Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Permit L97-0027 - FOSTER RIDGE DEVELOPMENT - PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
L97-0027 FOSTER RIDGE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT E97- Do /3 (PRE94 -032) APRD City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor October 16, 2003 Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director John B. Friel P.O. Box 27 Everett, WA 98206 RE: Foster Ridge Request for Extension Dear Mr. Friel: I received your letter requesting an extension on the expiration date on the Foster Ridge project. The Notice of Decision was issued October 18, 2002 and so the approval is due to expire on October 18th of this year. The Short Subdivision Committee is authorized to grant a single extension of up to six months, TMC 17.08.050. Your request for an extension is approved and the boundary line adjustment will expire on April 18, 2004 unless all of the conditions of approval have been met and the final documents have been recorded with King County. S(ncerely, J k Pace, DCD Deputy Director cc: Jim Morrow, Public Works Director Nora Gierloff, Planning Supervisor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 ei..at.Zaiga:ttl,C- z uJ • . • Z1 r4 21 C.) • 0 WI w u_: ill 0: Q' Z 1— 0: Z LLY, D Ct. .c..) 10 ICI 1-1 rz, Z' lij on, 0 — I= Z City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director October 18, 2002 John B. Friel P.O. Box 27 Everett, WA :98206 NOTICE OF DECISION RE: Foster Ridge Development L97 -0026 Boundary Line Adjustment L97 -0027 Administrative Planned Residential Development Dear Mr. Friel: The. Short Subdivision Committee has completed review of your boundary line adjustment and administrative planned residential development applications and determined that they comply with all applicable City code requirements. The City SEPA Responsible Official has previously determined that the project does not create a probable significant environmental impact if specific mitigation conditions are imposed on the project and issued a Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance (MDNS) requiring compliance with those mitigation conditions This letter serves as the Notice of Decision per TMC 18..104.170. Based on the latest project submittal, preliminary approval is granted subject to the conditions stated below. There are three basic steps in the approval process: 1. Preliminary Approval This letter constitutes your preliminary approval. The application was reviewed by the Tukwila Short Subdivision Committee and approved with conditions. The conditions imposed are to ensure the boundary line adjustment is consistent with the Criteria for Preliminary Approval listed at TMC 17.08.030 C in the Tukwila Subdivision Code. PRELIMINARY APPROVAL CONDITIONS Utilities a. Drainage design for the site shall be developed according to the Pace Engineering Conceptual Storm Layout drawing dated July 2002 and shall meet City of Tukwila Surface Page 1 6300 Southcenter Boulevard. Suite 4'100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206- 431 -3670 • Fax: 206- 431 -3665 MEITIMMESk Water Ordinance Requirements. Your submittal for a miscellaneous permit to construct the utility systems shall address the City's questions raised in the July 19, 2000 and September 4, 2002 letters. b. Pursuant to the Tukwila "underground ordinance ", all utilities shall be placed underground. c. Extension of the sewer and water lines to the lots shall be approved by the appropriate utility. As -built plans. shall be provided to the Public Works Department prior to final approval. The drainage easement over Mr. Cervantes' property must be revised per the attached redlines. This will be a private easement between the property owners and Mr. Cervantes and the City will not be a party to the agreement. Access e. Access roads built to Public Works and Fire Department standards must be provided to all lots as shown on the plan prepared by Pace Engineering dated July 2002. This requirement must be met prior to issuance of any building permits. f Your submittal for a Miscellaneous permit to construct the access roads and install the utilities must contain a grading plan, that shows the location of all proposed retaining walls and gives estimated cut and fill quantities. Certain retaining walls may require separate building permits and structural review. Please contact the Public Works Department for additional information. Fire Protection g. There must be a fire hydrant within 250 feet of all building sites. If the fire hydrant is not capable of a 1000 gallon per minute flow the future houses will be required to provide interior sprinklers, to be approved by the Fire Department. This requirement must be met prior to issuance of any building permits. Geotechnical h. . The, property owners will need -to sign, notarize and record the revised geotechnical covenant prior to final approval (see attached). The recommendation from Associated Earth Sciences, contained in their July 11, 2002 letter, that there be an on -site inspector for the geotechnical engineer during the construction of foundations, retaining walls, water, sewer, and surface water utilities, and driveways shall be a condition of the Miscellaneous permit. The on -site inspector shall verify in writing, on a daily basis, with the reports sent to the City's Department of Public Works, that all construction work has been performed in accordance with approved plans s:v L97 -0026 Page 2 i.'.' Y:}:. iitl ;t}fioiw'�:'!v��$ClfutlF.S(7,fZ f '� 3, t 4..'• '„c..: 1 'y�� r �t+`iS�,•},SaAn�:z�2. z w 00 CO 0, w = J F— u_ . w0 g -J D =0 �_ Z1 F-- 0, Z w w '0 CI �. w' �U .z. Cu Uw F-= 0~ z and specifications, permit requirements, and that the construction work complies with all of the geotechnical's recommendations. General j. The wetland mitigation/buffer enhancement plan prepared by Sheldon & Associates must be revised to reflect the current lot layout. The 6 lot proposal only requires mitigation for the reduction of the wetland buffer from 50' to 25' along Lot 2. k. The edges of the wetland buffer easements on lots 2, 3, 4 and 6 shall be delineated with a split rail fence and signage per TMC 18.45.060 6. 1. You will need to obtain all required permits prior to beginning any construction. For water and sewer permits, contact the individual provider District. For City of Tukwila utilities, site grading, and access driveways contact Tukwila Public Works at (206) 433 -0179. m. Install all required site improvements, including those proposed in the application and those identified above as conditions of approval. Submit a set of recording documents in either legal or record of survey format that meet the King County Recorder's requirements and contain the following items: 1. A survey map as described in the application checklist that is consistent with all of the conditions of approval. The surveyor's original signature must be on the face of the plat. 2. Existing and proposed legal descriptions for all lots. 3. Legal description of the access /utility easements. 4. Joint Maintenance Agreements for the easements, drainage system and open space tract. 5. Legal description of the wetland buffer easement across lots 3, 4 and 6. APPEALS This BLA approval decision is appealable to the Hearing Examiner. One administrative appeal of the decision on the BLA is permitted. If an MDNS was issued, any person wishing to challenge either the conditions which were imposed by the MDNS decision or the failure of the Department to impose additional conditions in the MDNS may raise such issues as part of the appeal . If no valid appeals are filed within the time limit the decision of the Department will be final. L97 -0026 Page 3 'Y*&"3Xt3fd¢!'atittiragtmezimPfattArsaresge$4114Z4A14,44 i.�4 '., 'i d''.'` i,:taF ,:+ists}arii4;if"acY; ',itc'w: i 5::ai '�li'% %i3}4;vei�.i as ?i.n:1u .&Y"c's;AgYwrao In order to appeal the decision a written notice of appeal must be filed with the Department of Community Development within 21 days of the issuance of the Notice of Decision (xx/xx/xxxx). The requirements for such appeals are set forth in Tukwila Municipal Code 18.116. Appeal materials shall include: 1. The name of the appealing party. 2. The address and phone number of the appealing party; and if the appealing party is a corporation, association or other group, the address and phone number of a contact person authorized to receive notices on the appealing party's behalf. 3. A statement 'identifying the decision being appealed and the alleged . errors in the decision. The Notice of Appeal shall state specific errors of fact or errors in application of the law in the decision being appealed; the harm suffered or anticipated by the appellant, and the relief sought. The scope of an appeal shall be limited to matters or issues raised in the Notice of Appeal. Any appeal shall be conducted as an open record hearing before the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner's decision on the appeal is the City's final decision. A party who is not satisfied with the outcome of the administrative appeal process may file an appeal in King County Superior Court from the ' Hearing Examiner's decision pursuant to the procedures and time limitations set forth in RCW 36.70C. An appeal challenging a DNS, an MDNS or an EIS may be included in such an appeal. 2. Final Approval The next step is to install the required site improvements, comply with the conditions of approval and submit the necessary documents (survey,' legal descriptions, and other required paper work). After the documents have been found to be in order, and the all of the requirements of the BLA have been met, the Chair of the Short Subdivision Committee signs your paperwork which constitutes a grant of final approval. No permits for the construction of houses on the site will be granted prior to the recording of the BLA. All taxes and fees assessed against the property must be current prior to final approval. Please check with the King County Assessor's Office and the City of Tukwila Finance Department prior to submitting final mylars. Expiration The final approved documents must be filed with the King County Department of Records by October 18, 2003, one year from the date of this preliminary approval or the application will expire. The City may grant a single one year extension if requested in writing prior to the expiration date. L97 -0026 Page 4 .w "ire >.i.:Y'y ^:PSr• vun'•''+ y5. t<.,... sa..... iCiii' Ct,:- �i.?,; %�S�N�:e;ti+iti= 'aV.��.Sif.�iiva: �( - r: ,i •, .1a:,l.YA.+'iv".�nk'�i[Y .��� r�"', � .'�..�i"�,�,.- `•,,�ii*i',�'s"et ...:, 3. Recording The signature of the Chairman of the Short Subdivision Committee certifies that your application is ready recording. It is your responsibility' ty' to record" the City approved documents with the King County Department of Records. You will " need to pay the 1- w recording fees and submit your approved original drawings to King County, see the 6 5 Recording Procedures handout.. The BLA is not complete until the recording occurs and v copies of the recorded documents are provided to the Department of Community N o Development. w = wo ga E/2a = I— w 1 Z t-` After recording, the County returns the recorded original to the City of Tukwila within 4 -6 weeks, at which time your BLA is considered complete. You can shorten this processing time by hand - delivering a copy of the recorded document to the project planner. • Sincerely, St r 03(6 &) Y _ Chair, Short Subdivision Committee Enclosures: Redlined Drainage Easement. Revised Geotechnical Covenant cc: Jim Morrow, Public Works Dijector •Lt (please initial your approval) Tom Keefe, Fire Chief '1 c e ini 'al your approval) King County Assessor, Accoun u g Division Department of Ecology, SEPA Division William Looney Benito Cervantes Jon Beahm Cyril Mork Page 5 ft 24 /4;;24;1tN£sa+ Fka%t. 4fEii ua�,c ` :cc% `, `�rY+•iYcs ..,. „..s .,t ..�lwraa;r .,- a'�;`wMKi,�:3ih2�+` cry; ��.; ���, i�a,, �r���- l�i�c�t� ,..,pia:3:itY;C�sa4i�M:�ru firs: <ma:£�la�"s���t'ht4x`',W� •u Wirt' r]i'•'.° �iY<�4s; 1; �s�i.`�'A+ idFXraiti f h. Z ce W �• • U` U0 N0 W =, J N LL: WW LLQ Z• �. F- W. Zf.- 0'. ZH W 2• p 0 0 N. :0 H: ma = U. F— • W — 0. . ui Z' U =• O~ Z October 3, 2003 MEMO TO: Nora Gierloff, Planning Supervisor Department of Community Development (] ^. ;(_) City of Tukwila �� poi / _�; 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 0 0, ;,,,,, ?OO f- z: Tukwila, WA 98188 Fax 206 - 431 -3665 fiL;51; 2' a FROM: John B. Friel, PE PLS JBMF Consulting Engineer P.O. Box 27 Everett, WA 98206 Fax 425- 673 -7674 W Ill :. W = J I-i CO u_' w 0; REF: Foster Ridge Development g Q' L97 -0026 Boundary Line Adjustment a` L97 -0027 Administrative Planned Residential Development ,I w` 1 In accord with the Expiration provision paragraph on page 4 of the Notice of Decision, z 0; dated October 18, 2002, we are requesting a one year extension to obtain Final Approval. .� The current status is: just last week we received the final design drawing plans from 10 Ni PACE with geotechnical review report by Gary Flowers at AES, Inc., and the updated W ~' wetlands report from Sheldon Associates. We expect to complete the application forms f=.. 0 • early next week and submit to Public Works for review and approval of the plans for the LI 0: site development t z. co 0 H' Z Would you please inform Jack Pace of this request and contact me with your response. Thanks, hn 13. Friel, PE PLS For R. S. Pedersen (PS - Please note that I corrected the above date of the decision letter from the date noted in the earlier fax) ..av<.v.ti .r t,r,w- ef.va- 11 :*,; :n4 '_ :W...'S :'i' is._.u�s,..:�:�.Ef �fi�;l:fl t` r: f. �:=% i, 4i114.: kfiS . ^. %.:'r'Y•1� /�noalS.•r�y.�"4' i��iv(f i��L City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director October 18, 2002 John B. Friel P.O. Box 27 Everett, WA 98206 NOTICE OF DECISION RE: Foster Ridge Development L97 -0026 Boundary Line Adjustment L97 -0027 Administrative Planned Residential Development Dear Mr. Friel: The Short Subdivision Committee has completed review of your boundary line adjustment and administrative planned residential development applications and determined that they comply with all applicable City code requirements. The City SEPA Responsible Official has previously determined that the project does not create a probable significant environmental impact if specific mitigation conditions are imposed on the project and issued a Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance (MDNS) requiring compliance with those mitigation conditions This letter serves as the Notice of Decision per TMC 18.104.170. Based on the latest project submittal, preliminary approval is granted subject to the conditions stated below. There are three basic steps in the approval process: 1. Preliminary Approval This letter constitutes your preliminary approval. The application was reviewed by the Tukwila Short Subdivision Committee and approved with conditions. The conditions imposed are to ensure the boundary line adjustment is consistent with the Criteria for Preliminary Approval listed at TMC 17.08.030 C in the Tukwila Subdivision Code. PRELIMINARY APPROVAL CONDITIONS Utilities a. Drainage design for the site shall be developed according to the Pace Engineering Conceptual Storm Layout drawing dated July 2002 and shall meet City of Tukwila Surface Page I 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 -431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 p- w J U: O O; CO w: w= J H' w O'. ga 5 LL Q' Z Fw' —=. Z� II— O; Z w U• 0 1 = i--U r. -0 • z' Lir 1= O~ z Water Ordinance Requirements. Your submittal for a miscellaneous permit to construct the utility systems shall address the City's questions raised in the July 19, 2000 and September 4, 2002 letters. z b. Pursuant to the Tukwila "underground ordinance ", all utilities shall be placed underground. i H. ~w. c. Extension of the sewer and water lines to the lots shall be approved by the appropriate 6 M utility. As -built plans shall be provided to the Public Works Department prior to final (..) O approval. ; N o W i J F-: d. The drainage easement over Mr. Cervantes' property must be revised per the attached u) u- w O redlines. This will be a private easement between the property owners and Mr. Cervantes 2 and the City will not be a party to the agreement. ga :' N � d. Z H w, Z I- I- O'. Z E- Ill uj 0n f. Your submittal for a Miscellaneous permit to construct the access roads and install the 1:1 ~` utilities must contain a grading plan that shows the location of all proposed retaining walls x v` and gives estimated cut and fill quantities. Certain retaining walls may require separate u. �; building permits and .structural review. Please contact the Public Works Department for w z additional information. U N 0 z Access e. Access roads built to Public Works and Fire Department standards must be provided to all lots as shown on the plan prepared by Pace Engineering dated July 2002. This requirement must be met prior to issuance of any building permits. Fire Protection There must be a fire hydrant within 250 feet of all building sites. If the fire hydrant is not capable of a 1000 gallon per minute flow the future houses will be required to provide interior sprinklers, to be approved by the Fire Department. This requirement must be met prior to issuance of any building permits. Geotechnical h. . The property owners will need to sign, notarize and record the revised geotechnical covenant prior to final approval (see attached). The recommendation from Associated Earth Sciences, contained in their July 11, 2002 letter, that there be an on -site inspector for the geotechnical engineer during the construction of foundations, retaining walls, water, sewer, and surface water utilities, and driveways shall be a condition of the Miscellaneous permit. The on -site inspector shall verify in writing, on a daily basis, with the reports sent to the City's Department of Public Works, that all construction work has been performed in accordance with approved plans L97 -0026 Page 2 and specifications, permit requirements, and that the construction work complies with all of the geotechnical's recommendations. General J• The wetland mitigation/buffer enhancement plan prepared by Sheldon & Associates must be revised to reflect the current lot layout. The 6 lot proposal only requires mitigation for the reduction of the wetland buffer from 50' to 25' along Lot 2. z �W 6 JU 0 O 1 W W =; k. The edges of the wetland buffer easements on lots 2, 3, 4 and 6 shall be delineated with a J split rail fence and signage per TMC 18.45.060 6. W O; 1. You will need to obtain all required permits prior to beginning any construction. For water Q and sewer permits, contact the individual provider District. For City of Tukwila utilities, N D = a. site grading, and access driveways contact Tukwila Public Works at (206) 433 -0179. F- _ z�. m. Install all required site improvements, including those proposed in the application and those z !—. identified above as conditions of approval. U 0: n. Submit a set of recording documents in either legal or record of survey format that meet the .0 -; SU • I- -- : 1. A survey map as described in the application checklist that is consistent with all of II O, z. the conditions of approval. The surveyor's original signature must be on the face of the plat. v F= Off'; z King County Recorder's requirements and contain the following items: 2. Existing and proposed legal descriptions for all lots. 3. Legal description of the access /utility easements. 4. Joint Maintenance Agreements for the easements, drainage system and open space tract. 5. Legal description of the wetland buffer easement across lots 3, 4 and 6. APPEALS This BLA approval decision is appealable to the Hearing Examiner. One administrative appeal of the decision on the BLA is permitted. If an MDNS was issued, any person wishing to challenge either the conditions which were imposed by the MDNS decision or the failure of the Department to impose additional conditions in the MDNS may raise such issues as part of the appeal . If no valid appeals are filed within the time limit the decision of the Department will be final. L97 -0026 Page 3 In order to appeal the decision a written notice of appeal must be filed with the Department of Community Development within 21 days of the issuance of the Notice of Decision (xx/xx/xxxx). The requirements for such appeals are set forth in Tukwila Municipal Code 18.116. Appeal materials shall include: 1. The name of the appealing party. 2. The address and phone number of the appealing party; and if the appealing party is a corporation, association or other group, the address and phone number of a contact person authorized to receive notices on the appealing party's behalf. 1 A statement identifying the decision being appealed and the alleged errors in the decision. The Notice of Appeal shall state specific errors of fact or errors in application of the law in the decision being appealed; the harm suffered or anticipated by the appellant, and the relief sought. The scope of an appeal shall be limited to matters or issues raised in the Notice of Appeal. Any appeal shall be conducted as an open record hearing before the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner's decision on the appeal is the City's final decision. A party who is not, satisfied with the outcome of the administrative appeal process may file an appeal in King County Superior Court from the Hearing Examiner's decision pursuant to the procedures and time limitations set forth in RCW 36.70C. An appeal challenging a DNS, an MDNS or an EIS may be included in such an appeal. 2. Final Approval The next step is to install the required site improvements, comply with the conditions of approval and submit the necessary documents (survey, legal descriptions, and other required paper work). After the documents have been found to be in order, and the all of the requirements of the BLA have been met, the Chair of the Short Subdivision Committee signs your paperwork which constitutes a grant of final approval. No permits for the construction of houses on the site will be granted prior to the recording of the BLA. All taxes and fees assessed against the property must be current prior to final approval. Please check with the King County Assessor's Office and the City of Tukwila Finance Department prior to submitting final mylars. Expiration The final approved documents must be filed with the King County Department of Records by October 18, 2003, one year from the date of this preliminary approval or the application will expire. The City may grant a single one year extension if requested in writing prior to the expiration date. L97 -0026 Page 4 Yi ?'„-A v_z5:i'i:%..:�;.,,,::�i7;u�'i �.iiti^ .r k+Lhv�'wY = �:sYx'ii 3. Recording The signature of the Chairman of the Short Subdivision Committee certifies that your- application is ready for recording. It is your responsibility to record the City approved documents with the King County Department of Records. You will need to pay the recording fees and submit your approved original drawings to King County, see the Recording Procedures handout. The BLA is not complete until the recording occurs and copies of the recorded documents are provided to the Department of Community Development. After recording, the County returns the recorded original to the City of Tukwila within 4-6 weeks, at which time your BLA is considered complete. You can shorten this processing time by hand-delivering a copy of the recorded document to the project planner. Sincerely, Staamianenster DvitS. P;rezis-N. Chair, Short Subdivision Committee Enclosures: Redlined Drainage Easement Revised Geotechnical Covenant cc: Jim Morrow, Public Works Di;ector •ILI1 (please initial your approval) Tom Keefe, Fire Chief .-;./15e-z- e ini *al your approval) King County Assessor, Accoun in Division Department of Ecology, SEPA Division William Looney Benito Cervantes Jon Beahm Cyril Mork L97-0026 Page 5 Z o • Id.W.4'fila.o*Mei.64:0VikOkiiST'AP,rtaga.W.K.U.A1-31.0010zIalitej.,:04NAVAdr41.4'4044.3,170;z4ifiaiii, ' �.�.. WHEN RECORDED, RETURN TO City Clerk - 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Reference Number(s) of Related Document(s): Grantor: Grantee: The City of Tukwila Legal Description (Abbreviated): Full Legal Description is found on Exhibit A of this document. Assessor's Tax Parcel ID Numbers: SENSITIVE AREA COVENANT AND HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT This covenant and hold harmless agreement is entered into between , a corporation, ( "Grantor), and the. City of Tukwila, a Washington municipal corporation ( "Grantee "). RECITALS WHEREAS, Grantor owns and has applied for necessary permits to develop certain real property (the "Property ") legally described in Exhibit A, which is attached and incorporated by reference. WHEREAS, a portion of the Property contains sensitive areas of potential geologic instability (potential slide areas) as depicted in Exhibit B, which is attached and incorporated by reference. WHEREAS, as a condition of the issuance of boundary line adjustment, planned residential development approval, land use permits, and/or construction permits for the Property, the Grantee required the Grantor to execute and record this "Sensitive Area Covenant and Hold Harmless Agreement" to hold the City of Tukwila harmless from all loss incurred as a result of any landslide or seismic activity, or soil disturbance. SENSITIVE AREA COVENANT AND PAGE 1 OF '5 HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT WHEREAS, Grantor., assumed-this- obligation in order to obtain said boundary line- • permits or lie Property. WHEREAS, the parties agree that this agreement constitutes an arms length, bargained -for agreement, which includes a waiver of liability that runs with the land for risks created by the proposed use of property because of the shape, composition, location or other characteristic unique to the Property sought to be developed. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. In consideration of Grantee issuing boundary line adjustment, planned residential development approval and/or other development permits, which constitutes good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which and the sufficiency of which the Grantor hereby acknowledges, the Grantor shall defend, indemnify, and hold the Grantee, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and assigns harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses, or suits, whether brought by grantor or third parties, including all legal costs and reasonable attorney fees, arising out of or in connection with any injuries or damages to persons or property caused in whole or in part by any landslide or seismic activity or soil disturbance on the Property, legally described in Exhibit A, which is attached and incorporated by reference. 2. Grantor on its own behalf and on behalf of its heirs, successors and assigns hereby waives any right to assert any claim against the Grantee, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and assigns for any loss, or damage to people or property either on or off the site resulting from any landslide or seismic activity or soil disturbance on said Property by reason of or arising out of the issuance of the permit(s) by the City for development on said Property except only for such losses that may directly result from the sole negligence of the City. 3. Grantor will inform its successors and assigns of said Property that the Property is in an area of potential geologic instability (potential slide area), of the risks associated with development thereon, of any conditions or prohibitions on development imposed by the City of Tukwila, and of any features in this design which will require maintenance or modification to address anticipated soils changes. 4. Grantor will maintain continuous insurance coverage as required by the permit authorizing the development. 5. Grantee's inspection or acceptance of any of the Grantor's construction or other work either during construction or when completed shall not be grounds to avoid any of these covenants of indemnification. SENSITIVE AREA COVENANT AND HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT PAGE 2OF`' S'ax7a.?�:iair�ki'sks�eke✓�. €�°'r.��W+.`Yu�K•�Dt�. t ?B1.i.d5��°M7�'`5�3ik`�k`��� "��iiS'� ..., }+ �'t. ^'VAX iiut: 4: ti- tt�, luYm.. 2t'. f'stk:a�'+.:ial^ai6t�5�i,`aC+1' ., 6. This covenant and hold harmless agreement shall be a covenant running with the land and the rights and obligations contained herein shall run with and burden the Property, including each parcel comprising the Property and shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the Grantor and Grantee, their successors and assigns. DATED this day of , 200_ GRANTOR: a corporation By: Print Name: Its: STATE OF WASHINGTON ss. COUNTY OF KING On this day of , 200_, before me a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, personally appeared , to me known to be the of , a corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged it to be the free and voluntary act of said corporation, for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument, and on oath stated that he /she was authorized to execute said instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. (seal) SENSITIVE AREA COVENANT AND HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT Name: NOTARY PUBLIC, in and for the State of Washington, residing at My commission expires: PAGE 3 OF z 00 Nom'.. • W JHi. w O: gQ. _° F- uJ z�, I-0 Z VOvi 0 I-' wW H V. z U M, z EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SENSITIVE AREA COVENANT AND HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT PAGE 4 OF% �44 2;. J V '10 01 N W' •. W =- uj Jl • lJ:. Q; • Z171.. W • H • • CWTT W�', of, EXHIBIT B DEPICTION OF SENSITIVE AREAS SENSITIVE AREA COVENANT AND HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT PAGE 5 OF 5 After Recording return to: PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT For a valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the GRANTOR(s), the owner(s) in fee of that certain parcel of land, described as follows: hereby grants and conveys a drainage easement (as shown on the attached Exhibit "A ") for the purpose of conveying or storing storm and surface water per an engineering plan to ,� (GI RANTEE) for the project known as: "GAIttw►(o. together with the right for to enter said drainage easement for the purpose of yA observing, that the ewe:er properly operating and maintaining the drainage facilities contained within. GIRANT EE •LS The responsible for operating, maintaining and repairing the drainage facilities contained within said drainage easement, and are hereby required to obtain W or g 6 U O• { COW. ILI H W O` LL<. y 3; w Z F: Z °> 'O F- WW H 0, O, Ili Z U c- Z. RECEIVED OCT 0 7 2002 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT September 30, 2002 MEMO TO: Nora Gierloff, Planning Supervisor Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Wa., 98188 FROM: John B. Friel JBMF Consulting Engineer P.O. Box 27 Everett, Wa., 98206 Tel 425 - 771 -3892 REF: BLA for Hellwigs Addition Six Lot Site Plan for Foster Ridge In reference to your letter of September 4, 2002, I am enclosing a copy of a memo from Phil Cheesman of PACE, dated September 13, 2002 in which he is giving his initial response to those PACE items noted in your letter. What Phil is suggesting is for the City to give a preliminary approval for the six lot BLA subject to doing the details which he has outlined and that may be required prior to a permit for actual site construction. This would seem to be a reasonable request. As you know we have been involved in this BLA for a period of years now and we would at least like to get a conceptual approval. We had the expectation from the comments that were made by Jack Pace at our meeting that he was going to do the review of the material submitted within 10 days and then get back to us with a "punch list" which we understood would lead to a BLA approval which is what Phil is requesting. Gary Flowers of AES, Inc. concurs with this request and we ask that you also concur. Regarding Site Access - Access for lot 4 is indicated to be from 139th Street and from within a 20' access easement. (see attached map) Regarding Record of Covenants - What is the status of this review ? Also, our ability to do the drainage conceptual plan is contingent on executing the easement between the City and Mr. Benito Cervantes. In my memo to you dated December 4, 2001, I included a easement form and requested the following " Would you please inform me if this is satisfactory as to the form for the actual easement ". I have not yet received a response. This matter regarding the easement from Mr. Benito Cervantes is important and he would like to know what that status is with the City. I would assume that it should be executed soon in order to maintain credibility with Mr. Cervantes. He would like to do this now. If you have any questions, please contact me. ohn B. Friel, PE •PLS for R. S. Pedersen Sep 13 02 11:15a Penha11egon Raaociatee /YM•YMw A..cew.. Con•uWy lAIWoon. lna. Ergneettg p Ptr mo d Suv+eyi g MEMORANDUM 425 -827 -5043 p•1 Date: September 13, 2002 To: John B. Friel — JBMF Consulting Engineer Transmitted i'?a Facsimile to 425 -673 -7674 From: Phil Cheesman - PACE Subject: Foster Ridge Development Response to City of Tukwila Letter of September 12, 2002 ..Please find a brief response to each of the City's comments reeardirg the conceptual storm layout plan prepared by PACE. Each numbered item below corresponds to the respective paragraph listed rudder the Surface and Groundwater section of the City's letter. 1. It is assumed that the foundation of the proposed house will have perimeter drainage around n to control ground water. I am not sure what "problem" they are referring to. This drainage path is an existing condition and appears to only pass through the far eastern edge of lot 2. I don't see a need for any improvements to this area unless there are stability issues from the geotech side of things. 2. Ultimately we will need to estimate the percentage of surface arca draining to the wetland that would be taken away from the wetland area. My guess is that it is a fairly small percentage of the overall area that feeds that wetland. Then a wetland biologist will heed to make a determination on impact. Ground water also plays a role in this. I would hope that the City may be able to make an administrative decision on preliminary plat approval based on the conceptual layout and any detailed studies would be a condition for final permit issue rather than spending the time and effort for detailed studies on a layout that may need to change again. 3. We will need to work collectively with a wetland biologist and geotecluiical hydrologist (AES) to complete these studies, but again, I would hope that the City may 'oe able to make an administrative decision on preliminary plat approval based on the conceptual layout and any detailed studies would be a condition for final permit issue rather than at this stage. 4. We can provide this, but again, I would hope that the City may he able to make an administrative decision on preliminary plat approval based on the conceptual layout and any detailed studies would be a condition for final permit issue rather than at this stage. 5. We can provide this, but again, I would hope that the City may be able to make an administrative decision on preliminary plat approval based on the conceptual Layout and sizing and any detailed studies would be a condition for final permit issue rather than at this stage. If you have any questions or want to further discuss please call. Thank you. Kirkland 750 Sixth Street South (425) 827 -2014 • (425) 827 -5043 Seattle • Federal Way • Cle Elem • Portland 190 200 _ 210 N 00 7 "6:44/u5N I ± Y tibia 44 kjM1..`t:, -;% s Air':; .4;« 3,•*,R£t "B:.V., ttl1':4.T, 1k4F.21f ,fir vxtZtTEMETErm Cizy of Tukwila Department of Community Development September 4, 2002 John B. Friel P.O. Box 27 Everett, WA 98206 RE: Foster Ridge Development Dear Mr. Friel: Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director This letter is a follow up to your meeting on July 11th with Jack Pace and Jim Morrow. Even though the July 11, 2002 letter from Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. addressed the questions and concerns raised in the Shannon & Wilson Peer Review of August 9, 1999, the letter did not respond to the City's questions delineated in the Department of Public Works' July 19, 2000 letter. The following concerns remain: Unsuitable Soil Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Report of November 13, 1998 stated that the site contained fill materials that were unsuitable for structural support. This material is in or near the revised construction area — Test Pits EP -5 and EP -16. The City agrees with Associated Earth Sciences recommendation, contained in their July 11, 2002 letter, that this unsuitable material be removed for the construction of the house foundation proposed for Lot 2. Is it anticipated that this unsuitable material will adversely impact the construction of the driveway for Lot 2, the underground detention tank, and a house foundation for Lot 1?" Surface and Groundwater Surface water flows from the wetland area down slope and through the eastern portion of Lot 2 on the revised 6 -lot plan. What is the impact upon Lot 2 and how does the Pace "Conceptual" Storm Layout address this problem? Opposing forces are at work — Wetlands need both surface and ground water to stay functional, yet house sites need to stay dry. How will this balance be maintained? The Pace "Conceptual" Storm Layout does not address this problem. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 re w? o; oo w W =. -J CO LL W 0. u. J' Nom, ~ _ 1._, �o z1— U co, 0 —: C1 i- ui 1- 0: ui z: o;. O I" Ground water was encountered in all test pits within the new 6 -lot proposed development area. How will this ground water be managed? A complete and comprehensive water management plan must be submitted. The plan needs to address both surface and ground water. The 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual should be followed in preparing this report. The Pace "Conceptual" Storm Layout proposes to transmit down the unopened right -of- way all of the surface water generated by the 6 -lot development. Please submit detailed drawings that show plan and profile for this storm water drainage system. Please provide the calculations used in determining the size of the detention tank. Site Access From the 6 -lot revised plan vehicular access to Lot 4 cannot be determined. Please provide a plan that shows whether access will be from 139th or 140th Street. The Fire Department has approved the non - standard hammerhead at 139th Street. Construction Observation The City concurs with the recommendation from Associated Earth Sciences, contained in their July 11, 2002 letter, that during the construction of foundations, retaining walls, water, sewer, and surface water utilities, and driveways that there be an on -site inspector for the geotechnical engineer. The on -site inspector shall verify in writing, on a daily basis, with the reports sent to the City's Department of Public Works, that all construction work has been performed in accordance with approved plans and specifications, permit requirements, and that the construction work complies with all of the geotechnical's recommendations. Record of Covenants The City Attorney is reviewing the covenant your attorney has drafted releasing the City of Tukwila from liability for damages caused by soil movement. I will notify you if he has any revisions. If you have any questions please call me at (206) 433 -7141. c, /7/,14/- Nora Gierloff Planning Supervisor cc: Jim Morrow, Public Works Director Karen Willie, Attorney for Foster Ridge Applicants .. 'o.Li±; •ros ssr `f 1:i"iy'�.n: si ixc, +tiuiti nn>s. „Sr:A4 ', 'ihi?bri liiikS;. Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. IN July 11, 2002 Project No. KE96296A City of Tukwila • 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 93188 Attention: Mr. Jim Morrow Director of Public Works Subject: Shannon.& Wilson Peer Review, Thomas C.• Kinney, P.E. Foster Ridge Subdivision Tukwila, Washington August 9, 1999 Dear Mr. Morrow: ,.Gn., u!.± �L�L This letter represeri'ts our written response to the above noted peer review_ document for the subject site. Our comments are presented in the same order as those given in the Shannon and Wilson letter. Our comments are based on chapter 18.45 of the Tukwila Municipal Code and are based on the proposed 6 -lot development that has been submitted to the City since the peer review occurred. Classification of Lots Mr. Kinney states that, "if the topography just north of Lots 1 through 5 is considered, this classification (class 4) may extend to those lots also. Mr. Kinney' also states that Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.'s (AESI's) geotechnical report only provides special provisions for fill placement in the class 3 areas and setbacks in the limited set of identified class 4 areas, but does not otherwise address the issue. We would like to point out that it was not the intent of AESI to evaluate the property located off -site of the subject parcel. Even though• the municipal code requires the geotechnical engineer to evaluate the potential impacts to adjacent properties, it does not require us to incorporate off site topography when determining the suitable sensitive areas classification. AESI provided site preparation recommendations, special fill provisions, setbacks, deep foundation systems, drainage control recommendations, retaining wall recommendations, 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 • Kirkland, WA 98033 • Phone 425 827 -7701 • Fax 425 827 -5424 z a I. W; re. MC , J U: U 0, 0: cn w; w =. N.LL w0 u_< co a a. i z�. I— 0 Z l— D o. o cn oF- LU w�. Hi O. izi u U _co: 0 z identified landslide hazards, provided mitigation recommendations and 'required additional studies both before and during construction activities for these areas. Lot Development Mr. Kinney states that no topographic information or stability analyses have been presented for the areas to the north of lots 1 through 8 and the inherent interdependence between the on -site lots and off -site lots was not discussed. Again, even though the municipal code requires the geotechnical engineer to evaluate the potential impacts to adjacent properties, it does not require us to incorporate actual surveyed off site topography into our reports or to provide slope stability analyses of ofd site properties. Our evaluation considered off -site impacts but our client has no ability to control off -site development. That is a function of the City of Tukwila. It is also important to understand that the new 6 lot configuration has eliminated all of the steeply sloping lots except for lots 1 & 2. Lots 1 & 2 have been significantly reduced in size and pulled away from the adjacent, off -site, steeply sloping lots. As such, many of Mr. Kinneys concerns should be eliminated. Shallow Slope Movement Mr. Kinney has concerns that the drainage issues are not receiving enough pre - construction attention. With the new lot configuration the lots on the steepest portions of the site have either been eliminated or relocated away from steeper slopes. This will significantly reduce the potential for shallow slope movement. A new drainage plan has been developed by PACE showing how storm water will be addressed for the development. Control of upslope, off -site water onto the subject property will also further reduce the amount of shallow ground water on the site. Shallow and Deep Sliding Mr. Kinney had concerns regarding both shallow and deep- seated sliding for Lots 1 -5. Under the new development scenario, these lots have either been eliminated or significantly reduced in size and pulled away from the adjacent, off -site, steeply sloping lots to the north. The currently planned lots, if properly constructed according to .AESI's geotechnical engineering report and inspected by AESI at the time of construction, will not be impacted by either shallow or deep sliding concerns. 2 Impacts of Construction to the North of Lots 1 through 8 Mr. Kinney was concerned that construction on the off -site lots to, the north of Lots 1' through 8, could impact the on -site lots.. He offered no solution but suggested further consideration. The former Lots 1 through 8 have either been eliminated or significantly reduced in size and pulled away from the adjacent, off -site, steeply sloping lots to the north. The buffer zone between the lots is now in excess of 80 feet between property lines and in excess of 110 to 120 feet from planned residences. We believe that Mr. Kinney would concur that this buffer is more than adequate to protect the homes on the new Lots 1 and 2. Slope Failure Responsibility and Liability Mr. Kinney was concerned that the development of the former Lots 1 through 8 could adversely impact the downslope properties. The reconfiguration of the lots into the currently proposed plan, along with the storm water plan developed by PACE, should-effectively mitigate' the suggested concerns. Definition of Setback Issue Mr. Kinney was concerned that the setback distances did not take into account the steep _ sloping properties to the north. As stated above, the former Lots 1 through 8 -have either been eliminated or significantly reduced in size and pulled away from the adjacent, off -site, steeply sloping lots to the north. The buffer zone between the lots 'is now in excess of 80 feet between property lines and in excess of 110 to 120 feet from planned residences. We believe that Mr. Kinney would concur that this buffer is more than adequate to protect the homes on the new Lots 1 and 2 from downslope construction and to protect the downslope property owners from any yard sliding that, although unlikely, could occur. Deep Foundations Mr. Kinney's concerns on this issue was . related to requiring further study on the former Lots. 6, 7 and 8. He also had concerns on former Lots 1 through 5 if slope stability proved to he an issue on those sites. With the reconfiguration of the plat, it is our opinion that Mr. Kinney's concerns are no .longer valid.. . 1 3 •�yiyr�e _.i;.,_u� :, .:.F :L • "n9 yi;�`iS�j;:C.'� W�td..'c:5'at",4' 1tY:aitivr ":' rx 6 J U: UO U) LLI - p' N W0 2 ?. co =.d; _. z� 1- 0. z D • o U CI I— w w. H U • z, U N� � =r 0 Benches and Keys Mr. Kinney was concerned that existing fill on the site was likely not keyed and benched (i.e. placed in a controlled manner). The actual amount of fill encountered on the site was relatively minimal and confined to an area where 'former, unpermitted (prior to Pederson ownership) grading activities occurred during an apparent attempt to establish a road on the property. The new lot configuration has eliminated construction on all areas of fill except Lot 2. On the northern portion of Lot 2 we anticipate encountering 3 to 4% feet of loose fill materials. Any fill in the building area would be removed from beneath the foundations during the construction process. The fill in the yard area would likely remain and would be no more or no less stable than it is at present. Homeowner landscaping activities, including retaining walls, would have to be designed with consideration for the fill. This situation is no different than is encountered every day on building lots in Tukwila and other areas in the region. Structural Fill Mr. Kinney's concern regards the definition of structural fill and his desire to have it specified ahead of time Although we can appreciate his concern this is not a municipal or government project whereby every detail is determined prior to bidding the job. The fact is, most of the on -site material can be re -used as structural fill provided it is non - organic and the moisture content is within acceptable parameters for the material. Moisture conditioning of the soils may be required in order to attain. near optimum moisture content and facilitate compactive effort. This process is performed every day on construction sites in the region. Only if the on -site soil is too wet or too dry will it not be acceptable for use as structural fill. As per Section 18.45.060, paragraph 5, of the municipal code, the City of Tukwila requires the specialist of record (i.e. geotechnical engineer) to be retained tc monitor the site during construction. The engineer, or his representative, will determine what material can be used as structural fill at the time of construction. Spread Footings Mr. Kinneys concern is that the section of AESI's report on Foundations contains a section on .. spread footings on page 14• that could be missed by anyone not interested in pile foundations. Again,, as per Section 18.45.060, paragraph 5, of the municipal code, the City of Tukwila requires the specialist of record (i.e. geotechnical engineer) to be retained to monitor the site during construction. If the contractor or structural engineer missed these recommendations the engineer of record would be responsible to bring them to their attention. However, if this is a concern of the City, the soils report can easily be re- issued with the paragraphs in. the Foundations section rearranged to Mr Kinney's satisfaction. 4 I:••:JKI.`r.�.3,i }`M' :ti�;YY::?�,ivr`1r�.i;'�Ytp'i; 5n:�4. ^� + • z•YY.. IEI6..T.".... Retaining Wall Pressures i The concern is that the contractor may use on -site, fine grained soils for wall backfill which •would have the result of adding additional pressure against the wall. On page 15 of AESI's report, it explicitly states that the wall design is based on using imported sand and gravel for backfill behind the walls. The on -site inspector for the geotechnical engineer would be responsible for verifying that suitable material is used 'behind the wall to match the wall design. Drainage The concern regards the overall site drainage plan. • This issue has been fully addressed • by the. new lot configuration and the conceptual site drainage plan provided by PACE. Construction Plans Mr. Kinney was concerned about a utility easement down the steep slope dcwnslope of the former Lot 10; •This issue has been addressed with the new lot configuration and the placement of the utilities . down the 46th Ave. S right of way. Abandoned. Mines Mr. Kinney was concerned whether or not the site was located over an abandoned mine. To the best of our knowledge there are no abandoned coal mines in the immediate area of the subject project. Unless either Mr. Kinney or the City can provide evidence of abandoned coal mines in the area this should not be a concern.for the project. Confirmation Letter Mr. Kinney was looking for a confirmation Letter that AESI has reviewed the plans and that w are in agreement with the recommendations. Typically this letter is provided when there are additional construction piars We would anticipate providing this letter prior to actual construction beginning on the plat. • Construction Observation The concern is that construction observation is very important on this site. 5 • ,z ••a JUi . •UO.• 113 W =; •� J w O' ga • Z •z • • iO E92- . °w LL 1 Z: • • U L' 0 z We concur totally and assume that the City will require geotechnical inspection as acondition of plat approval. Based. on the new lot configuration and the above comments it is our opinion that the site, if developed in accordance with AESI's recommendations, will have a low risk of slope movement. AESI will provide to the City a letter that can be presented to downslope property owners providing geotechnical risk and mitigations concerning the development of their properties. We trust these comments and opinions are satisfactory to your needs at this time. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Kirkland, Washington Gary A. wers, P.G Principal eologist GAF/da KE96296A1 LD:D/da - 7-02 Ltmwies 573pL/ 1 Bruce L. Blyton, P.E. Principal Engineer 6 City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor July 19, 2000 Department of Public Works James E Morrow, P.E., Director Mr. John Friel JBMF Consulting Engineer P.O. Box 27 Everett, WA 98206 RE: Foster Ridge - Permits L97 -0026 and L97 -0027 Dear Mr. Friel: As promised during our recent telephone conversation, the following comments are provided in response to your letter of June 12, 2000. I feel it is important to recapture the events leading up to your June 12`h letter. Your June 12`h letter submitted a revised six -lot conceptual plan for preliminary review by the City because your original 12 -lot submittal contained numerous unacceptable risks and concerns — See Attachment 1, dated August 18, 1999. Rather than forward your proposal to Council with a denial recommendation, you and Mr. Pederson requested additional time to evaluate your options. Over the last 10 months, City staff has met with you, Mr. Pederson, Mr. Cheesman, and Mr. Flowers on at least six occasions to discuss the concerns and issues associated with your original 12 -lot proposal. As was explained during our recent conversation, even though your revised plan appears to address some, but not all, of the City's concerns associated with slope stability, drainage, and site access, there still is a considerable amount of data required before the City can begin to analyze the feasibility of your revised plan. I want to emphasize that serious concerns remain and must be addressed before a final decision can be made. The following concerns remain: Unsuitable Soil • Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Report of November 13, 1998 stated that the site contained fill materials that were unsuitable for structural support. This material is in or near the revised construction area — Test Pits EP -5 and EP -16. How will this unsuitable material be handled given that the plan proposes to build a roadway that will cross the "old fill area" below Lots 1 and 2? How will the access road be constructed? 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206- 433 -0179 • Fax: 206- 431 -3665 w J Wo, w= J F_: wO ga cod` w _. Z �.. O z- D • o O col W W O z 6.1 N" oI— z tj.:; a;5trir,: esjauvi^ Surface and Ground Water • Surface water flows from the wetland area downslope and through the eastern portion of Lot 2 on the revised plan. What is the impact upon Lot 2? • Opposing forces are at work — Wetlands need both surface and ground Q water to stay functional, yet house sites need to stay dry. How will this = balance be maintained? If additional water is indirectly added to the z u wetland because of the development, how will this affect slope stability of ug D the property downslope from your site? � o w w: • Ground water was encountered in all test pits within the new proposed H development area. How will this ground water be managed? A complete co p and comprehensive water management plan must be submitted. The plan 2 needs to address both surface and ground water. g ,` LLj. -a • The storm water generated from the development is to be transmitted = W down an unopened right -of -way. Please submit detailed drawings that z i show plan and profile for this storm water drainage system. Additionally, Z 0 I-. there is no right -of -way outlet or easement at the bottom of your proposed W W' route, how will access to Macadam Road be provided? D o 0 0 I- • The City has adopted the 1998 King County Surface Water Design — Manual as its standard. A storm water management plan in accordance i v with the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual will be I required, including detention, etc. iii z F _` Slope Stability 0 E—; • The site has at least Class 3 ( >20 %) slopes and new Lots 5 and 6 may be ? Class 4 if the slopes to the south are included. There appears to be bank sloughing above new Lots 5 and 6. • Landslide risk (shallow and deep- seated) is considered at least moderate. • A statement by the geotechnical engineer will be required that states that these risks are either eliminated or that the risk is low. These statements must be supported by detailed geotechnical report. • Another peer review, at your expense, will be required. Site Access • The proposed cul -de -sac for access to Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 will severely impact existing residences. In fact, the proposed cul -de -sac will come within 1 foot of the house on the north side and possibly result in the loss of the resident's porch. The proposed cul -de -sac does not provide sufficient room for a fire truck to turn around. Should you desire a cul -de- sac, it must be 82 -feet in diameter. Therefore, the cul -de -sac access to the four proposed lots will have to be placed on your property. • The proposed access for Lots 5 and 6 does not address how it will interact with S. 140th and the existing three driveways. Also, there is an existing sewer manhole and sewer line that must be factored into your proposal. A complete street intersection plan will be required for the proposed access to Lots 5 and 6. Since the application has been ongoing for several years, the City desires to resolve these issues. You have several options for consideration: 1. The original 12 -lot proposal may be forwarded to Council for a decision. Because there are numerous unacceptable risks and concerns associated with the 12 -lot proposal, City Staff will recommend denial. 2. The original application maybe withdrawn. 3. The original 12 -lot application maybe formally revised to show 6 or fewer lots. This would change the type of review and decision process. The Planning Manager would be the decision official in lieu of the City Council. It is requested that you evaluated the options at your disposal and let me know at your convenience how you would like to proceed. Should you have any questions, please call me at (206) 433 -0179. Sincerely, CssMil.b., Q tiZl-t.. Li James F. Morrow, PE Director, Public Works CC: Nora Gierloff, Associate Planner i1- • w: 6 J V' OOH • cn w; N LL,' wo g =d: w o: z w w; U gn Off_ w W 1-.0 - O • z: 0 P- z Talking Points Meeting with Foster Ridge August 18, 1999 z: Key Points -J C.); 1. Unsuitable soil throughout the site - up to 8 feet thick. o , Ww; 2. Water issues must be considered and addressed: , J w0. Surface water flows from the wetland area downslope and through 2 the eastern half of Lot 3 ... flow rate of approximately 5 gals per g Q' min. co Ground water encountered in all test pits, except for 9, 10, & 13. t=- w;' • Opposing forces at work - Wetlands need both surface and z 1-- groundwater to stay functional, yet house construction sites need to z c; stay dry. 2 ui Slope stability a big issue 'o 11J uf • Every lot has at'least Class 3 ( >20 %) slopes, and Lots 5, 6, 7, 8 are ►- ?. Class 4 ( >40 %) ... Lots 1 -4 may be Class 4 if the slopes to the ti 0 north are included. UN • With the exception of Lots 6, 7, & 8, the risk of slope movement is �:. considered moderate - Lots 6, 7, & 8 are considered high. Landslide risk (shallow and deep- seated) is considered moderate, except for Lots 6, 7, & 8 which is high. If the slopes to the north are included in the analysis, Lots 1 -5 may have a high risk factor too. • Houses have been constructed to the north. The impact of this construction must be considered when determining the slope stability, because in at least one instance (Lot 7) the bank has been undercut and there is an unretained bank that is approximately 15 feet high. • 4. The proposed driveway road for Lots 9 and 10 is in an area that has "conflicts." • Realignment problems • Slope problems • Stability problems - bank sloughing observed PA P4 H oo 0 cl cA a a) a A g4 c 'C cz: a '- (.. 0.. C ‘ • Yes (/) �) Yes Moderate (`. (N. (N. (N. (N. A 0 ; Yes Cu >- a) >- Moderate Yes Yes Yes Yes N >- Yes Yes Yes N >- Class 4 (Slope >40 %) Yes Yes Yes Yes Geologic Class 3 (Slope >20%) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ( 4) >-- Unsuitable Soil Present Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Q) lt '`' M� �. N 0) d' u) CD Imo N- co a CD r— v- r' N r %':1..4..::::•x:. <`:� ,,n.;+".+nSwrmx, „. }a��': 7:. 7:12: T t4'. i 94)1'.�i:,r...;""r •s ;ifi :357)AfII7 v Jaii' fi U1�:t� .� +::5:�w+' N{i '.fin , w rRe�1��'fw�.Yt'':1w`'�':E�4 u�JSt:.;t34%3'�:k:u.,rx. • 4- • w D' J U; .0 O' CA • W =; N U. • W O: • • J� LL a d, • Au a F- O moo:• 1” !X • 2 Penhallegon Associates Consulting Engineers, Inc. Engineering •. Planning • Surveying • Consulting May 17, .1999 Ms:: Nora Gierloff city :of :Tukwila , Department; of Community DeveloPment 6300 Southcenter'Blvd., Suite 100 ,. ukwila,, Washington 98.188 CITY TUKWILA MAY 1 9 1999 PERMIT CENTER. Subject Foster Ridge Boundary Line Adjustment - L97 -0026 -Administrative Planned Residential Development - L97 -0027 - Environmental Review - E97 -0013 ear 'Ms. :Gier1dff lease find enclosed four sets of blackline prints' of preliminary grading, drainage and utility drawings for the subject project. These drawings are intended to conceptually show the feasibility of this project and to, address outstanding issues. in regards to staff review comments dated March 17, 1999. Hopefully this will help in making a timely final determination for the above proposed Administrative PR.D f you or other staff have any questions or require additional information please do not hesitate to contact Sincerely, PENHALLEGON ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Philip Cheesman, Associate /pdc 98673gierloff2.wpd John B. Friel -, 3 sets :drawings 750 Sixth Street South, Kirkland, Washington 98033 Phone: (425) 827 -2014 • Fax: (425) 827 =5043 z w o:.5 5 00 CO w= -1 F- �w w0 ?. co = W z� Zo Lu ww I i— --. wN O~ = z April 30, 1999 MEMO TO: Nora Gierloff, Assistant Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. z Tukwila, Wa., 98188 FAX (206) 431 -3665 li-"` H Z. rt W: FROM: John B. Friel u �' � JBMF Consulting Engineer v U O P.O. Box 27 N o i. Everett, Wa., 98206 CO w (425) 771 -3892 -i F REF: Revised (April 1999) Site Plan for Foster Ridge L97 -0026 Boundary Line Adjustment g n L97 -0027 (APRD) u. Q' City of Tukwila = di F- w,. In accord with the items we discussed at the meeting on z_ i; March 30, 1999 in your office, I am submitting four copies Z O of the revised, dated April 1999, APRD Development Plan. w W: This submittal is for the purpose of getting your acceptance D D C fS or the plan as revised and receiving a letter of approval 0N. from your office which would complete the preliminary site 'o p plan review and allow us now to proceed to the detail design w w' stage. I- c_�; The graphics of the plan have been revised reflecting the z; following issues listed in your letter of March 17, 1999 and ii-'w which were discussed at the meeting with you, Gary Schulz 0 �! and Gary Barnett. Z Fire Department- All easement access roads are to be 20 feet. Planning Division - Environmentalist• 1. The detail design plans will specify a fence type and signage for buffer on lots 9, 11 and 12. 2. The lot size of lot 8 has been substantilly reduced so that the buffer and largest portion of the critical area has now been placed within Tract 99 per our discussion which will reduce the impact and mitigate the problem. 3. All NGPAs designations have been removed from the plan. 4, 5 & 6. Acknowledged. Planning Division: 1. We have extended the easement access width to the west boundary of lot 1, however, I discussed this with Philip Cheesman at PACE and it was noted that the existing sewer line is located in 48th Ave. S. at a depth such that grading and access extension would conflict and therefore not be feasible. • Public Works: 1 & 2. Acknowledged. 3. The easement leading to Macadam Road is feet. 4 thru 9. Acknowledged with comments on 4d, applies arround bubble beyond radius point circular concrete pipe with rubber gasket j Sincerely, John B. Friel; PE PLS for R.S. Pedersen Parkside Management increased to 20 that 8% grade and on 9, that oints ok. March 17, 1999 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development John B. Friel P.O. Box 27 Everett, WA 98206 RE: L97 -0026 Boundary Line Adjustment L97 -0027 Administrative Planned Residential Development Dear Mr. Friel: John W. Rants, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director Thank you for your submittal of the preliminary grading, drainage and utility plans for the Foster Ridge project on December 1, 1998. This letter is a consolidated listing of the Staff comments on those drawings. Fire Department 1. The width of the access roads to both lots 1 and 2 and lots 11 and 12 must be increased to 20 feet. I understand that Nick Olivas conveyed these comments to Mr. Cheesman on 12/4/98. Planning Division — Environmentalist 1. Proposed lots 9, 11 and 12 have a significant portion of wetland buffer within the lot and residential use is limited by a very small area of lawn adjacent to the wetland buffer. In order to guarantee the protection of the buffer area on the lot, a fence and signage should be provided along the wetland buffer edge identifying it as a sensitive area. 2. Proposed lot 8 also has a significant buffer area within it that cannot be reduced. Since this lot is large it is preferred that the lot size be reduced to place the maximum amount of buffer within Tract 99. 3. Sewer lines are shown through the designated NGPAs of lots 1 through 5. This utility construction, as well as filling and grading required for house construction will likely result in the loss of many trees in this NGPA, therefore it should not be so designated. Restoration and tree replacement is already required on slopes over 20 percent through the SAO and Tree Regulations. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 „„^ :c'o ,y;.:!! :r'ti :'`e ?vzrdikezvav,"b:."J,iigst! :?4i11`ia ,,vtfvZii fi.�rnw''!!Zo5t.nvko.r. or X-A VAj.$isVA".`ta.V�.7$?'N:i sr: n?+V" -'a 'r .3!'n'y".,7, -, a r,,,rzovx Y:?Y,2;u71!ra:e 4. Tract 99 (wetland and wetland buffer) will meet the 20 percent open space requirement for the PRD permit. 5. The current geotechnical report is very comprehensive but does not address the utility installation such as the new sewer line to be constructed on a steep slope area. The report indicates on pages 7 and 8 that the eastern slope area of the site has a high risk of shallow landslides and the mitigation section does not guarantee that slope failure can be prevented. The design recommendations include a strong suggestion that houses on proposed lots 6, 7 and 8 may need to be founded on piers due to the slope instability and off -site modifications to the toe of that slope. Another significant point the report makes is about the condition of the upper layer of soil and that fill materials on the site will not be suitable for foundations. This could require a significant amount of excavation and structural fill. Combined with this is a mitigation measure that large -scale clearing should be avoided and occur only during drier periods of the year. As erosion and stability are such important issues on this site we will ask that the geotechnical peer review address whether phasing of clearing and construction should be required. 6. A conceptual wetland buffer enhancement plan was submitted for the project. A final enhancement plan should be submitted for review as soon as the site plan has been finalized. I will recommend that the plan be completely installed prior to final permitting. Planning Division 1. I spoke with William Looney, owner of a parcel west of your lots 1 and 2, on 3/15/99. He would like to gain access to his property through the private access road serving those lots. I gave him your number and suggested that the two of you might be able to work out a deal to accomplish that. It does not appear that extending the road would trigger any additional requirements from the subdivision code, so long as it serves a maximum of four total lots. Public Works 1. Construction of the utilities at the north portion of the site and through to Macadam Road are in sensitive slope areas. The applicant shall identify and comply with the requirements of the SAO. The City shall review and approve utility location and construction methods for the water and sanitary sewer utilities as a joint City/Utility District approval. 2. The applicant shall secure all off -site easements necessary for utilities including the sanitary sewer from lot 1. 3. The easement leading from Macadam Road shall be increased to 20 feet to facilitate maintenance of the two utilities located in that area. 4. The applicant shall design the on -site and off -site improvements to City of Tukwila Public Works infrastructure standards and City of Tukwila ordinances. Specific requirements identified in an initial review of the preliminary site improvement drawings by PACE include: a. No rockeries in the right of way b. No rockeries over four feet in height X13.' Y: LZiiC t5: 5: i4ii1Y3itit:: tr:: is: ns�. a.:;<- in. �4s,. dristi .iiedf:.sltr.5rnx��':sxlt„n ::da.n�: =,� rY..■. 1Yy mow. U O' CO 0 CO w w =: w 0: ga Na =0. �w z 1. �- 0_ w F-: O w W. H V' _ - 0:. U N; 0 z c. No rockeries with a surcharge d. Cul -de -sacs may have a maximum of 8% grade e. The storm drainage system shall be designed to King County Surface Water Design Manual or Department of Ecology, whichever is more restrictive f. A complete engineering review will be done after preliminary approval when an application for miscellaneous permit (MI) is made. 5. A geotechnical engineer retained by the applicant at the applicant's expense shall be on -site throughout construction. A specific construction monitoring and reporting plan will be developed when infrastructure plans are approved. The applicant shall provide the City, prior to project completion, certification from the applicant's geotechnical engineer that construction has complied with the geotechnical recommendations. 6. The applicant shall post a bond as a condition of the MI permit for clearing, grading, utilities and street construction to ensure compliance with the provisions of the City's Land Altering Ordinance. 7. The applicant shall make street widening, shoulder and drainage improvements to South 140`' Street west of the project to improve the substandard roadway conditions. The road shall be developed to a paved surface of twenty feet, four foot gravel shoulders and provisions for drainage control. 8. Street frontage improvements to South 140' Street in front of the project shall be improved with 20 feet of asphalt, concrete curb and gutter, drainage control and street lighting. No sidewalk will be required. 9. The City will accept the storm water system for maintenance and operation via an easement for facilities constructed in the private roadway and leading to Macadam Road. All work shall be done to City of Tukwila Public Works standards and recommendations of geotechnical peer review. A watertight concrete tank is required for stormwater storage due to the sensitive site conditions. If you have any further questions please call me at (206) 433 -7141. Sincerely, Nora Gierloff Associate Planner cc: Gary Barnett, Public Works Nick Olivas, Fire Department Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist . 4.cei.mrnH c',e+1viXTIPP.x+6 xwrnrrn+m*+ 4. t '; i2�'i.'$4OriiV if i i %tea .�1 '{Si s'`�,'?eu7•'..a. i >. •z J U: U O` U° cnw; • Ill =: • J I— IOU. w o∎ ■ u.ct _: I- o: z LU ;off':. .° H' w W. I--U` • 0 • • U =, 0''' • z si TO: FROM: MEMORANDUM Jack Pace, Planning Manager Gary Barnett, P.E. Senior Engineer - Development DATE: March 12, 1999 SUBJECT: Foster Ridge PRD (L97 -0027) The Public Works Department has reviewed the application documents and has the following comments for resolution prior to preliminary approval: 1. Construction of the utilities at the north portion of the site and through to Macadam Road appear to be in sensitive areas. The applicant shall identify sensitive area constraints and comply with requirements of the Sensitive Area Ordinance for placement of utilities, restoration or relocation outside sensitive areas as directed by the City. Due to sensitive nature of the site, the city shall review and approve utility location and construction methods used to construct the water and sanitary sewer utilities as a joint city /utility district approval for all utility construction for the project. The applicant shall provide a certificate of water availability from Water District 125. The applicant shall provide a certificate of sewer availablity from Val -Vue Sewer District. These certificates to be provided prior to preliminary approval. Upon resolution of the above items, the Public Works Department recommends approval of the preliminary PRD with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall secure all off -site easements necessary for utilities. The northwest corner with the sanitary sewer, as well as the water and storm drainage connections to Macadam Road, require off -site easements. The easement leading from Macadam Road shall be increased to 20 feet to facilitate maintenance of the two utilities located in that area. The applicant shall design the on -site and off-site improvements to City of Tukwila Public Works Infrastructure Standards and City of Tukwila ordinances. ii. 21/,C. ^i�:Wi�i<.:,•r,: "k�:+ i�a'"a }.rEk i�a� ..i��.Ld�:{�ti/�t�'✓'�!24ne -,44 t? r ;v ;^?i'+. Sf ` i:: YAiJ'iUTrta,mtmsrsmxz+.a' ffv•tl;;;,ri?3.,: z D` w= • J H; w 0' q J' LL Q: .1.-; a. Z F! Z o.: W tiff 0 0, w w: = V; :� 0! ui z o 1 Specific requirements identified in a initial review of the preliminary site improvement drawings by PACE include: a. no rockeries in the right of way b. no rockeries over four feet in height c. no rockeries with a surcharge d. cul -de -sacs have a maximum 8% grade e. storm drainage system shall be designed to King County Surface Water Design Manual or Department of Ecology, whichever is more restrictive g. a complete engineering review will be done after preliminary approval and when an application for Miscellaneous (MI) Permit is made. A geotechnical peer review shall be performed by the City at the applicant's expense prior to MI permit approval. The design shall conform to the specific recommendations of the geotechnical engineer. A geotechnical engineer retained by the applicant at the applicant's expense, shall be on -site throughout construction. A specific construction monitoring and reporting plan will be developed when infrastructure plans are approved. The applicant shall provide the city, prior to project completion, certification from the applicant's geotechnical engineer that construction has complied with the geotechnical recommendations. The applicant shall post a bond as a condition of the MI permit for clearing, grading, utilities and street construction to ensure compliance with the provisions of the city's Land Altering Ordinance. 9. The shared drive -ways, i.e., the driveway serving lots 1 and 2 and the driveway serving Tots 11 and 12 shall be twenty feet wide. 10. The applicant shall make street widening, shoulder and drainage improvements to South 140th Street west of the project to improve the substandard roadway conditions. This road shall be developed to a paved surface of twenty feet, four foot gravel shoulders and provisions for drainage control. 11. Street frontage improvements to South 140th Street in front of the project shall be improved with 20 feet asphalt, concrete curb and gutter, drainage control and street lighting. No sidewalk is required. • .a w:• � JV 00; moo; ` Nw, J F-: N IL: .w0 J' •u. d. • • • z� O g w W, • z1 U N' z 12. The City will accept the storm water system for maintenance and operation via an easement for facilities constructed in the private road way and leading to Macadam Road. All work shall be done to City of Tukwila Public Works standards and recommendations of the geotechnical peer review. A water tight concrete tank is required for stormwater storage due to the sensitive site conditions. cc: Gary Schultz, DCD an Morrow, PW Brian Shelton, PW ypna- ��. rn�y. �, �: s.:,.._.. ..,u..,...ai^rC.�St;:'S.��_t•r: > ;l, U..�.> /Th ‘ CITY OF TUKWILA MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE cMDNS) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: BLA/LOT CONSOLIDATION REDUCE FROM 1E TO 12 LOTS. PROPONENT: RICHARD PETERSEN LOCATION OF PROPOSAL , INCLUDING, STREET ,ADDRESS , IF ANY : • ADDRESS: , • PARCEL NO : • .322920-0090 iS EC/ TWN/ R NG : ' - .,„ ••• LEAD • "GENCY CIfl TurNsLk-, FILE NO: E97-0013 The City .,:liaS determined that the propose 1 does not have a "prObab e s in jf i cant 0erse impact :on the - env i ronment . An eny 1 ronmen impact s ta EIS i s :not required under- RCW 43. 21 c . 030 ( 2) ( c) dee 1 S 1 Ofl mdt af ter re 0 ew of a comp] eted env i ronmenta 1 check 1 i st 'and otWer7; inf Ormat i on _on t i le wi th the 1 eid- auen , TI, i s informat ion is ava i.qab 1 e to the p6i) .orr jlequesC.,. The . condi t ions tct thi s 5E0A Determi(hat ion are attached. , • e , • This DNS i 1 sesued under' 197-11 .340 Comments must be: submit ted by Mar4;Lr9.3„.mi4 j,1_11 • - - , The lead age ncY 'will not act on thi propoeal\ for'.,14.5 days from the date be 1 oW. • S te e Lant...as,„er Res ons t f ic i al C t of Tiikwyj a , C2p6) 43 -3680 6300 Southcenter EloUl evard Tukw i 1 a , WA ''.13-188 • Cop] es: of the p roc'eOUres,. f 0 v SEPA appeals Department of Common Cornrnunitv Develupment • are ava:41ab le with the • • t. • August 6, 1998 MEMO TO: Nora Gierloff, Assistant Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Wa., 98188 FAX (206) 431 -3665 FROM: John B. Friel JBMF Consulting Engineer P.O. Box 27 Everett, Wa.,'98206 FAX(360)653 -2526 Call (360)659 -4774 first u , 1 2 1Crr. i _ - .1.. -. REF: Revised (July 1998) Site Plan for Foster Ridge L97 -0026 Boundary Line Adjustment L97 -0027 (APRD) E97 -0013 Evironmental Review (Lots in Hellwigs Addition) City of Tukwila In accord with the items we discussed at the meeting on July 7, 1998 in your office, I am submitting four blueline copies of the revised, dated July 1998, APRD Development Plan. This submittal is for the purpose of getting your acceptance for the plan revisions relating to the following issues discussed at the meeting and items in the Gary Schulz memo to you of June 23, 1998: Reference the Gary Schulz memo of June 23, 1998: 1. Lots 11 & 12 have been reconfigured to resolve the issue relative to Lot 11 and the buffer and seback criteria. 2. Lot 8 has been slightly reconfigured (along with Lot 7) and the building footprint repositioned beyond the steep slope portion of the lot in such a way that the 50' buffer width can be provided in the 20% gradient area. 3. Lot 9 has been reconfigured -as suggested. 4. The NGPA designation is being indicated as a way to protect this area during construction and would be included in a covenant for long term protection. It is not the intention to create a seperate tract. 5. As we discussed at the meeting, this access location is necessary to meet the driveway slope requirements and the building pads must be as located to provide space for the sewer gravity line connection and services to the lots. This is the only feasable way to access and develop Lots 1 and 2. z 'ccw U O. p. rn to w w =� J I-; V) w` wO g -J F— O Z w w, Cf • ON. Z. 111 .O~ z Fire Department Items: It was understood that the hammerhead turn around is acceptable with the Fire Department, per Nick Olivas, and that the cul -de -sac radius can be reduced to 30 feet as shown. A 28' street pavement width will be provided as per the comments by Gary Barnett. A 20'extension of the street improvement at frontage of Lot 9 is provided as requested by Nick Olivas. General Items: It was understood, that since our plan is now for 12 building sites, and that we had previously provided traffic report data for a 11 lot plan and a 13 lot plan, that another report would not be necessary. As regards to the questions about the drainage and utilities from Gary Barnett, as noted previously, we are working with Bob Stanton of PACE Consulting Engineers to provide the preliminary layout and design for the sewer, water, storm drainage, roadway and site grading plans. We will get this preliminary design information to you as soon as it is available. We expect Associated Earth Sciences to continue providing the geotechnical services as you requested. Please notify me if the revised plan is not acceptable or if the above is not in conformance with the comments at our meeting. ohn B. Friel; PE PLS for R.S. Pedersen Parkside Management ;i6; °�•' ,x^ wa•cs�.c�Y� 4x687.+ �",l i7nn.4�s'i�"eikF- niki; �+rw�d; iii" �:atir'�rk:�ra;i,� ",�'�i�:�:rti �i.,;..�xo.Li�, " ...... ..t ...�...... .. ,....�:.1 +:..,1•Aa..:.nv :wJC:V+"o4�:Y�iict1iu'.:ic EM'��i35�'Zrk� = �a4�- E�. �tc� .C�3z5x+73.t��.ana� ,. � 7i it N11LA, `a {� w Mir ...q City of Tukwila (n 1905 John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director March 26, 1998. John B. Friel P.O. Box 27 Everett, WA 98206 RE: L97 -0026 Boundary Line Adjustment 'iL97- O027'Administrative Planned Residential Development E97 -0013 Environmental Review Dear Mr. Friel: For the above applications to proceed you must submit the remaining items listed on the agenda from our meeting on September 8th, 1997. You were notified of these outstanding items in my notice of complete application of October 28, 1997 and again by fax. The purpose of this letter is to inform you that if we do not receive the information and reports requested by April 30, 1998 your applications will expire and any vested rights you may have had with them will be lost. If you are no longer pursuing the applications I would appreciate receiving a letter requesting their withdrawal. A Nora Gierloff Associate Planner cc: Joanna Spencer, Public Works Nick Olivas, Fire Department 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 .,...u......_.....c. 0.x . i,..r.:t:rari., �.�, •. -:':'lr�MS:c3`.ia�a ^.•`<.:.ci+',a.t l.lnlif?e:iiL t;.`."Ja4::.. n. 0..,.t:✓_,K;it. • • ti • F 4 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development October 28, 1997 John B. Friel P.O. Box 27 Everett, WA 98206 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION RE: L97 -0026 Boundary Line Adjustment L97 -0027 Administrative Planned Residential Development E97 -0013 Environmental Review Dear Mr. Friel: John W Rants, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director Your application for a boundary line adjustment and planned residential development located at South 139th Street and 46th Avenue South has been found to be complete on October 27th for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. The next step is for you to install the notice board on the site within 14 days of the date of this letter. You received information on how to install the sign with your application packet. If you need another set of those instructions, please call me. Once you have notified me that the notice board has been installed I will post it with a laminated copy of the Notice of Application and the comment period will start. This notice of complete application applies only to the permits identified above. It is your responsibility to apply for and obtain all necessary permits issued by other agencies. This determination of complete application does not preclude the ability of the City to require that you submit additional plans or information, if in our estimation such information is necessary to ensure the project meets the substantive requirements of the City or to complete the review process. When we met on September 8th you received a list of substantive changes from reviewing City departments that will need to be reflected in your next submittal. If we have any additional substantive comments after completing review of your completeness submittal we will send them to you by November 7th. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431.3665 dSi(i'i!i" 16k1' :ffw:�aa air e ':.w 'us:5' iL• 1^` riz'ti:tt%'ni.'6k.ai.'Tlr:14,44) xti k•• ;;uktEe/A:a3t''r..x3'Ruu Sincerely, Nora Gierloff Associate Planner cc: Joanna Spencer, Public Works Nick Olivas, Fire Department • x,. .....s.�...oea,w ��ev: rsat<. mn:...,. e« .... ........... .,+.n,...�_...._ _,....w,..,.w MEETING AGENDA DATE: September 8, 1997 RE: Foster Ridge BLA, APRD, SEPA ec t� ' �f'i a � �,�iac j ) AJ ore-, i T S ri Issue areas: Wetland Show the 10' building setback from the wetland buffer. Show outlet from wetland and indicate how flow will be controlled. - 15)- ----,M''%1 ✓t The minimum buffer distance for a Type 2 wetland is 25' (with an approved buffer enhancement plan). This does not appear to be met at lots 10 and 13. The City will require that the edge of the wetland buffer be fenced or flagged. Geotechnical Report • The geotechnical report is not written for the site plan submitted on May 27th. After any site plan changes needed to comply with the other comments are made please have Associated Earth Sciences update the report to match the proposed site plan. v- Please submit a grading plan that conforms with the recommendations in the geotechnical report. • I/• The City will require a peer review of the updated geotechnical report. • The City will require that the geotechnical firm be retained at the owner's expense to perform construction monitoring. • The City will require that a covenant be recorded to run with the land per TMC 18.45.080 E 5. e explaining the risks associated with development of the site and waiving any liability on the part of the City. jilities The certificate of water availability shows that you have insufficient t, aterrandwill need to install a new main. Public Works will require that it be 1 and if it is to be installed on private land that the appropriate easements be obtained. v( The City will require a storm drainage analysis and on site detention of stormwater. y Fire hydrant locations which meet City ordinance 1692 must be shown. Roadways IAr The maximum allowable slope for roads and driveways is 15 %. Please confirm that you can meet this requirement. kX Please revise your design so that only 4 lots are served by the proposed private road. • Frontal improvements will be required on 140th Street along lots 10 and 11. Please revise the hammerhead turn around to meet Fire Department standards. ✓ 201,-1 re, s�nz) General • Update the traffic report to reflect the current 13 lot proposal. • Update the SEPA checklist to reflect the geotechnical report. %i4 ���� tY. �M j ,y !hU%4'° •••a�."„raJTam�,:Y� ..�YS..eiilYe.�' .' t: �i: �a; �' tshlulit ..{M.tik:Gi{:ii.�ZiS:fiX -�: � * . . w.. -,i ",:e, ,,L. _ _..,_. _ .. ...._... §?i�ix:+S�� . j: Aei{ �sii. r` it�n. aati�' o��si, N, an � ci.. ?3�ziia�; �, idtfleaS� 'ui�i',t'�k`�_x�aw���«s�aL :b�?,�tti9iLi�� +i��'. i:.t� City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION June 17, 1997 John B. Friel P.O. Box 27 Everett, WA 98206 RE: L97 -0026 Boundary Line Adjustment TE97=O02 _.....i.._.... __.iV_. nh p q ..� 7��A �strattyeP anned_:Resde" 'a1�De�elo _merit. E97 -0013 Environmental Review Dear Mr. Friel: Your application for a boundary line adjustment and planned residential development located at South 139th Street and 46th Avenue South has been found to be incomplete. In order to be a complete application, the following must be submitted to the permit center: 1. A tree permit is required showing replacement tree number and location for any existing significant trees removed from sensitive areas during development. 2. The total impervious surface on the site after development . cannot exceed 50 %. Please provide calculations showing the proposed amount of impervious surface. 3. Please provide perspectives or photomontages taken from the nearest downslope off -site privately owned property to demonstrate that at the time of project completion there will be a 25% landscape coverage of all structures with an anticipated 40% coverage within 15 years. Please provide the buffer enhancement plan required for those areas where you will not be providing the full 50 foot buffer. 5. Please indicate the top of the slope and the 25 foot setback from it required for houses on lots7and8. Upon receipt of these items, the City will re- review them for completeness and will mail you written notification of completeness or incompleteness within 14 days. We would like to arrange a meeting with you and representatives from Public Works, Fire and Planning to discuss substantive issues once .we have a complete application. These applications will expire if we do not receive the additional information within ninety days of the date of this letter unless an extension is granted pursuant to Section 18.105.070(E). 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 4313665 ;[`i. �e + "xi =?'., "� 'v:f psi w`:a::'G;.`3 ':e:i.. lr..„�� NrtY[:Er.;.*tre <,c:•n fiSt� �..s+b�.Si< ci?aJnN J"1". •iiKlkSierzao3±a- WaiQii`x24,44m At-14' , '+: •kia l rta4ViNvs z ~; re w: 6 J U: U0 UO,. , u)w W= CO LI- w o' < =a w Z o. Z F- w w' U ca co :o —` 0H UJ 2 V' 1- u. /, .z' U= 0 I- z • If you have any questions with this matter please call me at 433 -7141. Sincerel Nora Gierloff Assistant Planner CC: Joanna Spencer, Public Works Nick Olivas, Fire Department Gary Schulz, Environmentalist Ali •� , ... - :7� =,; �.n ,.,..= ;��':r s,Wtiti•'.4i�atz� .... .�,eJ.rl.it�+.... , „ , .,a i .ao:_., .. e { •1 CITY OF 'UKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEU% PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ' (P -PRD) APPLICATION F.OR STAFF USE ONLY Plan, File.'Number:; --t Receipt Numb 0; Application Complete :(Date..: :` Application. Incompletes(Date. Project FI SEPA File I. PROJECT BACKGROUND A. NAME OF PROJECT /DEVELOPMENT: FOSTER RIDGE B. LOCATION OF PROJECT /DEVELOPMENT: STREET ADDRESS: S 139th Street and 46th Avenue S See Attached ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Attached Quarter: GL 1 Section: 15 Township:23 Range: 4 (This information may be found on your tax statement) c. CoNrrACT: (Primary contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent) NAME: JBMF CONSULTING ENG. John B. Friel ADDRESS: P 0 Box 27; Everett, WA. 98206 PHONE: (360) 659 -4774 SIGNATURE: :44'4444444.:. ADRVCKLT.DOC 7/2/96 __.•1• ?; :tMi�: gas. z'c••• a``..•ouitkr$9: L"F2%+:i .' o,£Lffii :1Ltii3 "�ir� 'w.'!r 4. DATE: RECEIVED MAY 2 7 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT .""±'jfgryti t ' siF Y3,41:.( :4412 t" F L-1- .0114) rt t' "ads ;.646 • .. . • LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER O! SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 1; THENCE SOUTH 89656'42.5" EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT, 270 FEET; THENCE NORTH 57.41'12.5" EAST 362.11 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY MARGIN OF COUNTY ROAD (MACADAM ROAD SOUTH); THENCE CONTINUING NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY MARGINAL LINE OF SAID ROAD 12 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 57.41'12.5" WEST 100.81 FEET; THENCE NORTH 31.08'30" WEST 156.39 FEET; THENCE NORTH 84.28' WEST 244.53 FEET; THENCE NORTH 35'34' WEST 140.46 FEET ;. THENCE SOUTH 54• WEST 65.07 FEET TO INTERSECT A LINE 30 FEET EAST OF AND PARALLEL TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 1; THENCE SOUTH 89.19'15" WEST TO, THE WEST LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 1; THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID WEST LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. (BEING KNOWN AS LOTS, 17 THROUGH 27, BLOCK 1 AND LOTS 1 THROUGH 7, BLOCK 2, HELLWIG'S ADDITION TO FOSTER, ACCORDING TO THE UNRECORDED PLAT THEREOF, TOGETHER WITH VACATED: STREETS ADJOINING) TAY ACCOUNT NUMBERS: BLOCK is . ,:LOT 17 -- 322920- 0090 -06; LOT LOT 19,-- .322920- 0120 -00; LOT '140T.21 -- 322920- 0140 -06; LOT LOT 23 -- 322920- 0160 -014 LOT .LOT 25 -- 322920- 0180 -07; LOT LOT 27 -- 32292070200 -03; BLOCK 2: • LOT 1 -- 322920- 0100 -04; LOT 2 LOT 3 -322920 -0220 -09; LOT 4 LOT 5 -- 322920- 0240 -05; LOT 6 1O?7 -- 322920- 0260 -00 18 -- 322920- 0110 -02; 20 -- 322920- 0130 -08; 22 -- 322920- 0150 -03; 24 -- 322920- 0170 -09; 26 -- 322920- 0190 -05; MOM MOD 322920- 0210 -01; 322920- 0230 -07; 322920 -0250 -02; D. PROPERTY OWNER DECLARATION The undersigned makes the following statements based upon personal knowledge: I am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. All statements contained in the application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent. { understand that conditions of approval, which the City and applicant have jointly agreed may not be completed prior to final approval of the construction (e.g., final building permit approval) will be incorporated into an agreement to be executed and recorded against the property prior to issuance of any construction permits. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington and the United States of America that the foregoing statement is true and correct. EXECUTED at (city), (state), on ,199 R. S. "Dick" Pederson (Print Name) P 0 Box 1518; Marysville, WA. 98270 (Address) (360) 659 -0808 (Phone Number) (Signature) Use- additional sheets as needed for all property owner signatures. z. mow: -J '• NIL; • w J 1- N w J�. 1 • a• • w • z �. a. z �z D. °; • • o N`• • • ;0 I- •w v; • w z• — )FFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP, —, DECLARATION: Know all men by these piesenis'that we the undersigned, owner(s) in fee simple and /or contract purchaser(s) of the land herein described do hereby make an application for a boundary line ad- justment /lot consolidation thereof. The undersigned further declare that the attached map is the graphic representation of said boundary' line adjustment /lot consolidation and the same is made with the free consent and in accordance with the desire of the owner(s). In witness • - _ : f-weitav set our hands and seals. Natne~�.. -.••. n -�..:: _ _ . Name: Name: Name: Name: Name: -- • Name; Name: STATE OF WASHINGTON County of King On this day personally appeared before me Hie kazd S. Pdee4'\ to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing in- strument, and acknowledge that true_ signed the same as 11 5 free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this ( day of 11. ,19 to. Notary Pu lic i d for the State of Washington, ilyvl,60 9 - 1S -r "c(v residing at STATE OF WASHINGTON County of King On this day personally appeared before me to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing in- strument, and acknowledge that signed the same as free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this day of ,19 Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at Page of z �W rt 6 • UO • N0: N W • W= 1 J H; w o: ga-j w ?. • �_ • o:• z I-: U� ww .— .ui z CO 0 to . PLEASE USE • ARATE SHEETS OF PAPER TO ANSWER THE FOLLOWING: E. DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SATISFIES ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1. Requirements of the subdivision code for the proposed development have been met, if appropriate; 2. Reasons for density bonuses meet the bonus criteria; 3. Adverse environmental impacts have been mitigated; 4. Compliance of the proposal to PRD and sensitive area requirements; 5. Time limitations, if any, for the entire development and specified stages have been documented in the application; 6. Development in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and other relevant plans; 7. Compliance with the BAR review guidelines (TMC 18.60.050); and 8. Appropriate retention and preservation of existing trees and vegetation as recommended by the Director of Community Development. F. IF APPLYING FOR A MULTIPLE FAMILY DENSITY BONUS PER TMC 18.46.070, DEMONSTRATE THAT THE FOLLOWING ARE SUBSTANTIALLY PROVIDED: 1. A variety of housing types is offered. 2. At least 15% of any significant stands of natural vegetation is retained. 3. Advantage is taken or enhancement is achieved or unusual or significant site features such as views, watercourses, wetlands, or other natural characteristics. 4. Separation of auto and pedestrian movement is provided, expecially in or near areas of recreation. 5. Development aspects of the PRD complement the land use policies of the Comprehensive Plan. G. WILL THE PROJECT BE COMPLETED IN PHASES? ❑ YES ® NO H. ANY RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS OF LAND OR CHARACTER OF BUILDINGS OR OTHER STRUCTURES SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY COUNCIL. (This must be incorporated into your proposal and may only be recorded after review and approval by the City Attomey and City Council.) I. HOW WILL THE COMMON OPEN AREAS AND RECREATION AREAS BE MAINTAINED? J. PLANS SHALL REFLECT ALL OTHER PRD AND ZONING CODE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. ADRVCKLT.DOC 8/6/96 ATTACHED RESPONSE TO SECTIONS E THRU J OF APRD CHECKLIST E. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT MEETS FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1. Since the site is presently segregated into 18 individual lots by previous segregation (Hellwig's Addition) the proposal is for a Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) Lot Consolidation and not a new subdivision. 2. Density bonus criteria is met thru provisions for open space, good site plan and provisions for pedestrian walkway from site to Macadam Road. 3. Environmental impacts have been mitigated thru preservation and protection of existing wetland and preserving vegetation on the steeper slope portions of the site. 4. The proposal meets the PRD and sensitive area requirements thru provisions for large open space tract, pedestrian access to and from the site, protection of the wetland area and retention of native vegetation on steeper portions of the site. 5. Development of the site would be designated for the dry weather seasons during 1997 and 1998. 6. The proposed development is specified to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan for land use of LDR. 7. Is in compliance with BAR. 8. The site plan specifically proposes preservation of existing trees and vegetation. G. The project will be completed in a phased. H. Any specific restrictive covenents review and approval by the City. single unit, not will be prepared for I. The common open space will be maintained by the interest of the lot owners. undivided uRaCa'i.+7; xr• J. The proposed plan reflects the PRD and zoning code requirements. •'4, tIvgsv. CITY OF T UKWILA ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CHECKLIST The materials listed below must be submitted with your application unless specifically waived in writing by the Department. Please contact the Department if you feel certain items are not applicable to your project and should be waived. Application review will not begin until it is determined to be complete. The initial application materials allow starting project review and vesting the applicant's rights. However, they in no way limit the City's ability to require additional information as needed to establish consistency with development standards. Department staff are available to answer questions about application materials at 206 -431 -3670. r APPLICATION FORMS: 0 Application Checklist (1 copy), indicating items submitted with application • APRD Application (4 copies) (No fee) Q SEPA Environmental Checklist (6 copies) and fee if required by the underlying action ($325) Ca Short Plat or Boundary Line Adjustment Applications and fee ❑ Other applicable land use applications PLANS [Four (4) copies of the following]: • ® Vicinity map showing location of the site. ® Surrounding area map showing existing land uses within a 1000 -foot radius from the site's property lines. ® Site plan.at:1 "= 30' or 1" = 20', with north arrow, graphic scale, and date; and the license stamp of the architect.: The following information must be contained on the plan (details may be included on additional drawing sheets): O Property lines and dimensions, lot size(s), and names of adjacent roads O Location and setbacks of existing and proposed structure(s) with gross floor area O Location of any trails, parks, plazas or other outdoor open space; existing and proposed open space easements and dedications (if any) O Location and classification of any watercourses or wetlands, and 2Q0' limit of Shoreline Overlay District O Existing and proposed grades at 2' contours, extending at least 5 feet "IE ae i§ i D boundaries with slopes in excess of 20% clearly identified O Location of closest existing fire hydrant; location and size of utility lines MAY 2 7 1997 COMMUNITY ADRVCKLT.DOC 12/12/96 DEVELOPMENT YN: ' i/. J P .: .41 _ ; • ~4S& O Location and size of utir or street/sidewalk easements or •dedic ms O Description of water and sewer availability from provider of utility (note which utility district or City) O Other relevant structures or features such as rockeries and fences. Landscape/planting plan at the same scale as site plan, with north arrow, graphic scale, and date; and the license stamp of the landscape architect. The following information must be contained on the plan: O Property lines and names of adjacent roads O Location of the following: proposed structure(s), vehicle and pedestrian circulation areas, dumpster /recycling area, site furniture, any proposed public outdoor art O Existing trees over 4" in diameter by size and species, and any trees to be saved O Proposed landscaping, including size, species, location and spacing. ® One (1) high quality 8 1/2" x 11" reduction of each sheet in the plan set. OTHER MATERIALS: O Site percolation data approved by the Seattle -King County Department of Environmental Health pursuant to TMC 14.36.020 if the site is proposed for development using a septic system, or a Certificate of Sewer Availability from the sewer utility purveyor serving the site if the sewer utility serving the site is an entity other than the City. • ® Proof that the lot or lots are recognized as separate lots pursuant to the provisions of TMC Title 17 and RCW Ch. 58.17. ® Any sensitive areas studies required by TMC 18.45. O A list of any existing environmental documents known to the applicant or the City that evaluate any aspect of the proposed project. O A list of any permits or decisions applicable to the development proposal that have been obtained prior to filing the application or that are pending before the City or any other governmental entity. ® A storm water design which meets the requirements set forth in the Surface Water Design Manual adopted pursuant to TMC 16.54060(D). ® Legal description of the site. • A soils engineering report for the site. ® Traffic studies or studies, if required pursuant to TMC 9.48.070. • A tree - clearing plan, if required by TMC 18.54. Q A parking plan, if required by TMC 18.56. O Other documentation and graphics in support of the proposal may be included as appropriate, such as color renderings, perspective drawings, photographs or models. If other materials are to be considered, eight (8) copies of each must be submitted (except models). Color drawings or photos may be submitted as 8.5 x 11 -inch color photocopies. PUBLIC NOTICE: ❑ A 4' x 4' public notice board will be required on site with 14 days of the Department determining that the application is complete, if SEPA review is required. See attached "Notice Board" requirements. See Attachment. ADRVCKLT.DOC 12/12/96 z �W 00 CO CI. CO al' J H CO IL: wo w 4c: 2 a = w' z�. z CI; o N, I] I- W 1 U' z UN; o� z 1 • I - • d°10,0 ..- . \ ... \ \ — \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 'C' • \ .:::•i \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ i.:•) \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ •,:i.• \ \ Olt \ \ \•41 ■ \ od5lf \ s \ . •••■••• ••■ .1/4,3A, s .."......... • . •••. ..... ......: .4St,...., \ , i ...... .......- .7 . ...• • .... ...9171.1.0 ... . . %. , ..... .... o 0 . ...... ••••. .... • r" t•4 • N •••■ ... e. • I : / g •••. •••• '.... • 1 .. I ... 1.: 1 ... • ... I 'It- .. t., : I - •••• •••. ••• ": •••. •••• •••• .91 ' ( Ng dO ION) •••>.• MNI.M•••=0 r/ •:? .99 tf; \ \r \ ..••• \ Cr% ID • Nt, "i• > ..... , t. ."., N s. • 1, •. • 0 \ i t I .t...' • Ili I- -.\-- : st r -a: I .. Is n 4:46 1.);..i. .. ..it.:7 :•3 b 6 • Zi I \. I'd ..'1 ... le, !.: ' i. 14 :.--....1•••— ....,, ....6.1....vi _ I . -11,,. ../ •:.x"... 1 I <' 0 f .., •l: 1 •.. r) I / \ ,.:.. vi C • 1 , 1 .6 / • N3/130Nbli ,. t 74.... L__/___ a f P43 e/3.1dne) `i. so 1 I • -•••€.4-.c ds ....„- / .4 „ „ . •,., r".... IL‘11 r's girl g L _t 2 ALOC.TO N IN3113 I .. I I..' • I ta: I 6 I — co c113 I • co ir.ii rturl L Atrium .oe /A./ "44,"'" .0* 1 c c 1. c ECEIVED g MAY 27j1997 5 I) COMMUNITY ! DEVELOPMENT i 6g444,\TAitst41, 'AtnaglAteit tetdotWar ' J \, \ Z. O0 ��-- ∎` \\ x , , l__-) / ((r/f.- ,),...S.',..3-.1.3---*=:-...=-:-...s.S--:7c"--- Tin -- \ , . 1, .11., ;) i I.,,f::, , , ..„.„,„,-....., .......-- IAN , ��� I )(I 1 I l r / •/ �.� - - — 190 III, 71/1/fi/ ( .. . si.1 I 111111i & g ��i i..� i I' %(� / '/ ~� r r J I fy I I h� 1'14 pi i Junya 1 1 I \ i l�.o N I 1 I Of ..� • r 0 i I • [RECEIVED 10 j MAY 2 7 1997 i' �1 COMMUNITY I DEVELOPMENT og tigg gar : i;N' 'a1e „Fyjl aYt6" nU?vrSii `43 "ry `h'b l% 1 ♦ 1 • \ .11 :dr gr.R.CYpts 3(n•-a. L.=oio a Ira a • 1 oo .••• . \ .••• t9 . \ \`‘ \/ x r ., \ 2 •-• . • \ \ \ \ ! 2 1. • N \ \ . •:..' .1 \ - • ■ \ \ ■■ \ \ A' i ■■■ i'r) \\ \ \ \ 1;. ill 1 if ■ \ \ . RI tu 1 1 VI i s k Z L. ••■ ••:;- \ N Att. ........ .. ...... . ....4 to 1 ... 1 a 1 se i.... (0) cl -ito •■ .., ..Z.....„.... . Ot ... _ •_.. .., 2 ▪ L.L. k Ebt 1 ••... \ ... •.••••••■ • •••.. • s. • '.....* ....... • . ..... .....s. • . • .... • • • ....... %lig • • • •■••■ \ • • • 01 , EllECEIVEC i MAY 2 7 1997 a . NA H1,9t ss--- 14– .9 0 WILSIX3 (Wad() .LON) ... I ct. / I • I 1 1 i I i riC E 1 • S., I M ..-.. I °3 1 t m t 11%1/C o t 0 11 1 . • •••••••• • • • • • . tak44.641ViehatZ ••1 • toivimuNiTy ;. OEVE)..OPIVIENT IS : 1,W tAilra,A.ate.4-4*— zga 4 • t, • WETLAND DELINEATION AND FUNCTIONAL VALUES ASSESSMENT Foster Ridge Property East of South 139th Street and West of MaCadam Road South Tukwila, Washington Prepared for: JBMF CONSULTING ENGINEERS P. O. Box 27 Everett, WA 98206 ■ Prepared by: SHELDON & ASSOCIATES, INC. 5031• University Way NE, #208 Seattle, Washington 98105 206/522 -1214 November 16, 1995 RECEIVED MAY 2 7 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT c- art -0015 �e�.i,'•Fla:;';uSa &:i4.13, i;- ;%y.zo 3r • WETLAND DELINEATION AND FUNCTIONAL VALUES ASSESSMENT Foster Ridge Property East of South 139th Street and West of MaCadam Road South Tukwila, Washington Prepared for: John Friel JBMF CONSULTING ENGINEERS P. O. Box 27 Everett, WA 98206 Prepared by: Pesha 0. Klein SHELDON & ASSOCIATES, INC. 5031 University Way NE, #208 Seattle, Washington 98105 206/522-1214 November 16, 1995 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION METHODOLOGY 1 Review of Existing Information 1 Wetland Definition 1 Evaluation of Field Conditions 3 Wetland Delineation and Classification 3 Vegetation 3 Soils 4 Hydrology 4 Wetland Determination 5 United States Fish and Wildlife Vegetation Classification 5 Wetland Rating 6 Type 1 6 Type 2 6 Type3 6 Wetland Buffer 6 Wetland Functions and Values 7 Water Quality Improvement 7 Flood /Stormwater Control 7 Groundwater Exchange 8 Natural Biological Support 8 Cultural /Recreational Value 8 FINDINGS 8 General Site Characteristics 8 Wetland Characteristics 9 Wetland 1 9 Wetland 2 10 Wildlife Observed or Expected 11 REGULATORY ISSUES 11 REFERENCES 12 Literature Cited 12 APPENDIX A - • DATA SHEETS APPENDIX B - SURVEYED WETLANDS BOUNDARY MAP JBMP Consulting Engineen/Foster Ridge Wetland Delineation and Functional Values Assessment 111 by Sheldon & Associates Nomnher 17,1995 • .:ar.� _c ;Lr i tiukaw:"�iSi ?ups arA.itViI: a LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES Site Location Map 2 Tables. Wetland Plant Indicator Status PIO Consulting E 1z ears/Foster Ride Wetland Delineation and Functional Values Assessment . �... ... ., ... ,.. � :,s� ..... -�.� ..... d•.r Y >� +awn,. ..��, -s..•. iv by Skid* & Asorwes November 17,1995 e,.wt�aroi r'sCe�. t3':r.:tgi. "i i•"s'S,;.%t �:'F_ .vT•'Tsai.,. t ;.ru;.'K '��'nu;: * ;l ;; s.,;;;4y,",:.i;,: ?,,... (,W te,- ....`1 t ,, • ;,?�uinirn'4'C aii= ltr•:' +I;;F /.. 3.. ..a.t . ..ii:r WETLAND DELINEATION AND FUNCTIONAL VALUES ASSESSMENT INTRODUCTION Sheldon & Associates conducted a wetland delineation on the proposed plat at the Foster Ridge Property located east of South 139th Street and west of MaCadam Road South in Tukwila, Washington (Figure 1 shows the approximate location of the project area). The purpose of this report is to characterize the wetland, assess functional values, and rate the wetland per the City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone (1994). METHODOLOGY Review of Existing Information Existing documents were reviewed to gain specific background knowledge of the site. Literature reviewed as part of the study included: • City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone, Chapter 18.45 (1994); and City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas Overlay Maps, Wetland Inventory (1991). Wetland Definition Both the 1987 Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the 1989 Unified Federal Methodology for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (FICWD 1989) define wetlands as follows: Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. JBIF Consulting Engineer /Foster Ridge Wetland Delineation and Functional Values Assessment 1 ...:;�5 :�v `. ....... w�:-i+isri.:.ti., +:vY::�'.iEf'. ::i� �.n.. ;:.:;,ca..,.a..... .:nxs'c. r «.- c.:r.w.Y•:,,.x.,.•t n.._ ^:i'.LSLt.rta.': c7,'sw�".' _ . by Sheldon Se Avoeiafes November 17, 1995 1 15 • l 4E I ti 2 7 ? c 1 7 • A=48.54'00" d =08'03'26' L= 75.37' L =18.28' R =88.31' _ R =130.00' wri La t zs A =19'23'4T L= 44.01' R= 30.00' 6=25-5 . 1 =5B.7 R=1 30. c7 road a iJcnmell}- �1 Q.. / ±4' ■ h, 5 8748'48' Ey 270.00' Sources Site Survey,1995 \___ crnt iTU I IIQC ■ 1 =0305123' -J 1= 45.78' R= 849.03' Figure 1. Site Location Map JBb I Consulting Engineers/Cater Ridge Wetland Delineation and Functional Values Assessment 2 by Sheldon & Asocida Mamba 17, 1995 Z WD J U:. •UO; s N l]; W =: • WO • • Wa. H W. Z cy ;w =U' lL ~ . O; Z. U N, • • O /. •Z Evaluation of Field Conditions The wetland determinations were made on site by Pesha Klein of Sheldon & Associates on November 3, 1995. Wetlands were delineated using the 1989 Unified Federal Methodology for Identifying and Delineating jurisdictional Wetlands (FICWD 1989) and the Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). The entire project area was zz walked to assess the area for wetlands. = J= Data was collected on vegetation, soils, and hydrology for each area that appeared to have 6 wetland characteristics, and a wetland /non - wetland determination was made. If an area was U to determined to be wetland, the boundary was fla gg ed with pink and black striped plastic flagging n o • affixed to vegetation. w i' J 1--: The Army Corps of Engineers uses the 1987 Army Corp of Engineers Wetland Delineation w o Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) to identify and delineate wetlands. The City of Tukwila 2 will require the use of the 1987 Methodology after December 31, 1995 to identify wetlands. g .. However, the City currently requires the use of the 1989 methodology; therefore, the wetlands on N this site were delineated using both methods. The wetlands on this site meet the wetland criteria for z w both the 1987 and 1989 methodologies, and did not require two separate flagged boundaries, z i` t-- 0 Wetland Delineation and Classification z f-, 11.1 uj Both the 1987 and 1989 Federal manuals require examination of three parameters: ca H' vegetation, soils, and hydrology. For an area to be classified as wetland, hydrophytic vegetation, w w hydric soils, and wetland hydrology must be exhibited. Each parameter is discussed further in the t- 2' sections below. Data were recorded on field data sheets, which are presented in Appendix A. The p flag number for the wetland plot appears in the upper left hand corner of the data sheet and LLj Z corresponds to the plot shown on the surveyed wetlands map as the area where the data was U collected. p 1-- z Vegetation Hydrophytic vegetation consists of those plant species growing in water, soil, or on a substrate that at least periodically lacks oxygen. For each plot, percent area coverage was estimated for each plant species present, and dominant species were determined. Per the 1989 manual, the hydrophytic vegetation criterion is met when more than 50 percent of the dominant species are hydrophytic, based on the wetland plant species indicator status from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rating (Reed 1988). The wetland plant rating list separates vascular plants into four basic groups by their wetland indicator status. A plant species indicator status is based on that species frequency of occurrence in a wetland. The indicator status rating is summarized in Table 1. Plant species are identified using Flora of the Pacific Northwest (Hitchcock and Cronquist 1973). JBMF Consulting Engineers/Foster Ridge Wetland Delineation and Functional Values Assessment 3 by Sheldon & MAXIMS November 17, 1995 t'tini,heY:vA•"ii 42k3R('J,; sfrk'ti' >`ik ta%hi"�id�i'3'! Yit+tW a cts '..s fti i:r s 7+Ai 5 .�r.'' "tip%''` - zi�.tti�w- ,�c.'''r��:a!/N��s�k'. i�S�Y/; �1:CS Table 1. Wetland Plant Indicator Status .ti Indicator Status Definition Obligate Wetland Plants (OBL) Plants that occur almost always in wetlands: estimated probability in wetlands greater than 99% under natural conditions. Facultative Wetland Plants (FACW) Plants that have an estimated probability of 67% - 99% to be found in wetlands. Facultative Plants (FAC) Plants that are equally likely to occur in wetlands or nonwetlands: estimated probability of 34% - 66% to be found in wetlands. Facultative Upland Plants (FACU) • Plants that usually occur in nonwetlands, estimated probability of 1% - 33% to be found in wetlands. Obligate Upland (UPL) Plants that occur almost always in nonwetlands under natural conditions, estimated probability greater that 99%. Soils Soils were sampled in each plot and evaluated for hydric indicators using a soil auger. Soils were sampled to a depth of 18 inches where possible. When using the 1987 methodology, the soil was observed for hydric soil indicators immediately below the A- horizon or 10 inches whichever was shallower. When using the 1989 methodology, soils were observed immediately below the A- horizon (approximately 12 inches) for hydric soil indicators. Hydric indicators for both methodologies include mottling and /or gleyed soils. Mottles are spots or blotches of contrasting color occurring within the soil matrix. Gleyed soils are predominantly neutral gray in color. Soil chroma, or color, was determined using a Munsell color chart (Kollmorgen Corporation 1975). When using the 1987 Routine methodology for areas equal to or less than 5 acres in size, hydric soils are assumed to be present in any plant community in which all dominant species have an indicator status of OBL or, all dominant species have an indicator status of OBL or FACW, and wetland hydrology is present. Soil characteristics were not compared to Soil Conservation Service (SCS) descriptions of mapped soils because soils were not mapped for the Tukwila area. Hydrology Direct observations of hydrology are often limited during the dry season. However, indicators may be present throughout the year that confirm the occurrence of saturation or JBMP Consulting Engineers/Foster Ridge Wetland Delineation and Functional Values Assessment 4 ` C.41.740043ir i ,fi; 44: 1 by Sheldon & Associates November 37, 1995 a ikB 4'014 r'1'4 t+rS k inundation for periods of time adequate to satisfy criteria designated in FICWD (1989) and the Corps of Engineers Manual (1987). Indicators for wetland hydrology using the 1987 methodology include recorded data and field data such as visual observation of inundation or saturation, watermarks, drift lines, sediment deposits, and drainage patterns. Independent evidence of wetland hydrology is required with the 1987 method. Indicators for the 1989 methodology include recorded data, aerial photographs, and field indicators such as visual observation of inundation or saturation, oxidized channels, water z marks, drift lines, visible sediment deposits on substrate and plant surfaces, water - stained leaves, _ H: surface scoured areas, wetland drainage patterns, morphological plant adaptations and hydric soil w rG characteristics. In cases where both hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils are present, wetland 6 D hydrology is assumed to occur per the Unified Federal Methodology (FICWD 1989). U: Duration of inundation and /or soil saturation for the 1987 method is based on the number ' w of days at 32 degrees Fahrenheit or above during the growing season. For the Pacific Northwest, —1E- inundation or saturation to the surface for at least 12.5% or more of the growing season in most ; p' tu years. The growing season in the Tukwila area is 207 days (SCS 1973), therefor the wetlands in this project must have 26 days of continuous hydrology to meet the criteria for wetland hydrology. ga Surface saturation or inundation using the 1989 method is determined on the natural drainage class, N water table, and permeability or inundation /saturation for one week or more during the growing F W season. 1— 0 z 1: uj Wetland Determination O H Sampling results for the three parameters were analyzed to make a wetland determination = w for each plot. Based on the results of plot determinations and visual observation of site U characteristics, an overall assessment of the area was conducted, and wetland boundaries were LL p, located. The boundaries were identified by attaching flagging to vegetation at approximately 20 -foot w N, intervals. For most wetland plots identified, data for a corresponding upland plot was collected to U = confirm the edge of the wetland. O I - z The wetlands were surveyed by Barrett Consulting Group survey crew. Refer to Appendix B for the Wetland Survey. Map. United States Fish and Wildlife Vegetation Classification Vegetation communities in the wetland were classified using a system developed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service called Classification of Wetlands and Deep Water Habitats of the United States. (Cowardin et al. 1979). This system is hierarchical and structured around biological, hydrological, and substrate characteristics. JBMF Consulting Engineers/Foster Ridge Wetland Delineation and Functional Values Assessment 5 . - :1tSFi"r5.`.t.ii;�'x: ;.AS::�itaitvz �:. uktatk�%.& L' J' iL+ ieC c: l' �s�. qii* La=. ',i".siY€tiiSkt ✓+kK,'.3w'�a.o ,421 , p"4:.'isN; Ju`''.iyi3f.ilakYt'µ#F��� by Sheldon & Asocialea November 17,1995 Type 1 Wetland Rating The City of Tukwila rates wetlands based on the following rating system: Those wetlands which meet any of the following criteria: A) The presence of species listed by the federal government or State as endangered or threatened, or the presence of critical or outstanding actual habitat for those species, B) Having 40% to 60% permanent open water in dispersed patches with two or more classes of vegetation, C) Equal to or greater than five acres in size and having three or more wetland classes, one of which may be substituted by permanent open water. Type 2 • Those wetlands which meet any of the following criteria: A) Greater than one acre in size, B) Equal to or less than one acre in size and having three or more wetland classes, C) Equal to or less than one acre, that have a forested wetland class comprised of at least 20% coverage of total surface area, or D) The presence of heron rookeries or raptor nesting trees, E) The presence of native plant associations of infrequent occurrence. Type 3 Those wetlands which are equal to or less than one acre in size and that has two or fewer wetland classes. Wetland Buffer Wetland buffers are considered to be one of the richest zones for mammals and birds. Vegetated upland buffers provide essential life needs for birds and animals that are considered to be wetland - dependent species (Washington Department of Ecology 1992). Functions which may be provided by wetland buffers include protecting wetland functional values, water quality improvement, wildlife habitat, and human impact deterrence. Vegetated wetland buffers may reduce impacts to water quality by controlling soil erosion, reduce pollutants, and can reduce water velocities, and may moderate water level fluctuations. JBAP consulting Engineers/Foster Ridge Wetland Delineation and Functional Values Assessment 6 by Sheldon & Associates November 17,1995 .6, „514414. 1:4 Mv.it7 .laF%+°s3i�.F3IVt L 5Y'iiJ ..s'iYfi '•u"Wr xiV41'frr' ;' f„it4^ Ms 0i p'•`C�Yi�;'c "�..u,�'? ,j�ibna4:PiSif 5�{7 z _ 1; iv Ur JU U 0 o • .w = H, w 0, g Q. = C1 w z -. 0; Z ILI ji w w` • co O 1H The City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone (Chapter 18.45.040) requires ,the following buffers: Type 1 Wetlands Type 2 Wetlands Type 3 Wetlands 100 -foot wide buffer 50 -foot wide buffer 25 -foot wide buffer The wetland buffer is measured from the wetland edge as delineated in the field. In addition to a buffer setback, the City requires a 10 -foot residential building setback measured from the edge of the buffer. Wetland Functions and Values Wetlands have the ability to reduce flooding, purify water, and provide wildlife habitat, shoreline protection, groundwater exchange, and offer cultural and recreational values. An informal wetland functional value assessment was conducted for the wetlands in the project area. Each of the functions described below were rated high, moderate, or low. A brief summary discussion of functional values for the wetlands are discussed in the Findings Section of this report. Water Quality Improvement Wetlands can improve water quality by filtering out sediments, excess nutrients, and toxic chemicals. This can occur through settling, which happens when water velocity is slowed in a wetland, and through uptake of materials by vegetation. A wetland's ability to purify water is based on a number of factors, including the residence time, and type and density of vegetation. Wetlands do not function as bottomless sinks for the treatment of degraded surface water or the deposition of large quantities of sediments. All wetlands have a threshold limit; input exceeding the limit will result in the collapse of the wetland system. Flood/Stormwater Control Wetlands can play an important role in flood reduction because of their ability to slow and store flood waters. During high rainfall events, water can be stored in wetlands and released slowly over a few days, thereby reducing the volume of water available at the time of peak flooding. This is especially important in urbanizing areas. The ability of a particular wetland to reduce flooding is dependent on a number of factors, including the wetland's position in the watershed, size, shape, and association with.other aquatic systems. Groundwater Exchange Wetlands can act as groundwater recharge sites, or groundwater discharge sites. Groundwater recharge occurs when water from the land surface percolates slowly into the ground JBMF Consulting Engineers/Foster Ridge Wetland Delineation and Functional Values Assessment u �uSFiF�G.r� tir.�f(tid�itLa.�+i'^i�1tti, 7 by Sheldon b howdahs November 17, 1995 ?it r'.ti}!+«' 4q. c<.C`tA14.tY:H to replenish aquifers, which are sometimes used as municipal or private water supplies. Wetlands may recharge shallow or perched lenses of water which in turn discharge into streams. Groundwater discharge, which is more common in the Pacific Northwest, occurs when groundwater emerges from the ground as a seep or a spring, thus helping to maintain stream flows. The permeability of underlying soils and the location of the water table determine a wetland's groundwater exchange. Natural Biological Support A number of wildlife species are dependent upon wetlands for all or part of their life cycle. The wildlife habitat is dependent, in part, on the structural and species diversity of plant communities, the proximity of upland habitat, and surrounding land uses. The structural complexity of a tree canopy layer, shrub layer, and ground layer provide feeding, resting, and nesting habitat for a wide variety of species. Cultural/Recreational Value Wetlands have value as scenic and recreational areas. Recreational opportunities include hiking, bird watching, or fishing. Some wetlands are important archeological or historical sites, while others have been utilized for scientific study, education, and the protection of aquatic and terrestrial habitats. FINDINGS General Site Characteristics The proposed project site is approximately 35 acres and is located east of South 139th Street, north of South 140th Street, south and west of MaCadam Road South in the City of Tukwila, Washington. The site generally slopes south to north and consists of a series of steep slopes interspersed with level areas. An old road alignment overgrown with vegetation runs west to east bisecting the property. The south property boundary area is very steep, levels out, then slopes steeply north, down to the road. Numerous seeps are present. North of the road, the site levels out, and then slopes south and east off site. Portions of the site appears to have been cleared and graded within the past five to six years and has revegetated with Himalayan blackberry (Rubus procerus). Other areas are an open forest community consisting of red alder (Altus rubra), black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), and big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) in the canopy. Himalayan blackberry dominates the understory indicating the site was disturbed. Old apple trees (Malus spp.) occur occasionally and English ivy.(Hedera helix), and escaped ornamental is found growing throughout the site. The King County Soil Survey did not map soils in the project area. In general, the soils were disturbed loams and clay loams containing charcoal fragments. JBMP Consulting Engineers/Foster Ridge Wetland Delineation and Functional Values Assessment by Sheldon & Associates 8 November 17, 1995 72501b23'+:a" S >.1'rreit'teiVaaan ^,5i bgl.bo1.'.i'.> . 4Q1., k; i'Jtxi'ti2 :FiiF Two wetlands were identified within the project area. Wetland 1, a palustrine forested wetland is located south of the road in the seep area. The entire wetland is present on site and was delineated and flagged. Wetland 2 is located on the north property boundary. The majority of the wetland is located offsite. Only the onsite portion of the wetland was flagged. Neither of the wetlands on the site were identified by the City of Tukwila Sensitive Overlay Wetland Map (1991). z The wetlands on this site meet the wetland criteria for both the 1987 and 1989 methodologies, 1 H and did not require two separate flagged boundaries. 1— w J0 O 0, uu)w w = H N ib w0 DescriptionNegetation. The wetland is located south of the road alignment and consists g Q of an upper and lower region. The upper region is located at the base of the steep slopes of the w D' southern property boundary where several hillside seeps are present. Water collects in this upper = d area and then continues south where it drains down a second steep slope and collects at the base of Z H' the slope where the road is located or in ruts of old tire tracks from heavy equipment. Eventually 1, 0 the water goes subsurface and continues to drain north. The wetland would be classified by the w 1-; Cowardin system (1979) as a palustrine forested wetland because 20% of the wetland is covered by 2 D trees rooted in the wetland. Dominant vegetation in the canopy consists of red alder and black v CI cotton wood trees. The shrub layer is sparse, dominated by Himalayan blackberry. Pacific willow :0 P: o (Salix lasiandra), red alder, and black cottonwood occurs occasionally. The herbaceous layer is w w_ densely vegetated, and dominant vegetation consists of creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), tall H r? mannagrass (Glyceria elata), and stinging nettle (ilrtica dioica). Subdominant species include giant u_ 0 horsetail (Equisetum telmateia), skunk cabbage (Lysichitum americanum), and bindweed (Convolvulus tii z' spp.). One large patch of small -fruit bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus) is present in the lower region of 0 _' the wetland. 0 1 z Wetland Characteristics Wetland 1 Soils. Soils in the wetland and the upland were not mapped by SCS. The soil in Wetland 1 are mixed and consist of a variety of soil colors and textures. Charcoal particles were found in many of the soil samples indicating past disturbances of grading and burning. Soils in the wetland consist of gray (10YR 5/1) clay loams with dark brown (10YR 3/3) mottles, dark gray (2.5Y 4/0) clays, or black (10YR 2/1) silt loams at a depth of 10 to 12 inches. The color of the soil matrix and the mottles m this wetland indicate that hydric soil conditions are present. Soils in the upland consist of dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) clay loams with few, faint mottles, olive brown (2.5Y 4/3) clay loams, and dark brown (10YR 3/3) loams at a depth of 10 to 12 inches. Hydrology. Soils were saturated to the surface at the time of the delineation, with standing water at the base of both slopes at a depth of approximately 4 to 6 inches. Sources of water to this wetland are hillside seeps and direct precipitation. Soils outside of the wetland were either dry or somewhat moist but not saturated. At the time of the delineation there was no rainfall for about two weeks, indicating the source of hydrology are the seeps. Based on the presence of saturation and inundation at the site in the absence of rainfall, it is assumed that wetland hydrology is satisfied using the 1987 and the 1989 methodology. JBMF Consulting Engineers/Foster Ridge Wetland Delineation and Functional Values Assessment by Sheldon Si A»ociaics 9 November 17, ]995 Wetland Buffer. The wetland buffer consists of open canopy upland forest, as described under the General Site Characteristics. Wetland Functional Values. Water quality improvement is probably moderate due to the dense cover of emergent vegetation and long water retention in the wetland. Floodflow moderation is likely to be moderate, as water collects in the topographically level areas and is retained before draining downslope. Biological support is moderate because the wetland has a tree canopy layer, shrub layer, and ground layer provide feeding, resting, and nesting habitat for a wide song birds and small mammals. Buffers are intact and provide good protection to the wetland. Cultural /Recreation Values are low because this wetland is not accessible to the general public, and cannot be observed from.public access. Wetland Rating. This wetland would likely rate a Type 2 per the City of Tukwila because it is equal to or less than one acre, and has a forested wetland class comprised of at least 20% coverage of total surface area. According to the City of Tukwila, a Type 2 wetland requires a 50 -foot buffer setback. Wetland 2 Description/Vegetation. Wetland 2 originates at the northern property boundary at the base of a steep slope and continues north offsite. The majority of the offsite portion is the backyard of a residential property. Without access to the offsite portion it is not known how large the wetland is or if wetland is present. An area approximately less than 50 square feet was flagged onsite. The wetland would be classified by the Cowardin system is a palustrine scrub -shrub system dominated by Himalayan blackberry. Lady fern (Athyrium felix-femina) is present occasionally. Soil and Hydrology. The soils in the onsite portion of this wetland are black (10YR 2/1) silt loams at a depth of 10 to 12 inches. Soils in the upland are dark brown (1OYR 3/3) gravelly loams at a depth of 10 to 12 inches. The source of water to the wetland are flows from a pipe that extends out of the ground at the base of the steep slope. It is unknown where the source of water originates. Water flows north out of the pipe offsite. Soils in the wetland were moist and inundated only in the narrow pathway of the flowing water. Wetland Buffer. The buffer consists of open upland forest to the south, east and west. A shed and residential housing are located in the northern buffer area. Wetland Functional Values. Overall, this is a low value wetland. The wetland is very small, and water flows offsite with no retention time in the wetland. The water does provide drinking and bathing water to wildlife. Wetland Rating. This wetland would likely rate a Type 3 per the City of Tukwila because it is equal to or less than one acre in size and has two or fewer wetland classes. According to the City of Tukwila, a Type 3.wetland requires a 25 -foot buffer setback. JBMF Consulting Engineers /Foster Ridge Wetland Delineation and Functional Values Assessment : f4' Rl4i�C• r'_ :et�:�/ihi:S�J+li'.%.'�'��AY.T� Y. 10 by Sheldon & Asociates November 17,1995 s sxr hs <i�+�ta er.(444d ,:stvf x tr +$r•d iln L' iay ' myti#A . 'x4;1 ari t tfit a )i:a � s mks i i Wildlife Observed or Expected A formal wildlife study was not part of this scope, however, wildlife use of the wetlands in this project area are limited because of the development in the area. A number of passerine birds were observed within, above, and adjacent to the wetlands and stream. Small mammals such as rabbits, moles, opossum, mice, raccoon, and shrews would be expected to use the upland forest adjacent to the wetland for food, nesting, and cover. REGULATORY ISSUES Several federal, state, and local regulations affect the development of wetland areas. Agencies that have jurisdiction over development impacts associated with onsite wetlands include, but may not be limited to, the City of Tukwila and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). Prior to permitting any activities in wetlands, the City of Tukwila requires wetland boundaries to be delineated and surveyed by qualified personnel. Wetlands are subject to verification and approval by the City. According to the City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone Chapter 18.45.080, no use or development may occur in a Type 1 or 2 wetland or its buffer except as specifically allowed by subsections a, b and h. Subsections b and h may apply to your project. Subsection b: Permitted Uses Subject to Administrative Review includes; permitted construction of new essential streets and roads, only after administrative review and approval by the Director of the Department of Community Development (DCD). Subsection h: Permitted Uses Subject to an Exception Approval permits other uses after receiving a reasonable use exception. Only Type 3 isolated wetlands can be altered or relocated, and then only with the permission of the DCD Director. A mitigation or enhancement plan must be developed and must comply with the standards of compensatory mitigation required by the City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas Zone (1994). The ACOE administers Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which regulates the discharge of dredged or fill materials into waters of the United States, including wetlands. For this project, if any wetland fill is proposed, the Corps would have to be notified so they could verify the wetland edges and make their jurisdictional determination on which type of permit is required. REFERENCES Literature Cited JBMF Consulting Engineers/Foster Ridge Wetland Delineation and Functional Values Assessment 11 by Sheldon & Amociates November 17,1995 .oAvA% Fagwivoromtnc+ffi:r.!iraa :z I z`. • • o: w : 6 __I 0: U O; • • Nw W= J H, � LL wO J' LL ?. =a z�. F- O •z m .p N w • 1 LL ~. O; wz UN Z' Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. La Roe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. Office of Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, FWS 1035- 79/81. 103 pp. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual, technical report Y -87 -1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation (FICWD). 1989. Federal manual for identifying and delineating jurisdictional wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and USDA Soil Conservation Service. Washington, D.C. Cooperative technical publication. 76 pp. plus appendices. Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. 730 pp. Kollmorgen .Corporation. 1975. Munsell soil color chart. Macbeth Division of Kollmorgen Corporation. Baltimore, Maryland. Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report. 88 (26.9). 89 pp. Tukwila, City of. 1994. City of Tukwila sensitive areas overlay zone, Chapter 18.45. City of Tukwila, Washington. Tukwila, City of. 1991. City of Tukwila sensitive areas overlay maps, Wetland layer. City of Tukwila, Washington. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1973. Soil survey, King County area, Washington. Washington Department of Ecology. 1992. Wetland buffers: use and effectiveness. Publication #92- 10. Washington State Department of Ecology. Olympia, Washington. JBMF Consulting Engineers /Foster Ridge Wetland Delineation and Functional Values Assessment 12 by Sheldon b Ameiate November 17,1995 HZ' 6 JU U OO N CO 111, w =: CO W w 0' u. -j _0, 1—w z� J=0' :z o' U; = ,. _ Z; ui } U =, 0 F" z ' tts�.*. �1t.,:: r._a:',:; ��� .5�&��:',e.....:.�i2:'2x�..:. � ",;.� "t'.;:Tit7:zh�::.4`?t�T.. �.....�;•,`5::.: !v'+'t ?r.':;'rr:' : {�; to, �.'�lv.. �,�.,.. : rn, >�t i'hTMaq.;t;'. 'b'. :.,... ue.::nl,..�i.... e; 7�;i$�.. ,. �..,.:.i*. r�"'�'k?..ST, .,y,�... _.4.J ='nJ • SHELDON & ASSOCIATES WETLAND DEUNEATION DATA FORM ONSITE DETERMINATION Client: FY- Field Inve i ator(s):p /< t!ei County try: -71,4aui 1,:t Plant Community: PFO /p5 s Flag #: (-1 S . .Methodology Used: tqg d- is gql Kozd-1/11/_, VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, % Cover, Stratum alc 1. ' orcc 1tiz5 '1`71 4.11 o carp A- FAG 15° %a T 5y 2. pop u %u- 0-1 %horra fr. rA G /o /o S y 3: 5)1/1 4 /QSrar esa- FA-61d /5 _s- 9e 4, R ?bus de5 g- F4 L / 59S- S 4 5. fzt►pu s rwwrocareu.s 0 5 L. 75% H Proje>cVSite: Date: 1 V3/q 5 Wetland #: Plot #: 1 e.K2. !Qr crl e, Dom' t Plant Species, Indicator Status, % Cover, Stratum 6. Kan44vvar {,tu, fepe rLS ,FACW 15% ..1( 7. Gcbuis'efun elrrta t t-ec 4 4 iJ 8. 9. 10. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and /or FAC: /O0 % Is the hydropfiic vegetation criterion met? &rc.e,els/ i'hart /o o-F- .c cl�rm,rr rt gfeCcp Rationale: are F- cam^ vvetfer ( olomtne, »f S SCS Series/Phase: /10 4- mafped SCS Hydric. List? . Is the observed soil a Histosol? Depth Matrix Mottle Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soils criterion met?. Rationale: Comments: e�,a lea l pW.:s d.,t .cn aA -t,on s SOILS HYDROLOGY Gley Texture Ct'aa (oct wn Is the area inundated? i'1 -0 Depth of water: Is the soil saturated? Les Depth to water: (o Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Ve Rationale:.ths..)(s 161? 1989 tti bloc • I rtS - /a g9 - 7- clady5 co> ,c itre. JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the sample plot a wetland? S Rationale for jurisdictional decision: { tWfS 11 r.€ d LJ44 (3L Q to- 1 a,,, of Comments: zsfi'+44:44.,:,.,+ 4Rtitii isia4V, L2."- "Cra:3i.t456'46,,, x .''1 6rk3aw.:.1i`4:4ors�t)`+tix mow, 2:. .J rJ! U O ;. co o U) w =: JF : CO w o IL Q: =a CU. z V O to 0 H_ _ w 1- V O z. o -. ■ SHELDON & ASSOCIATES WETLAND DEUNEATION DATA FORM ONSITE DETERMINATION Client: 7h t� 1 Field Investigator(s): r k.li -i4 County 74 kw, jek. Plant Community: ttp ta47,44 h4,74/10 Flag #: 'Methodology Used: (' , 1t1 piau.i~Iru� VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, % Cover, Stratum 1. Rt.447r tg c(, ,cd>1le-'2— Fte3i : /OO9' 2. 3. 4. 5. Project/Site: reeA?r Date: It/ 3`4 S' Wetland #: Plot # Dominant Plant Species, Indgtor Status, % Cover, Stratum 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and /or FAC:%cO % Is the hydrophic vegetation criterion met? rS Rationale: areww rd,t, 111e-n 5067;o of the dertu:ra.n f cre SCS Series/Phase: SCS Hydric List? Is the observed soil a Histosol? -- `na pp d Depth Matrix Mottle SOILS Go —f 02.5y , % ,-few ciAz FAA, or wetk Gley Texture Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soils criterion met? . bozcLa -c. (10-e-- Rationale: Comments: ' c(�fsz.,,.u.H,� -f�ha�` �7- n�n�•.h -e,,, zo�.� ;4110_,..„/Le; ►fob- dlcs�k�pp�-f-��occ;c.. �ti"�c",er°u"s (/tlG�1.s1 cs ��HYDHOLOGY tor- anemlot c� �.6"� '{a ce'eo-e.if. Is the area inundated? /1() Depth of water: Is the soil saturated? no Depth to water: Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: h 0 Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? no Rationale: , lacks (nuarvkcnk, et s JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the sample plot a wetland? fr10 Rationale for jurisdictional decision: Def-e )2A g- 66 3 Comments: :�Sh;rrs? i'rw.dCti7t: ;Pti3hair e.],,,:.! .ry '�'�c%v7.u�• ei4 + }:»ti;f Y }1e Sp.�,S, r;3 ,,��, ✓� e+( y' L. �.<4, .Z 1G�4.1;f.; �7}��i }'' ki` JY,: Iiii� i�tiL+ vx: .4(�},.`�Y�+\"�Vi,V{r'n�+ibi�� Sr�kk'hb v.{!�e. a.��.1�'u9f W u�.0' 0 o ; .co 0 (ow, I—; w o u. = a: I- w o' zI-t oN ,0 I--; LL1 wz =i or z.., SHELDON & ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ONSITE DETERMINATION Client: Ft/ e•l Field Uwe tigator(s): P' ktem County To 14;3 ' Plant Community: UQ (awe -Gregt Flag #: /- /O Methodology Used: Cl. $T 4- lq 8 9 - Flov.kkvw-' VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, % Cover, Stratum 1. Aln.LL rubm- FAG 6o/ 7` 2. hubus d csc© lc i F• G /OD °4. s 3. Icidiri 1ea' neat( -efr( 7:E c, /5 4. i%elena, h.2l i y( 5. Project/Site: 7o5-kr f r d Date: It�3 /9S Wetland #: Plot #: 3 Dominant Plant Species, Incicator Status, % Cover, Stratum 7. 8. 9. 10. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and /or FAC: -S Is the hydrophic vegetation criterion met? .e..5 Rationale: � - 11a44 z.o e cue- mtrlapeeeA--, a.t.t FAG SOILS SCS Series /Phase: /144 marreee SCS Hydric List? Is the observed soil a Histosol? —. Depth . Matrix Mottle Gley Texture /4:0-/-11 02..5 4 /oar Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soils criterion met? 4,7 0 Rationale: le e 167,0 7a a r11 'iatreA.S Comments: HYDROLOGY Is the area inundated? no Depth of water: Is the soil saturated? no Depth to water: Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? /aces i hu tcL zarl d- s a A rceb rrk Rationale: . JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the sample plot a wetland? Rationale for jurisdictional decision: ckre6 iud yytlze --f Z t4s4A..6` .. Comments: z w�. 6D' J U• U O' W; W= J H, CO tli W0 ga' fn D W: ? 1— 0' Z W W O N' 0 t—; W w Z' li UN 1:_ 0 z • SHELDON & ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ONSITE DETERMINATION • Client: 1r . i { l Field hive tigator(s): i kle -'A County : 1-(5 KtAii la-- Plant Community: rre, Flag #: /- ? ' •Methodology Used: ( S I- 4- 1 Q0 VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, % Cover, Stratum 1. 4(s. u✓ ral9(A r4 c- .q-5° 4-) 2. i?ubus cit cslr/' F4C godlJ ,s 3. Ra flu 1.1cu /vs redo -evtS F Inl 15% 4. I-f•edcret / f X A) /090 1. 5. E4 (Al Se-turn 4.-c- in Q,fi — FA'Gfn.l 0 H Project/Site: p5-/er y.c, Date: I X13/ g s� Wetland #: Plot #: t f Dominant Plant Species, Indcator Status, % Cover, Stratum 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and /or FAG: SO % Is the hydrophic vegetation criterion met? e1-e.5 Rationale: ar/Q.4 .AI. fihm,y‘. 5-Vin o� .e. SAG rn^ ff'e y- SOILS SCS Series /Phase: not' ma f p e"1 SCS Hydric List? — Is the observed soil a Histosol? Depth Matrix Mottle Gley Texture 9-12 " a. 5 Vo -- 4. Other hydric soil indicators: 54.46trrc -coy.. Is the hydric soils criterion met? y e 5 Rationale: (aw Comments: HYDROLOGY Is the area inundated? h 0 Depth of water: Is the soil saturated? its • Depth to water: 40 52c %I`a c -c__ Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: _yeir Is the wetland hydrology Criterion met? yes Rationale: . SaA -49 5ur, .e l Qgl- - a-(o dal s 661-6+4. ivi.a'Ctrr‘ l'kg - 7- at ay s Sa.4t.44. JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the sample plot a wetland? tite Rationale for jurisdictional decision: Wu2.r-4-s a.0 -f'hf cl -47 -A-- Comments: • �.; .- uc �..tl.:.r aau, xKxN iv t �E C bS� mom« laaGSZK;K, M4tk�? f ki u's ;; iifi z re w' 2 oO: ow; w= —I_ N w w O'. 2 Z Z 0' W w; 2 5; jp Ni :0 1- w;. O z: U N` o ~`. z Client: Fr I e f SHELDON & ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ONSITE DETERMINATION Project/Site: 7& 1 d� 4- Field Inve `• ator(s): P, k Le.rvl Count lam. Plant Community: ?5S Flag #: Methodology Used: Used: ) q'' l 19 011--111119-' VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, % Cover, Stratum 44 1. gcr 64-5 d 15-co -low- FAC 1009'0 S 2. St/1)4' (/ a l rcL, FAG L✓ 5% 5 'X 3- Ut i� c . d/'G� ct F4c- Z s - ' 20 don vol IuscS� N C0 N � P � l 5, / e c.c c ' eI�na eea.d F4c J 5 -{l Date: /1/,/q5---- Wetland #: / Plat #: 5 Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, % Cover, Stratum 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and /or FAC: 66 cio Is the hydrophic vegetation criterion met? (ie. S Rationale: G.ecd�t 'r o oP dew) r nan-f , s�xc� ,1F- comma t-f speeig4 SOILS SCS Series/Phase: #104 vrn p e,e-1 SCS Hydric List? — Is the observed soil a Histosol? Depth Matrix Mottle Gley 7 0-- 2' /off Z/r � Other hydric soil indicators: (n u r Is the hydric soils criterion met? Ate 5 Rationale: Ic>u, c rzw, -ra Comments: HYDROLOGY a�ut FAC 01 were/ Texture /aa�+ Is the area inundated? y'-es Depth of water: / If Is the soil saturated? yes Depth to water: Yo Sup c-L, Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes iviurtja. zbn. cf- Sa- kirtt-/tcwA, l9if - aco days Rationale:. J 1989 - 44075 JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the sample plot a wetland? .e S Rationale for jurisdictional decision: fvt -eels a (1 -071€12 Comments: ....,..H„:.Sa dto9al�5 >J.yir.:n. + i. nut�2: z" �::. rc::; N:+'{: t� ;,e�:.it•S:.EZniv'�.:t:'f..va� .;;` Fi•+:, 4�;'' a..;' i ;1Y.:ax�:iwG:�`si5it('�;+S��:i. ..t �i�.F,= fiu.it3i� ?.1i;�tbSF'i' S':.ia.:ai�r >,,.,;;'.m� c,�,�J���dEi1z���5;�man+�%i . .Z �Z' W. 1 ea. QQ N 5' J V.. oO` °' to w =. JI N w; w O in DI J w t I— O' z.F g D; D ,O N i0 H( w tai o, 1. z co O� z • SHELDON & ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ONSITE DETERMINATION • Client: Fri 2 ( Field Inv - stigator(s): P. 4G2 I P Count . ► TO k u-' (a— Plant Community: 0 to 5 t't✓ulo Flag #: ( - 2.-2. Methodology Used: VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, % Cover, Stratum 1. i lrts ru bra /S` S 3- gi u bus ctesecz c)r F,G 25eK; S 4. To- i pe _a m•e/t1 t es r FAc. 2.40 t-1 5. 2. NIA /Lc 5 snp �11C- Project/Site: Date: t 1/31cjs5 Wetland #: / Plot #: G Dominant Plant Species, Indcator Status, % Cover, Stratum 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and /or FAC:75 % Is the hydrophic vegetation criterion met? e s Rationale: On.,. .s-r - z n 50°4 o -f- cd ory, i r anre` 9j°e -e SCS Series/Phase: /to-f Mapped • SCS Hydric List? Is the observed soil a Histosol? — Depth Matrix /oyg3 /3 Mottle SOILS Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soils criterion met? ••n o Rationale: (act law C-hrama. d- Iino(410.3 Comments: c `tarc Oct / par -11-1.e- L a 9 pre -t, HYDROLOGY Gley Is the area inundated? ro Depth of water: Is the soil saturated? 11.0 • Depth to water: Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology Criterion met? ki3O Rationale:. (QctA t n/mixt.-Herr% j s Q.stu ✓a--h c+rv1 JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE FAQ o>- weer Texture /Oa :4-, Is the sample plot a wetland? kl.,0 Rationale for jurisdictional decision: is3 no+ _o-f of 3 ete � Comments: % 60-1 ..� ku .�rr�e�i,a�eu�crxt v+v. ..:;cr�zvt.vsmtvo01"%!ZiWiaT MV „Z ?ria" WPAPP:1r *.s.as ie SHELDON & ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELJNEATION DATA FORM ONSITE DETERMINATION Client: Fri e. Field Investigator(s): 42 %C l e cvt. County (a.- Plant Community: ,j'%j S Flag #: j . I Methodology Used: ( (qgq VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, % Cover, Stratum 1 • 1:?v bu.s GUSCO(0r l 6&o °l0 FAG 2. A d-h,y r-tt, rw -Ft /iv - -Fens/ n a.,, FA cr H 3. 2% 4. 5. Project/Site: Y054e.r R r�Qge. Date: 111/4 Wetland #: ri- Plat #: Dominant Plant Species,'Indcator Status, % Cover, Stratum 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and /or FAC: /bD % Is the hydrophic vegetation criterion met? es Rationale: i#y'e.r�-k^ -flan , Z)% met? *i -e dowlcna erf SPt:d[.¢o are SOILS SCS Series/Phase: h of bb ae p-e SCS Hydric List? Is the observed soil a Histosol? — Depth Matrix Mottle Gley w- (zt' , Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soils criterion met? .y-t°.5 Rationale: to chrzrbie� Comments: HYDROLOGY F4c o-t war Texture 53l-1- loan, Is the area inundated? ho Depth of water: Is the soil saturated? ye S • Depth to water: surfed c•e.— Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: -�(owi n lezrf,e/ Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? y'rs - f qg 7. .24, V s Rationale: . 5 11 1 q 'q 7 dap sa&A.7 a JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the sample plot a wetland? yc� Rationale for jurisdictional decision: Iyt.Q,2.fS all Hi re4. Comments: C V /'tlJk'Vccl, iii.n�itl,sf.' "G�i:.i3. Iii: 4} 1��Yn' ka' i6?'«Vri::1.i..V%a ?:�;'';:�;�;ti • SHELDON & ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ONSITE DETERMINATION Client: j%rCe ( Field Ind stigator(s): P k Leivt Count tt T k w t. (Q Plant Community: U r (a. t Flag #: - 1 Methodology Used: I a 8 9 d- ! Q 84 R°u4"1 r`4- VEGETATION Project/Site: 4-er R �a(� Date: 11/3/c/5" 3/Q5 Wetland #: 2_, Plot #: Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, % Cover, Stratum Dominant Plant Species, Indcator Status, % Cover, Stratum 1. Al (n u5 rabra FAG as °lo T 6. 2. giubw, el skto F44 lam% S 7. 3. g4 5-Ilchtj» - o# ii%-» , F.- J 5% -H s. 4. Etkl s- e-FUw- --frEl mcz -e1e� Fik..1 J -64 9. 5. 10. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and /or FAC: "4-5% Is the hydrophic vegetation criterion met? $ Rationale: - c. tf'ha -frt 50°/o df ci s ';.aa SOILS SCS Series /Phase: rie4- kvl,a pryer SCS Hydric List? Is the observed soil a Histosol? titre t c aY Depth Matrix Mottle Gley Texture 0(144_ Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soils criterion met? .h 0 Rationale: /u 6 5 j o,,v c h rama `rug-fries Comments: HYDROLOGY Is the area inundated? VLO Depth of water: Is the soil saturated? 4 • Depth to water: Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: h Is the wetland hydrology Criterion met? leteilts lnunc�A41. Rationale: JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the sample plot a wetland? ho Rationale for jurisdictional decision: joe4 n oUeo -f• Of 't'e 3 (IZ4+`12'1A-6L- Comments: ....krromtmnSrA%iWeG?�'?19.`i irn:RA'Xe�.'; u i�iY'M' M ' ftgatiiatx,, nrltmit5A i;{ Ii`m`£'fM.`',t 3 z w- 6 D. 0 0' !A 0 .rnw� w =: CO w 0• u. N d w Z ,— Pj 0 I—. :w W r- - O: .Z w =. ti APPENDIX B SURVEYED WETLANDS BOUNDARY MAP z<; �>.- rrcar.•^' �rtYC:;;: J(" i '�,:...� +. ?FS?;"t;:= ,ti.::+`::i i�foi,:_.XiS�'F.'a",,':kiF�?� � �':,' li: 2w;: 1' O :F�.�.'fi�S".:1%:,`ntrrszran.. 7.�:iaxro�r+:,s!: r„.!:r.�..Se %. ^.'tl�`.'..... " #1392 WETLAND LOCATION JWIF CONSULTING 11 -30 -95 Page t • • 561 11 4 4. 4 • i 4 • • t • • 4 • • • • • • • to • • • sP • 4 t 4 • 4 4 557 YL7 • 55 • • W.6 554 4 4 • 4 4 • t t • 552 WLZ • 4. • 4 4 • t 4 4 • t a • t 4 • • • • • 7 IWFTLAIO /N • ! ,OZ./ A eAr8') 6y spr,- ca:/ 54.44 .:Si /kY4 Y ? r3 Y: •- 43A4/ae r7' 4`0N 5- -r m/, /W �GSre• • R /DGE. . fLA z • • JU .o O: N0, •v) W; • W _, WW O. d i-W• Z • I- O Z 4—� W W? CV • O N' :W Ws H 11.1"-!• Z, .0 y O z