not consider connecting 25th Avenue SW from Ventana to
View Cliff to be an improvement or desirable and appeal this
decision in the strongest manner. '
Connectivity of neighborhoods was not the reason the majority
of owners in viewCliff had as a priority when we purchased
our property & many of the owners have been here since the
early 1960's. Conversely, security, privacy, quiet, a safe
neighborhood for children & limited access were some of our
reasons for establishing homes in viewcliff. Connecting
25th Avenue SW from Ventana to viewcliff will destroy the
very atmosphere we came here to enjoy.
within the past month a Meth house was discovered eight
blocks directly south of viewcliff. We have no desire for
additional connectivity and strongly oppose it. Connectivity
will reduce our neighborhoods liviability & we do not desire
more circulation of traffic in our small neighborhood.
As you know, we filed a petition with the Federal Way city
Council on March 03, 1998 and made an oral appeal at that
meeting. We have met with Ms. Deb Barker, Assistant Planner,
Mr. Rick Perez, Traffic Engineer, Mr. Cary Roe, Public Works
Director in several meetings at city Hall with our protests
& appeal. Our objection to the connection of 25th Avenue SW
is strong and ongoing.
EXHIBIT
1-~~.t?
'5 ~ 1,-"7/
c
~,,~,
......,
e
(2 )
We ask for relief of imposition of the Federal Way City Code,
section 20.151, Subdivision design. Specifically, \ole ask
that the existing 25th Avenue SW cul-de-sac in ViewCliff be
made permanent. We additionally ask that SW 304th street
never be extended from 24th Avenue SW to 25th Avenue SW on
the ViewCliff-Ventana border & wording to that effect be
placed in the City's records.
Mr. Rick Perez, Traffic Engineer mentions extending SW 304th
street is a possibility in his review of our petition sent to
Ms. Deb Barker on March 09,1998. He lists this on page two
of his review under section 20-151, Subdivision design,
paragraph (f).
8
Mr. Perez closes his review of our petition with this
summary: "The proposed street layout of the Ventana
subdivision is consistent with existing codes and
Comprehensive Plan goals and policies."
As stated 97% of the residents of ViewCliff do not want this
connectivity into vemtana on 25th Avenue SW & we ask for
relief of the existing codes, Comprehensive Plan goals and
policies which were written after Federal Way became a c~ty.
When ci tyhood was being pushed we were told if we became a
City we would have more input into how our lives and property
would be governed. We now have Cityhood and we ask the City
Council to make good on that promise to respect our wishes
and we ask for relief on the 25th Avenue Connection with the
Ventana subdivision, as well as never extending 304th SW from
24th Avenue SW to 25th Avenue SW between viewCliff and
Ventana.
Respectfully,
Dale Kure
Robert Jones
(For View cliff Residents)
Dianne Ray
copy:
Ron Gintz
Michael Park
Kenneth Nyberg
Jeanne Burbidge
Jack Dovey
Mary Gates
Linda Kochmar
Phil Watkins
Mayor
Deputy Mayor
City Manager
ci ty Council
City Council
City Council
City Council
City Council
file:
Appeall.doc
EXHIBIT
1-'6l~ J1:~
[ (p ~ "t-Z-
, ,
c
£.
Robert F. Jones
29847 24Th. Ave. S. W.
Federal Way, WA 98023-2300
(253) 838 1625
76627,3233 @Cornpuserve.Com
May 06, 1998
Mr. Gregory Moore, AICP
Director of Community Development Services
33530 1st Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6221
VENTANA SUBDIVISION/REVISED LAND USE APPLICATION
8
Dear Mr. Moore:
In comparing the Preliminary Plat of Ventana dated
September 1997 to the Plat attached to the revised Land Use
Application of April.1998, the following was noted:
On the April 1998 plat 25Th Avenue SW in Ventana is
shown. connecting into 25Th Avenue SW in the existing View
Cliff development. The September 1997 plat was drawn with
25Th Avenue SW ending in Vent ana and not connecting into View
cliff.
As you know, on March 3, 1998 the View Cliff resIdents
presented to the Federal Way City a petition signed by 97.67%
of the View Cliff residents requesting 25Th Avenue SW not be
connected into View cliff. We are still firm in that desire.
View Cliff has been in existence since 1960. Access has
always been from SW 304Th Street ONLY and has never been a
problem. Access for emergency vehicles to View Cliff is not
a concern. There has been no access problem with only one
entrance for approximately 38 years and we have no concern
with it remaining so.
Being a ci ty was proposed to the voters as giving us
more control over our lives. I ask you to please do not
connect 25Th Avenue SW from Ventana into View Cliff. This
would be an excellent time to demonstrate to the citizens we
DO have some control over our lives and property.
Sincerely,
Robert F. Jones
Comments.Doc
EXHIBIT~
(--1- ÕÔ 1..-7..-'
c
c
May 9, 1998
Mr. Gregory Moore, AICP
Director of Community Development Services
33530 1st Way South
Federal Way, Washington 98003-6221
Subject:
Ventana Development EliminatiQn of the 25th Ave. S.W.
Cul-De-Sac in View Cliff.
Dear Sir:
We are long time residence of View Cliff, one of the three original ~
families near the Cul-De-Sac on 25th Avenue S.w., over 30 years ago.
One of the factors in selecting this location was the added privacy
of. the View Cliff development. Along with our neighbors, we are
concerned about the opening up of 25th Avenue S.W. into the Ventana
development. The gain of additional access to and from our home is
not preferable to our loss of privacy.
In aqdition, we are very concerned about loss of some safety and
security by any added access to the neighborhood. This is a major
concern to us because of a recent experience.
We are the parents of the Des Moines police sargent and family
residing in Federal Way whose hòme was invaded, family threatened
at gun point and-robbed by juveniles in February. We have first
- hand experience of the trama and anxiety suffered by a family under
those circumstances.
Until our society, law enforcement and judiciary do a better job of
protection, especially in our homes, we believe.that the opening up
of access to our street would significantly reduce the safety and
security to ourselves and neighbors.
We respectfully request you reconsider and cancel the plan to open
up 25th Avenue S.W. Cul-De-Sac into the Ventana development for the
reasons stated above.
Sincerely,
æ,w~
L~C~
Robert & Betty Collins
30235 25th Avenue S.W.
Federal Way, Wa. 98023-2316
(253) 838-0764
cc: Robert Jones.
29847 24th Avenue s.w.
:=: Federal Way, Wa. 98023
EXHIBIT
1- Vî>-1t-<- b1-, t::
I 0 6D 2.-1----
(
(
MAY 07,1998
MR. GREGORY MOORE, AICP
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
33530 1ST WAY SOUTH
FEDERAL WAY, WA98003-6221
DEAR MR. MOORE
r&;>
".J'
AS PROPERTY OWNERS AND VOTERS OF FEDERAL WAY WE WISH TO
EXPRESS OUR DEEP CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROPOSED EXTENTION OF
25TH SW FROM THE VENT ANA DEVELOPMENT INTO VIEW CLIFF THERE
BY DOING AWAY WITH CUL-DE-SAC. WE ARE AGAINST THIS AS THIS
WILL OPEN OUR AREA TO HEAVY TRAFFIC WHICH WE HAVE BEEN PRO-
TECTED AGAINST UP TO THIS TIME.
WE BUILT IN THIS AREA IN 1973 BECAUSE OF THE QUIET SITTING AND
BOTH ROADWAYS ENDED WITH CUL-DE-SAC'S. THIS PEACE AND QUIET
WILL BE DESTORYED BY OPENING THIS AREA UP TO TRAFFIC FLOW
WHICH IS NOT NECESSARY YOU DO NOT GAIN ANYTHING BY DOING
THIS DESTRUCTION OF THE CUL-DE-SAc. YOU WILL DO AWAY WITH
SAFETY THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED FOR OUR CHILDREN THAT LIVE
IN THIS AREA BY INCREASE IN TRAFFIC. THIS AREA HAS BEEN POSTED
ON 304TH AS "NO OUTLET" AND THIS HAS PREVENTED UNWANTED
VEHICLES CRUISING OUR AREA.
WHEN FEDERAL WAY WAS PUSHING TO BECOME A "CITY" IT WAS PUSHED
"VOTE TO BECOME A CITY AND BE ABLE TO HAVE A "VOICE" IN THE
PLANNING OF THE "NEW CITY". OUR EXPERIENCE SO FAR IN DEALING
WITH "CITY HALL" HAS BEEN VERY DISAPPOINTING. YOU CARE LESS
ABOUT THE VOTERS AND T AXP AYERS OF FEDERAL WAY AS TO THEIR
FEELINGS AND SAFETY OR THEIR RIGHTS TO PEACE AND QUIET
WE UNDERSTAND THAT 98% OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE SIGNED
THE PETITION AGAINST THIS MOVEMENT AND SO FAR THE CITY HAS
INDICATED THAT THEY DON"T CARE THAT YOU ARE GOING TO DO WHAT
EVER YOU WANT VOTERS DO GET THEIR REVENGE AT THE POLLS.
THANK YOU
FRED D. EDMONDSON
MARG. H. EDMONDSON
EXHIBIT
~~~R
I q ~ 1.,-v .
-........
c
c
October 29, 1998
Mr. Gregory D. Moore, AICP
Community Development Services Director
City of Federal Way
33530 First Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003
8
Ref:
Ventana Preliminary Plat
Federal Way File No: SEP 97-0036
Related File No: Sub97-0003
Dear Mr. Moore
My purpose in writing to you is to object, in the strongest possible terms, to
connection of the Viewcliff neighborhood to the new Ventana development
through 25th AVE SW.
I can find no advantage in extending a dead-end street two blocks to another
dead-end. A modification which is opposed by 97% of neighborhood residence.
It seems that this plan to destroy the Viewcliff neighborhood, as we know it, is
being pursued to satisfy a "post city-hood" regulation which was written without
regard for the uniquely individual character of neighborhoods like Viewcliff.
Rather than retaining this character, this regulation destroys neighborhoods and
promotes the urban sprawl we all want to avoid. Is the mindless destruction of
neighborhoods like Viewcliff really what being a city is all about? I think not!
May I suggest an alternate course? Make the existing cul-de-sac at the end of
25th AVE SW a permanent feature of the Viewcliff neighborhood. In addition,
wording should be added to city records such that SW 304th will never be
extended from 24th AVE SW to 25th AVE SW on the Viewcliff-Ventana border.
These changes will promote security, safety, privacy, and help to limit the
continuous circulation of traffic. In short, these changes will help retain the
EXHIBIT 1-6b~ ~~
?Q % ~7-.
. ¡
c
(
livability of the Viewcliff neighborhood. In my humble opinion, that is what being
a city is all about.
Respectfully,
c;2Ja. ~ '
Richard A. Leisy
30234 25th AVE SW
Federal Way, WA 98023
CC:
Ron Gintz
Michael Park
Kenneth Nyberg
Jeanne Burbidge
Jack Dovey
Mary Gates
Linda Kochmar
Phil Watkins
/Robert Jones
~~~
Jacklyn R. Leisy
30234 25th AVE SW
Federal Way, WA 98023
8
Mayor
Deputy Mayor
City Manager
City Council
City Council
City Council
City Council
City Council
Viewcliff Res.
EXHIBIT
1-6b {k tt,i[
?. I rsb ¿". v
~
(
Mr. Gregory D. Moore, AICP
Community Development Services Director
City of Federal Way
33530 First Way South
Federal Way, Washington 98003
(
October 29, 1998
Subject: Ventana Development Elimination of the 25th Ave
S.W. cul-de-sac in ViewCliff
Dear Mr. Moore:
We understand that the City of Federal Way is not going to honor
the requests of the ViewCliff residents to maintain the 25th Ave
S.W. cul-de-sac. We have previously expressed our concerns in
the enclosed letter. We have some first hand personal security
concerns because of our son's family recent home invasion here.
in Federal Way.
8'
We are very disappointed that our city management is not listen-
ing to specific neighborhood requests. We have not been shown
why it is necessary for big brother to impose on our neighborhood
and change which has been working well for over 30 years. This
is another example why citizens can be disenchanted with govern-
ment bureaucracy ignoring their requests.
Respectfully,
~~
¿~ c-«~
Robert & Betty Collins
30235 25th Ave S.W.
Federal Way, Washington
(253) 838-0764
98023
copy:
Ron Gintz
Michael Park
Kenneth Nyberg
Jeanne Burbidge
Jack Dovey
Mary Gat,es
Linda Kochmar
Phil Watkins
Robert Jones
Enclosure:
Mayor
Deputy Mayor
City Manager
City Council
City Council
City Council
City Council
City Council
Letter to Mr. Moore, same subject, May 9, 1998
EXHIBIT
1- 6¡4-e-- ~,~
-Z z.12-Z-