Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Permit PL14-0002 - JEFFERY S JONES - DREAMCATCHER HOMES SEPA
DREAMCATCHER HOMES 13401 33RD AVE S PL14-0002 E14-0005 �,�y-0002 LI4 0004 APPLICATION FOR REASONABLE USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW City of Tukwila Allan Ekberg, Mayor April 2, 2018 Department of Community Development - Jack Pace, Director Jay Keirouz Dreamcatcher Homes P.O. Box 2608 Lynwood, WA 98036 RE: L14-0002, L14-0006 &E14-0005 Dreamcatcher Homes, Parcel # 735960-047333`d Ave. S. Dear Mr. Keirouz: On December 16, 2014, you, and Jeffrey Jones, your wetland consultant were notified about items that were needed to continue our review of your reasonable use and SEPA applications for development on parcel # 735960-0473. That letter also notified you that pursuant to Section 18.104.070(E) you must submit the missing materials within 90 days of the date of the letter, otherwise the applications would expire. We followed up the December 16, 2014 letter with a letter dated March 30, 2015, discussing the amount of off-site wetland mitigation needed if development were to proceed on the site. You and Mr. Jones met with me and Andrea Cummins, the City's urban environmentalist, on April 14, 2015 to discuss details of wetland mitigation on the site. Since that time, there has been no additional activity on the two land use applications. The ninety day period in which to submit the missing materials expired on July 14, 2015. You have not provided the requested information and as a result your applications for reasonable use and environmental review have expired. If you wish to pursue this project, you must re -apply with new application materials and pay new application fees. As part of any new submittal, please make sure you include the items that were missing and identified in previous correspondence with you and Mr. Jones. A copy of that letter is attached. If you have any questions, please call me at 206-431-3661. Sincerely, Carol Lumb Senior Planner cc: Minnie Dhaliwal, Planning Supervisor Jeffrey Jones, J.S. Jones & Associates Enclosure: December 16, 2014 & March 30, 2015 letters Tukwila City Hall • 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, WA 98188 • 206-433-1800 • Website: TukwilaWA.gov L o a City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATIONS March 4, 2014 Jeffery S. Jones J.S. Jones and Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 1908 Issaquah, WA 98027 RE: Dream Catcher Homes Reasonable Use Application, L14-0002 and Lot Size Variance L14-0006 Dear Jeff: Thank you for submitting the fee for the public notice mailing and making arrangements for the public notice sign board's installation. Your application for approval of a reasonable use, L14-0002, located on 33rd Avenue South (parcel number 7359600473) has been found to be complete on March 4, 2014 for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. The City has also reviewed your application for a lot size variance, L14-0006, and determined that this application is complete as well for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. This determination of complete application does not preclude the City from requesting additional plans or information for either application, 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. We have completed a preliminary review of the reasonable use project and determined that additional information is needed to continue review. These comments are attached. Please provide the information requested as soon as possible so review can continue on the reasonable use application. I would appreciate your identifying 3-4 dates when you and your client are available for a public hearing in early May. The hearings on both applications will be held before the City's hearing examiner during business hours. The tentative hearing date will be included in the information provided in the public notice that must be sent out (and posted on the site) in the next 14 days. This notice of complete application applies only to the permit identified above. It is your responsibility to apply for and obtain any other necessary permits issued by other agencies. There may be permits from other agencies required which we have not identified. CL Page 1 of 2 H:\\L14-002 Keirouz Reasonable Use\ L14-0002 & L14-0006 Complete 03/04/2014 11:09 AM 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax 206-431-3665 L14-0002 Dreamcatcher Homes Reasonable Use and Lot Size Variance March 4, 2014 If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 431-3661. Sincerely, C ( %(,6(114--(, i Carol Lumb Senior Planner Enclosure — Review Comments CL Page 2 of 2 H:\\L14-002 Keirouz Reasonable Use\L14-0002 & L14-0006 Complete 03/04/2014 11:09 AM Additional Information Needed to Continue Project Review: Approval criteria #2 for reasonable use states: "As a result of the proposed development there will be no unreasonable threat to the public health, safety or welfare on or off the development proposal site." The following additional information is needed to analyze the impacts of developing the subject property: SEPA We have reviewed the SEPA checklist submitted in 1999. At that time a Determination of Nonsignficance was issued for the reasonable use project. In our review of the original Checklist, we have determined that a SEPA Addendum is needed for this project. There is no application to complete for the Addendum, however, there is an additional fee of $607.95. The original Checklist can be supplemented with the additional information requested below and any other more recent information you believe is relevant to the proposed project. Please review the answers provided in 1999 and update them, in particular provide additional or updated information for the following items — numbers in parentheses refer to the Checklist question: 1. Clarify the size of the building footprint for the proposed house (A. 11); 2. The Checklist provides conflicting information on whether fill will be used (B.1.e.) — clarify whether fill is needed to create a building pad and driveway and if so, how much fill is needed. Additionally, how much excavation will take place? 3. Has the percent of the site to be covered by impervious surfaces changed? If so, what is the correct percentage? (B 1.g.) 4. For question B. 3. a. 2) The stream cuts across the lower half of the site at an angle and discharges near the northeast edge of the site. This information needs to be incorporated into the checklist, as well as impacts to the stream from relocating part of it or otherwise keeping the flow away from the proposed house and driveway. 5. Information from the drainage/hydrology assessment (see below) and geotech review should be incorporated into the checklist. Drainage/Hydrology Assessment: DCD and the City's surface water engineer visited the site on February 5, 2014. Based on that visit, and a review of the documents submitted in 1999, the following comments must be addressed: 6. The primary concern with development of this site is that a house is proposed to be constructed within a wetland and the potential for drainage, safety, and health problems that may occur in the future both on-site as well as on adjacent down -stream properties as CL Page 1 of 4 03/04/2014 11:37 AM H:\\L14-0002 Keirouz Reasonable use\Attachment A CJ L14-0002, Keirouz Reasonable Use Project Review Comments a result of the displacement of the wetland functions. During the site visit, springs above and within the site were observed. The 1999 proposal included a retaining wall on the western portion of the site — it is not clear if that is what is proposed currently. Given the amount of water that is present, it does not appear that a proposal to install a retaining wall with a wall drain to intercept most of the ground water prior to it entering the yard portion of the site is adequate, nor will this approach keep water from coming to the surface below the house or on the driveway. Please provide the following: a. Submit a new drainage and hydrology assessment conforming to the 2009 KCSWDM and to an updated geotechnical engineer's recommendations. The drainage report should evaluate the impact of the proposed development on stream hydrology and wetland function and accurately reflect the location and direction of the current stream flow. The original drainage assessment acknowledges that other water sheet flows across the site — what will happen to this flow when it is interrupted by the construction of a house and driveway (and fill if fill is proposed for the site)? b. Have a geotechnical engineer review the site and the 1999 geotechnical comments, update and revise the comments based on the current development proposal if necessary and make recommendations concerning dewatering the property. c. In addition to the wall drain and drainage system beneath the house, it is recommended that a deep (6'-8') cutoff trench across the back yard beneath the "valley" to intercept ground water flows. The trench would use an 8" perforated pipe surrounded by drain rock and wrapped in an approved geotextile fabric. This should allow the back yard to be usable and keep most of the groundwater from coming to the surface beneath the house. A geotechnical engineer should assess this recommendation based on actual subsurface conditions and modify or propose other means to accomplish the same goal. d. Pipes from the neighboring property and a trench were observed on the northwest side of this site. Please discuss how this drainage will be addressed — will it need to be piped or dealt with in another way? e. Additional dewatering may be required beneath the driveway to keep groundwater from flowing up through cracks and freezing on the planned 12% grade. Please address this issue. 2014 Sensitive Areas Study: 7. Revise the sensitive areas study to: a. Include the wetland mitigation square footages information from the response to the Reasonable Use criteria on amount of wetland impact, the amount of on-site mitigation and the amount of additional off-site mitigation needed in the sensitive areas study. b. Reflect increased planting densities over what has been submitted, including installation of vegetation along the stream banks c. Discuss impacts on the wetland and the watercourse (as well as the adjacent property to the north) from the proposed construction. CL Page 2 of 4 03/04/2014 11:37 AM H:\\L14-0002 Keirouz Reasonable use\Attachment A L14-0002, Keirouz Reasonable Use Project Review Comments d. Provide a discussion on the off-site mitigation proposed to compensate for the wetland fill — how much and where it will be implemented; e. Correctly map the course of the stream, the springs on-site (or the location where springs daylight or flow on to the property) and the actual discharge point of the stream. Also, the Sensitive Areas Study states that the stream is both seasonal (page 1) and year-round (page 4) — please correct one of these references. f. Identify proposed in -stream improvements and describe new bank configuration and conditions (include a cross section). Tukwila's code requires that for any work proposed in a stream (such as rerouting part of it), the stream be restored to a better condition than existing conditions. g. Revise the conceptual mitigation plan to indicate how stream flow will be managed and where and how it will discharge; h. Provide more detail on how invasive vegetation will be managed and which vegetation (both invasive and non-invasive) will be removed. Reasonable Use Criteria 8. Please address more completely the impacts to adjacent properties from the wetland fill/displacement, based on the updated information from the drainage study and any other pertinent information. Mitigation Plans The mitigation plan is reviewed and approved as part of the reasonable use application, therefore more details are needed on what is proposed: 9. Identify the significant trees to be removed from the site and provide tree replacement figures, per TMC 18.54. 10. What off-site mitigation is proposed to compensate for the remaining area that is needed to achieve 12:1 mitigation for enhancement? 11. Sheet 2/3 of the Mitigation Plan, indicate where the silt fencing is to be located. 12. Sheet 2/3 of the Mitigation Plan, correct the wetland sign detail, per TMC 18.45.060 6. 13. Sheet 2/3 of the Mitigation Plan, Tree and Shrub Planting and Staking Detail — the vegetation is to be placed at the same level as the native soil, not one inch above it. Remove the staking notes. 14. Sheet 3/3 of the Mitigation Plan, note 9.13 —the entire mitigation area is to be amended, not just the planting pit areas where plants are to be located. 15. Sheet 3/3 of the Mitigation Plan, remove note 9.18 — there is to be no staking of trees. 16. Sheet 3/3 of the Mitigation Plan, correct all notations of the monitoring time from 3 years to 5, as required by TMC 18.45. 17. Sheet 3/3 of the Mitigation Plan, note 11.0 — third bullet — add two species of herbaceous/emergent plants to the trees and shrubs to be established at the end of the monitoring period. CL Page 3 of 4 03/04/2014 11:54 AM H:\\L14-0002 Keirouz Reasonable use\Attachment A i h L14-0002, Keirouz Reasonable Use Project Review Comments 18. Please identify the mitigation proposed for the stream channel, particularly if additional piping or replacement piping will be used on the site. 19. Sheet 3/3 of the Mitigation Plan, note 12.1— include streambank/erosion monitoring in the transect and plot areas being monitored. 20. Sheet 3/3 of the Mitigation Plan, note 12.3 — add stream monitoring data criteria to the items being monitored. 21. Sheet 3/3 of the Mitigation Plan, change the heading of note 13.0 to "Financial Assurance/Developer Warranty" and revise the paragraph text to remove references to bonds. Other Permits Based on the site conditions and the proposed project, it appears that you will need the following other determinations or permits: a. Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Determination; b. Corps of Engineers individual 404 or Nationwide permit for filling wetland and altering a watercourse (if determined to be jurisdictional); and c. If watercourse relocation and working in a watercourse is proposed, then a HPA is required. Please provide a copy of these approvals/permits as soon as possible. It is important that any requirements of the COE or Washington State Dept. of Fish and Wildlife be reflected in the mitigation plan submitted to the City to avoid changes to the mitigation plan after the Hearing Examiner decision is issued. • CL Page 4 of 4 03/04/2014 11:54 AM H:\\L14-0002 Keirouz Reasonable use\Attachment A Carol Lumb From: Yon LeMieux <yonflora@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 8:23 AM To: Carol Lumb Subject: comments on application Department of Community Development City of Tukwila Carol Lumb I am writing regarding the permit to build on 130xx 33rd Ave S. I live adjacent to the property on the south side. There is considerable water flow in the stream beside and to the west of my house. I am concerned that any attempt to divert the water will result in damage to my property. The stream in question and its buffers absorb a good deal of water. Yet the surrounding area remains soggy year-round as it is. The following text is from the Washington State Department of Ecology's website: Almost any wetland can provide some measure of flood protection by holding the excess runoff after a storm, and then releasing it slowly. The size, shape, location, and soil type of a wetland determine its capacity to reduce local and downstream flooding. While wetlands cannot prevent flooding, they do lower flood peaks by temporarily holding water and by slowing the water's velocity. Wetland soil acts as a sponge, holding much more water than other soil types. Even isolated wetlands can reduce local flooding -- if the wetlands were not there to hold stormwater runoff, backyards and basements might end up under water. I understand the property in question is a level 3 wetland; a classification given to areas less than one acre in size and with some isolation from other wild areas. There is indeed very little space between the lot and the houses on either side of it, mine included. It is my hope that the stream and its buffers can remain in tact so that it can do its job of absorbing the water that comes through the area. Thank you, Yon Lemieux 206.849.3409 1 March 30, 2015 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Jim Haggerton, Mayor Jeffrey Jones J.S. Jones and Associates P.O. Box 1908 Issaquah, WA 98027 RE: L14-002 — Off-site Mitigation Sites Dear Jeff and Jay, Jay Keirouz Dreamcatcher Homes P.O. Box 2608 Lynwood, WA 98036 Jack Pace, Director As part of our analysis of the reasonable use request for tax parcel 735960-0473, we need to evaluate the total mitigation proposed to compensate for the construction of a single family dwelling in a wetland, wetland buffer and stream buffer. This information is needed prior to scheduling the public hearing for the reasonable use and lot size variance requests. The Wetland Impacts and Stream Buffer Impacts analysis prepared by Mr. Jones on November 18, 2013 and revised on December 30, 2014, identifies 2,800 sq. ft. of total wetland impact and 53 sq. ft. of wetland buffer that needs to be mitigated for the property. The wetland has been categorized as a Category III wetland and enhancement is proposed for mitigation — the required wetland mitigation ratio for enhancement of a Category III wetland is 8:1 (not 12:1 as noted in the wetland report). I calculate the required amount of wetland mitigation as 22,400 sq. ft. plus 53 sq. ft. of wetland buffer enhancement for a total of 22,453 sq. ft. of needed wetland enhancement (per TMC 18.45.090 E.b. (2)). The site provides the opportunity for 3,177 sq. ft. of enhancement, leaving the need for 19,276 sq. ft. (or .44 acres) of off-site wetland mitigation. The reasonable use analysis states that the off-site mitigation may be either a fee -in -lieu program or enhancement of a city -owned property. Next Steps/Process The City does not have a fee -in -lieu program in place at this time, so the off-site option for wetland mitigation will be on either private or public property. We need you to identify where the off-site mitigation will take place and provide us with the costs for both the implementation of the mitigation and the on-going maintenance and monitoring that will be required. The required City monitoring and maintenance time period is five years for both the on- and off-site mitigation. Please keep in mind, additional requirements, alternative locations, and a longer monitoring period may be required by other permitting agencies (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ecology, WDFW). If you have not contacted these agencies yet to discuss this project, you may want to do so now, so that you are aware of the possible full range of mitigation required for the project outside of what the City will require. CL Page 1 of 2 H:\\L14-0002\Off-site Wetland Mitigation and Stream Assessment 03/30/2015 10:58 AM Mr. Jay Keirouz Mr. Jeffrey Jones L14 -0002 -Off-site Mitigation and Stream Assessment Needed Additional"Information and Clarifications 1. The Wetland and Stream Assessment identifies two different ratings for the stream on the site — on page 1, the stream is identified as a seasonal stream while on page 4, the stream is identified as a Type 3 stream — please clarify what the stream typing is for this property and how this deter. 2. Please provide a baseline/existing conditions drawing, clearly indicating the existing stream location, significant trees that will be removed/retained, and the boundaries of the wetland for our records. A "wetland sketch" is referenced in the application materials but was not included. If you have any. questions, please let me know. If you would like to schedule a meeting to discuss the off-site mitigation options, or any other issue, please let me know and I will set up a meeting. Sincerely, Carol Lumb Senior Planner cc: Minnie Dhaliwal, Planning Manager Andrea Cummins, Urban Environmentalist CL Page 2 of 2 H:\\L14-0002\Off-site Wetland Mitigation and Stream Assessment 03/30/2015 10:58 AM December 16, 2014 City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director Jeffrey Jones J.S. Jones and Associates P.O. Box 1908 Issaquah, WA 98027 RE: L14-002, L14-006 and E14-0005 Dear Jeff, I am writing to bring to your attention two issues. 1. There are fees outstanding on the Notice of Application sent out to properties within 500 feet of your project in the amount of $97.00. This is the third request for reimbursement and the fee must be paid immediately. 2. We met on March 19, 2014 to discuss the items that were needed in order to continue to review the reasonable use and SEPA applications for the project. Nine months have elapsed and I have not received the items identified in the letter to you dated March 4, 2014. TMC 18.104.070 E. provides the City may cancel an application if requested information is not provided in 90 days. The payment of the outstanding fees must be remitted immediately. You also must submit the items requested in the March 4, 2014 letter by March 17, 2015 otherwise the application will be cancelled. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Carol Lumb Senior Planner Enclosures: March 4, 2014 letter, with attachment 7/24/14 Second request for fee payment cc: Jay Keirouz, Dreamcatcher Homes CL H:\\L14-0002\Fee and Additional Info Ltr Page 1 of 1 12/16/2014 4:41 PM Carol Lumb From: Carol Lumb Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 6:16 PM To: Jihad Keirouz (keirouzja@gmail.com) Cc: Jeffrey Jones (jeffjsjones@comcast.net); Minnie Dhaliwal Subject: Reasonable Use application Attachments: Public_Notice_Board_info.pdf Jay, I have not heard anything back since Jeff's May 1st email to you about the installation of the public notice sign for the reasonable use application . This sign needs to be installed as soon as possible as it is part of the public notice the City's regulations require for this type of land use application. All you need to do is contact the sign company and pay for the sign — I will provide the information that is put on the sign. The sign should have been installed months ago when we sent out the original public notice. The sign company which does many of the public notice boards in Tukwila is Fast Signs, 206-575-2110 but you are welcome to use any sign company you wish —just provide them with the template for the sign board, attached and give me information on to whom to provide the information that is put on the sign. Please give me an update of where things are with the project so that a new hearing date can be identified. Public notice will need to be mailed again once the new hearing date is established. If you have decided not to pursue this project, then please provide an email to that effect so we can close out the files. I need to hear back from you or Jeff by Wednesday, May 28th with a status report. I am out of the office tomorrow and Monday. Please call or send an email if you have questions. Thank you. Carol Carol Lumb, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southeenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 206-431-3661 Carol Lum.bt2Tuk zvila lWa.go v Tukwila, the City of opportunity, the community of choice. 1 Carol Lumb From: Carol Lumb Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 1:24 PM To: 'jeff.jsjones@comcast.net' Cc: Minnie Dhaliwal Subject: RE: Canceled: Reasonable Use and Lot Size Variance Hearings Jeff, We need to receive all of the information that was requested in the City's letter on March 4, 2014. Once that information is received, then it will be routed internally to make sure the materials provided responds to the March 4th request. At that point we will look at possible hearing dates that work for all of us — you, Mr. Keirouz, me and the hearing examiner. Our urban environmentalist, Sandra Whiting, is leaving at the end of June and if her replacement has not been hired by the time the information requested is received, then there may be delays in the review of the environmental information requested which would then delay the preparation of a staff report for the reasonable use application. Carol From: jeff.jsjones@comcast.net fmailto:jeffjsjones@comcast.netl Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 12:30 PM To: Carol Lumb Subject: Re: Canceled: Reasonable Use and Lot Size Variance Hearings Is it cancelled until you received the geotech and engineers information? From: "Carol Lumb" <Carol.Lumb@TukwilaWA.gov> To: "Jihad Keirouz (keirouzja@gmail.com)" <keirouzja@gmail.com>, "anne watanabe" <anne.watanabe@seattle.gov>, "Jeffrey Jones (jeff.isjones@comcast.net)" <jeff. isjones @ comcast. net> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 11:50:02 AM Subject: Canceled: Reasonable Use and Lot Size Variance Hearings The hearing location has been moved to Conference Room #1, which is the conference room closest to the permit center counter. CITY OF TUKWILA `,r, Nd CE OF APPLICATION PROJECT INFORMATION Jeffer y S. Jones for Dreamcatcher Homes has filed a SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) Addendum, Reasonable Use and Lot Size Variance applications for property at 131XX 33rd Avenue South, Tukwila. Permits applied for include: L14-0002: Reasonable Use Application L14-0006: Lot Size Variance E14-0005: SEPA Addendum Other known required permits include: Building Permit, Public Works Clearing/Grading Permit. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (U.S. COE) Jurisdictional Determination, possibly U.S. COE 404 or Nationwide permit; possible Hydraulic Project Approval. Studies required with the applications include: Wetland and Stream Assessment, November 25, 2013, prepared by Jeffery S. Jones. The City of Tukwila has requested additional information related to site drainage and hydrology and geotechnical analysis. A Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) for a similar proposal to develop the site (E99-0017) was issued November 16, 1999. The applicant is updating environmental information through a SEPA Addendum for this project, file number E14-0005. FILES AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW The project files are available at the City of Tukwila. To view the files, you may request them at the counter at the Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard #100. Please call the number listed below to make arrangements to view the files. Project Files include: L14-0002: Reasonable Use Application, L14-0006: Lot Size Variance and E14-0005, SEPA Addendum. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT Your written comments on the project are requested. They must be delivered to DCD at the address below or postmarked no later than 5:00 P.M., June 20, 2014. Opportunity for additional oral and/or written public comments will be provided at a public hearing before the Tukwila Hearing Examiner at the DCD offices, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100, Tukwila, WA 98188. The public hearing, originally scheduled for Thursday, May 29, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. has been postponed. Public notice will be provided when a new hearing date is set. To confirm the hearing date call the Department of Community Development at (206) 431-3661. APPEALS You may request a copy of any decision, information on hearings, and your appeal rights by calling DCD at (206) 431-3670. Both the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and Shoreline Variance are appealable to the Washington State Shoreline Hearings Board. For further information on this proposal, contact Carol Lumb at (206) 431-3661 or visit our offices at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100, Tukwila, WA 98188, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Application Filed: Notice of Completeness Issued: Notice of Application Issued: Notice of Application Re -Issued: January 15, 2014 March 4, 2014 March 25, 2014 June 6, 2014 CL H:\\Dreamcatcher Homes NOA\L14-0002-L14-0006-E14-0005 NOA 06/05/2014 2:36 PM TIE YFRNCAL MINI 1s NAW -1& 111E 33101 MARK IS 91RYEY CONTROL PONT NO. 3448 PER SUILEY 66646. PONT DATA SHEET DESCRIBED AS A MON N CASE W114 A r X 1' LEAD 911 '+' LOCATED AT 144E WIENECTINI OF 3.12919 ST AND 2419 AYE S EIEVATON = 350.63 FEET. THE BOUNDARY LIES 91061 HEREON ME PER NECNO Cr 9NRE1 RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NN 5311175012. 111E LOT LIES OF SAID WANT HAW BEEN ROTATED TO NAD 83041111y BY TAM A COIIRE OF FOND LOT CORNERS 1 MAKE NO AS 10 11E ACCURACY OF SAID SURVEY. ONLY TIE UINTIES MAT ME %SOLE HAW BEEN LOCATED. U1L11ES THAT ARE UNDERGROUND OR ME 8NDONED BY VEGETATION MAY NOT 141Mi SEEN LOCATED. PRIOR TO DIOOW INVESTIGATOR FOR POSSME 190001 UNDERGROUND 1/131163 SHOULD BE MIRED. TE BASS OF KA1910 IS STATE RAZE (NAND 111111) AS ESTABLI9EO BY OPS TE CONTROL PONT IBM POM NO. 3443 PM SURVEY 601194 PONT DATA SHEET DESCRIBED AS A MON N CA4 Mm A V X 1' LEAD 9111 +' LOCATED AT 1NE NTERSEC1DN OF S.123114 ST A140 2419 ADE S. 191E TREES 9101N HEREON HAW LEEN DENTFlED AND 9340 10 TE BEST OF Yr A96ITY. 4401EYER, I MAKE NO WMI ENIY AS 10 THE ACQMIACY THEREOF. IF TE PROPER 100111NCA1DN OF THE 971E AND SPECIES ME CEDES 717 BE CRITICAL, MEN A 11616m MBCI65T MOULD FED W. MS SUNNY WAS CONNOTED WITHOUT 11E EVERT OF A CUOEtE 1111E REPORT ARID THEREFORE DOES NOT 9108 ALL EASEMENTS OR RESIISCIIDMS OF IECOID — i ANY UTIUTY LEGEND 055 W SANITARY SEEM MANHOLE CONOE1E UAU* ETC. ■CB CATCH BASIN SPP POEM POU: 0--0-0E30D PENCE 09Y TA101 M199 can RODERT 1k1UMD FLA 01161 DENARY 1001 WATER LIE —11— MLAO BOUNDARY SCALE: 1' . 10 3 10 3 TREE LEGEND • 2C' OM OR EIMER TIES AS 910N • 12' TO 13' CBI NEE AS SHOWN • r TO 10' OSI WEE AS SROM C CEDM • 99O CHERRY OT CORDWOOD LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 12 9O0( 5, ROOMS SPRNGER= AONTION TO MERTON, ACCNO] 4G 10 THE MT 111E1E9. RECORDED N WARE 10 Cr RAW, PACE 67, RECOMS OF MN COME% 9ASHINT 1 • Steve Tam Pat>'€ RojeAdosal . *.L S.'.g4*p Se.1a& 7431133110111E 110991 M 511051 Plum 410 07-1715 Un! mp4641.,11w.. SITE PLAN Dreamcatcher Homes Inc. P.O. BOM 2608, LYNNVODD, VA 98036 DATE: OCT 14, 2013 JOB NO. C11110. BY: SCALE: 1' 10' SHEET 1 1 CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 FAX: (206) 431-3665 E-mail: planning@TukwilaWA.gov SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPLICATION FOR STAFF USE ONLY Permits Plus TYPE: P-SEPA Planner: File Number: Application Complete Date: Project File Number: Application Incomplete Date: Other File Numbers: NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Dreamcatcher Homes, 33rd Ave. S. LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. Vacant parcel; Nearest intersection S 132nd St. & 33rd Ave. S.; Lot 12, Block 5, Robbins Springbrook Addition for Riverton Plat; Access Street 33rd Ave. S. LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS (this information may be found on your tax statement). 735960-0473 DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the owner/applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: Jeff Jones Address: PO Box 1908, Issaquah, WA 98027 Phone: (253) 905 5736 FAX: E-mail: jeff.jsjones@comcast.net Signature: Date: 03/19/2014 H:\Land Use Applications In PDF\SEPA Environmental Review Application-Jan2011.Doc RECEIVED JAN 05 2015 COMMUNI I Y DEVELOPMENT Cjs�C `v The Information included on this map iasbeerccompiled�by King,County,staffyfrom a�,varietybofdsources•and is,subject,toochange without notice:King County :makes nog representations'orr warranties, express or.implied; asao accuracjfcompletenessIbmeliness or rights to4the use of such informations;; This document isnot intended forpuse°'as a sur ey;product King'Countystiall not be"liable foi;en`y7gerieretgspecial Andvari incidental', or consequential+ damages. including but'hot IimitedtoKlost revenues orlost'rprofitsjjesulting from th&uuse w.misuse of the information contained on this mepr Any sale of this map orinformatton on'thIe map is prohibited except by written permission of King County "`" DetailV27/2013 ;� www_, etrokc gov GISRMAP) Source KingCounty!MAP ,Property, nformation,,fhttp 5 SEPA Checklist STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT CHECKLIST Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Dreamcatcher Homes 33rd Ave. S. (ADDENDUM to 1999 SEPA Checklist) 2. Name of Applicant: Dreamcatcher Homes 3. Date checklist prepared: Revised Addendum 12/29/2014 4. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila 5. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): 12 months from date of permit issuance 6. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No 7. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Wetland/Stream Assessment Wetland/Stream Mitigation Plan Geotech Study Drainage Plan 8. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. A COE submittal will be prepared and submitted H:Vand Use Applications in PDF\SEPA Environmental Review Application-Jan2011.doc Agency Comments Page 1 SEPA Checklist Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 9. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. City of Tukwila Reasonable Use Exception HPA COE Nationwide Permit 10. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Proposal is for a single-family residence on a 5,881.97 square feet parcel. The proposed building footprint is 1,280 sf including the attached porch but not the on -grade patio. 11. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, the tax lot number, and section, township, and range. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. Tax Parcel No 735960-0473 Vacant parcel on west side of 33rd Ave. S. at 132XX 33rd Ave. S. Directions are as follows: North on Tacoma -International Blvd.; left heading west onto S. 132nd; right heading north onto 33rd Ave. S. proceed north to site. See vicinity map in Wetland/Stream Assessment 12. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? No H:\Land Use Applications in PDFISEPA Enviromnental Review Application-Jan2011.doc Page 2 Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: Slope b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 20% c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Silt loam d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. The 3,045 sf building envelope will be excavated an average depth of 5 feet, for 563 cubic yards of excavation. 15 cubic yards of fill will be used to fill a portion of the stream channel and 20 cubic yards of excavation will occur for the new stream channel. 10 cubic yards of base rock will be used for the driveway. 10 cubic yards of gravel will be used for drainage pipelines on three side of the building envelope. The source of material will be the nearest materials supply business. H:\Land Use Applications in PDFISEPA Environmental Review Application-Jan2011.doc SEPA Checklist Agency Comments Page 3 Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Yes, if the TESCP is not implemented and maintained during construction. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? House & Porch 1,280 sf, Patio 21 sf On-site Driveway 458 sf Total new on-site impervious 1,738 sf Site 5,882.2 sf Percentage of Site Impervious 29.55% h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Use of BMP's and implementing TESCP 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (for example, dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Construction trucks and equipment b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No H:\Land Use Applications in PDF\SEPA Environmental Review Application-]an2011.doc SEPA Checklist Agency Comments Page 4 SEPA Checklist Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: None 3. Water a. Surface: 1. Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Yes, an on-site wetland and seasonal stream Tibutary to the Duwamish River 2. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. The lower 22 feet of the on-site stream will be fill and the existing 8" concrete piped will be removed. 52 feet of new stream channel will be constructed to the road ditch. The road side ditch will be piped 30 feet of 18" CMP, to replace and extend the existing ditch culvert, for the driveway. 2,800 sf of wetland and 53sf of wetl buffer will be impacted for the house building envelope and driveway. Off-site 467 sf of wetland will be impacted for driveway. See the attached Mit. Plan. 3. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. 15cy of material will be placed in the section of stream that will be piped. 5 cy of material will be placed in the new section of road ditch that will be piped. 20 cy of excavation for new stream channel. 563 cy will be excavated from wetlands for house building envelope. 10 cubic yards of base rock will be used for the driveway. 10 cubic yards of gravel will be used for drainage H:\Land Use Applications in PDF\SEPA Environmental Review Application-Jan2011.doc Page 5 SEPA Checklist Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No 6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. NO b. Ground: 1. Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No H:\Land Use Applications in PDF SEPA Environmental Review Application-Jan2011.doc Page 6 SEPA Checklist Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 2. Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc). Describe the general. size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve: No c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1. Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Wetland seepage and precipitation will be intercepted, filtered and discharged into the stream 2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Yes, if TESCP are not implement and maintained or if unauthorized discharge occurs to the stream d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Use of BMP's and TESCP H:\ and Use Applications in PDFISEPA Enviromnental Review Application-Jan2011.doc Page 7 Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: ✓ Deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other ✓ Evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other ✓ Shrubs 1 Grass Pasture Crop or grain 1 Wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other Water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other Other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Himalayan blackberry and reed canarygrass c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Enhancement of the undeveloped wetland with native plant species, see the proposed mitigation plan H:\Land Use Applications in PDF\SEPA Environmental Review Application-Jan2011.doc SEPA Checklist Agency Comments Page 8 SEPA Checklist Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 5. Animals a. Circle any birds or animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: Hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: Mammals: Deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: Fish: Bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: Other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Pacific flyway d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Enhancement of the undeveloped wetland with native plant species, see the proposed mitigation plan 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electric and natural gas H:\Land Use Applications in PDF\SEPA Environmental Review Application-Jan20l I.doc Page 9 Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: None 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No 1. Describe special emergency services that might be required. None 2. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None H:\tand Use Applications in PDF\SEPA Environmental Review Application-Jan201I.doc SEPA Checklist Agency Comments Page 10 SEPA Checklist Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments b. Noise 1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Air traffic, automobile traffic, freeway noise 2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Short-term power equipment for construction and trucks Long-term typical residential noise levels 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Limit hours of construction activities 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Residential b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No H:\Land Use Applications in PDF\SEPA Environmental Review Application-Jan2011.doc Page 11 :J C Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: c. Describe any structures on the site. No d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? None e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? LDR, single-family residential f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Residential g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A H:\Lemd Use Applications in PDF\SEPA Environmental Review Application-Jan201 Ldoc SEPA Checklist Agency Comments Page 12 Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Site is entirely wetland, stream and critical area buffer i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? 2-5 j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/A 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: None H:Uand Use Applications in PDFISEPA Environmental Review Application-Jan2011 doc SEPA Checklist Agency Comments Page 13 0 SEPA Checklist Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing? One middle-income house b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? 32 feet from low point of the house to mid -point of the roof b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? No FI:V.aud Use Applications in PDP\SEPA Environmental Review Application-Jan2011.doc Page 14 Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? No b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? No d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None H:V.and Use Applications in PDF \SEPA Environmental Review Application-Jan2011.doc SEPA Checklist Agency Comments Page 15 Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? None b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, National, State, or Local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No H:\Land Use Applications in PDF\SEPA Environmental Review Application-Jan2011.doc SEPA Checklist Agency Comments Page 16 Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. 33rd Ave S; S. 132nd St; Proposed access is off of 33rd Ave. S. Main public streets serving the area are Tukwila International Blvd. to the east and Military Road S. to the west. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? 2 created, 0 eliminated H:\Land Use Applications in PDF\SEPA Environmental Review Application-Jan201 I.doc SEPA Checklist Agency Comments Page 17 SEPA Checklist Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. 2-5 g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No H:\Land Use Applications in PDF\SEPA Environmental Review Application-Jan2011.doc Page 18 4 (;) Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. SEPA Checklist Applicant Responses: Agency Comments b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system other: b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. gas, water, sanitary and storm sewer are below ground in the street refuse is weekly neighborhood collection telephone and electricity are overhead H:U.and Use Applications in PDF\SEPA Environmental Review Application-Jan2011.doc Page 19 SEPA Checklist (NON -PROJECT PROPOSALS (E.G., SUBURBAN PLANS AND ZONING CODE TEXT CHANGES) MUST COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PAGES). C. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON -PROJECT PROPOSALS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 1. How would the proposals be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? The proposal will no increase the discharge of water or significantly alter air quality or result in the release of pollutants or increased production of noise The proposed residence will only 15 feet of usable space behind the residence and a portion of this will be patio. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: None 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? No Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: See Proposed Mitigation Plan H:\Land Use Applications in PDF\SEPA Environmental Review Application-Jan2Ot Ldoc Page 20 1 SEPA Checklist Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? None Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: Use of energy efficient appliances 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitats, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? See Mitigation Plan Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: See Mitigation Plan 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? No H:\Land Use Applications in PDF\SEPA Environmental Review Application-Jan2011.doc Page 21 • • SEPA Checklist Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: None 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public service and utilities? No Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: None 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with Local, State, or Federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. None D. SIGNATURE Under the penalty of perjury the above answers under ESA Screening Checklist and State Environmental Policy Act Checklist are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: H:\Land Use Applications in PDF\SEPA Environmental Review Application-Jan2011.doc Page 22 • June 4, 2014 ES -3403 Dream Catcher Homes 13407 — 51St Avenue West Edmonds, Washington 98026 Attention: Mr, J. Keirouz Subject: Geotechnical Assessment Proposed Residence — 33rd Avenue South (Parcel No. 7359600473) Tukwila, Washington Reference: J.S. Jones and Associates Wetland / Stream Mitigation Plan Geotech Consultants Geotechnical Considerations Report dated August 31, 1999 City of Tukwila Project Review Comments (Application L14-0002 and L14-0006) Dated March 4, 2014 Dear Mr. Keirouz: Earth Solutions NW LLC • Geotechnical Engineering • Construction Monitoring • Environmental Sciences In accordance with your request, Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) has reviewed the referenced mitigation plan and City of Tukwila comments. ESNW has also reviewed the referenced geotechnical report, and recently visited the subject property to observe existing site conditions. We understand the residential structure proposed for the subject property will be located within the north -central portions of the site. Cuts on the order of three to four feet will be necessary along the west side of the building envelope to establish design grade. We also understand enhancements will be made to an existing drainage course that enters the site at the southwest corner of the property. The existing drainage course is located south of the planned building site, and will generally maintain its current alignment. RECr"t --� JAN 052C5 1805 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 • Bellevue, WA 98005 • (425) 449-4704 • FAX (425) 449-4711 Dream Catcher Homes June 4, 2014 ES -3403 Page 2 With respect to the above referenced project review comments prepared by the City of Tukwila, we have prepared the following response based on our geotechnical assessment. City of Tukwila Comment 6b — Have a geotechnical engineer review the site and the 1999 geotechnical comments, update and revise the comments based on the current development proposal if necessary and make recommendations concerning dewatering the property. ESNW Response — Based on our review, ESNW is in general agreement with the recommendations provided in the referenced geotechnical report. The site is underlain by competent native soils at relatively shallow depths, and should be exposed within the cuts for the planned residential building site. Groundwater seepage reported along the upper contact of the native soils can be intercepted and collected in a perimeter foundation drain as recommended in the reference report. The geotechnical engineer should observe the site during the preparation and related excavations for the building pad to confirm soil and groundwater conditions. As necessary, supplement geotechnical recommendations for foundation support and drainage (dewatering) will be provided. City of Tukwila Comment 6b — In addition to the wall drain and drainage system beneath the house, it is recommended that a deep (6' to 8') cutoff trench across the back yard beneath the "valley" to intercept ground water flows. The trench would use an 8" perforated pipe surrounded by drain rock and wrapped in an approved geotextile fabric. This should allow the back yard to .be usable and deep most of the ground water from coming to the surface beneath the house. A geotechnical engineer should assess this recommendation based on actual subsurface conditions and modify or propose other means to accomplish the same goal. ESNW Response — Based on our review, ESNW is in agreement with the need for a deep interceptor (cutoff) drain across the back yard of the property. ESNW will be providing geotechnical support during the planned development activities, and will provide supplement recommendations, as necessary, to achieve the overall objectives of the cutoff drain. City of Tukwila Comment 6e — Additional dewatering may be required beneath the driveway to keep groundwater from flowing up through cracks and freezing on the planned 12 percent grade. Please address this issue. ESNW Response — ESNW will observe conditions during site grading activities, and assess the need for supplement drainage below the driveway. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Dream Catcher Homes June 4, 2014 ES -3403 Page 3 We trust this letter and geotechnical assessment meet your current needs. If you have any questions, or if additional information is required, please call. Sincerely, EARTH SOLUTIONS NW, LLC Raymond A. Coglas Principal cc: J.S. Jones and Associates, Inc. Attention: Mr. Jeff Jones (Email only) Earth Solutions NW, LLC .Aug,31 99 11:52a JIM FINLEY GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC_ 13256 Nt: ?Oih 11 -CCL. sidle 16 liellcxue. WA 98015 (425) 747-561 FAX (42.ti) 747_X561 J.A.K. Inc, 13520 Linden Avenue North Seattle, Washington 98133 Attention: Jihad Keirouz Subject: Geotechnical Considerations Proposed Residence 130XX — 33ra Avenue South Tukwila, Washington Dear Mr. Keirouz: . (425174!-abEi1 p.1 August 31, 1999 JN 8128-1 Crri lv KWILA w - WRAF 0.E047F1 In September of 1998, the undersigned Associate of Geotech Consultants, Inc. visited lots in Tukwila that had just been excavated for proposed residences. We understand that you propose to construct another residence adjacent to the southem side of those residential lots. The purpose of this letter is to discuss the likely near -surface soil and groundwater conditions, as well as foundation parameters, on the proposed residence lot based on the conditions seen in the earlier, adjacent excavations. Baed on the Grading and Drainage Plan for the project dated May 1, 1999, we understand that the proposed residence will be located near the middle of the roe northeastern side of the property, Cuts of upto approximatelyP p m' vwth a driveway along the side of the residence and garage. An approximat -foorockery is proposed west and south od on the f em residence; a cut will be made to install this rockery. A catch basin and tihtline be ebe constructed to control surface water that enters the southwestern side of the property. The pipe will ultimately discharge the surface water to an existing ditch on the eastem side of the property. The project subsurface drainage system will include typical footing drains. The subject property is located on the upslope, western side of 33n1 Avenue South_ It slopeserntt upward above the street with a topographic relief of about 15 feet. The property is undeveloped and heavily overgrown with vegetation. Some surface water is currently channeled diagonally to the northeastern side of the property to the existing ditch. Excavations in the range of 3 to 5 feet were made for the two residences to the north. We observed that the upper, approximate 3 feet of soil was loose. It was underlain by competent, firm silty sand, sift, and sand_ Groundwater was observed perched on these competent soils. Conclusions and Recommendations The competent soils that we observed in the adjacent excavation are very suitable to support the building loads. Therefore we believe that competent soil should be revealed on the subject site at relatively shallow depths. We recommend that continuous and individual spread footings .have minimum widths of 16 and 24 inches, respectively. They should be bottomed at least 18 inches below the lowest _Aug .31 99 11:52a J.A.K. Inc. August 31, 1999 C:5-1 FINLEY 0' A25)747-8561 p . 2 JN 8128-1 Page 2 adjacent finish ground surface. The local building codes should be reviewed to determine if different footing widths or embedment depths are required. An allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) is appropriate for footings supported on the competent, native soil. Because the native soil is somewhat sensitive to moisture, we recommend that any loose surficial soil in the footing areas we removed prior to pouring the foundation. Another option would be to cover footing areas with a mat of imported, granular fill at the time the initial excavation is done. A one-third increase in this design bearing pressure may be used when considering short-term wind or seismic loads. Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundation and the bearing soil, or by passive earth pressure acting on the vertical, embedded portions of the foundation. For the latter condition, the foundation must be either poured directly against relatively level, undisturbed soil or be surrounded by level structural fill, We recommend using the following design values for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading: Parameter Coefficient of Friction Passive Earth Pressure Design.. Value 0.40 300 pcf Where: (i) to is pounds per cubit/ foot, and (ii) passive earth pressure is computed using &to equivalent fluid density, If the ground in front of a foundation is loose or sloping, the passive earth pressure given above will not be appropriate. We recommend a safety factor of at least 1.5 for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading, when using the above design values. We observed groundwater perched at or near the level of the competent native soil on the adjacent sites. We believe that a similar groundwater conditions will be found on the subject property. The amount of groundwater seen on the adjacent sites, as well as the density of the competent soil, indicate that the soil has a very low permeability (not suitable for percolation). we expect that groundwater will be encountered in the excavation of the proposed residence. It is our professional opinion that the amount of groundwater flow will be readily handled by the project's subsurface drainage system. We agree with the system that is shown on the Grading and Drainage Plan, but recommend that another footing drain be added behind the western and southern garage walls. The drainage system shown on the plan, and recommended around the garage, is very similar to the system we recommended earlier for the adjacent residences. All footing drains should consist of a perforated pipe that is surrounded with washed rock and filter fabric. _lug .31 99 11:52a M FINLEY J.A.K. Inc. August 31, 1999 `425)747-8561 JN 8128--1 Page 3 We trust that this report meets your immediate needs for thero osed development. Please contact us if we can be of further service. p P a: b Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. D. Robert Ward, P.E. Associate s3►"t'� 130) ,. p.3 d City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATIONS March 4, 2014 Jeffery S. Jones J.S. Jones and Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 1908 Issaquah, WA 98027 RE: Dream Catcher Homes Reasonable Use Application, L14-0002 and Lot Size Variance L14.0006 Dear Jeff: Thank you for submitting the fee for the public notice mailing and making arrangements for the public notice sign board's installation. Your application for approval of a reasonable use, L14-0002, located on 331d Avenue South (parcel number 7359600473) has been found to be complete on March 4, 2014 for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. The City has also reviewed your application for a lot size variance, L14-0006, and determined that this application is complete as well for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. This determination of complete application does not preclude the City from requesting additional plans or information for either application, 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. We have completed a preliminary review of the reasonable use project and determined that additional information is needed to continue review. These comments are attached. Please provide the information requested as soon .as possible so review can continue on the reasonable use application. I would appreciate your identifying 3-4 dates when you and your client are available for a public hearing in early May. The hearings on both applications will be held before the City's hearing examiner during business hours. The tentative hearing date will be included in the information provided in the public notice that must be sent out (and posted on the site) in the next 14 days. This notice of complete application applies only to the permit identified above. It is your responsibility to apply for and obtain any other necessary permits issued by other agencies. There may be permits from other agencies required which we have not identified. CL Page 1 of 2 H:\\L14-002 Keirouz Reasonable Use\ L14-0002 & L14-0006 Complete 03/0412014 11:09 AM 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax 206-431-3665 L14-0002 Dreamcatcher Homes Reasonable Use and Lot Size Variance March 4, 2014 If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 431-3661. Sincerely, Ls. L( 00-04--V Carol Lumb Senior Planner Enclosure — Review Comments CL Page 2 of 2 H:\\L14-002 Keirouz Reasonable Use\L14-0002 & L14-0006 Complete 03/04/2014 11:09 AM 1 Additional Information Needed to Continue Project Review: Approval criteria #2 for reasonable use states: "As a result of the proposed development there will be no unreasonable threat to the public health, safety or welfare on or off the development proposal site." The following additional information is needed to analyze the impacts of developing the subject property: SEPA We have reviewed the SEPA checklist submitted in 1999. At that time a Determination of Nonsignficance was issued for the reasonable use project. In our review of the original Checklist, we have determined that a SEPA Addendum is needed for this project. There is no application to complete for the Addendum, however, there is an additional fee of $607.95. The original Checklist can be supplemented with the additional information requested below and any other more recent information you believe is relevant to the proposed project. Please review the answers provided in 1999 and update them, in particular provide additional or updated information for the following items — numbers in parentheses refer to the Checklist question: 1. Clarify the size of the building footprint for the proposed house (A. 11); 2. The Checklist provides conflicting information on whether fill will be used (B.1.e.) — clarify whether fill is needed to create a building pad and driveway and if so, how much fill is needed. Additionally, how much excavation will take place? 3. Has the percent of the site to be covered by impervious surfaces changed? If so, what is the correct percentage? (B 1.g.) 4. For question B. 3. a. 2) The stream cuts across the lower half of the site at an angle and discharges near the northeast edge of the site. This information needs to be incorporated into the checklist, as well as impacts to the stream from relocating part of it or otherwise keeping the flow away from the proposed house and driveway. 5. Information from the drainage/hydrology assessment (see below) and geotech review should be incorporated into the checklist. Drainage/Hydrology Assessment: DCD and the City's surface water engineer visited the site on February 5, 2014. Based on that visit, and a review of the documents submitted in 1999, the following comments must be addressed: 6. The primary concern with development of this site is that a house is proposed to be constructed within a wetland and the potential for drainage, safety, and health problems that may occur in the future both on-site as well as on adjacent down -stream properties as CL Page 1 of 4 03/04/201411:3'7 AM H:\\L14-0002 Keirouz Reasonable use\Attachment A L14-0002, Keirouz Reasonable Use Project Review Comments a result of the displacement of the wetland functions. During the site visit, springs above and within the site were observed. The 1999 proposal included a retaining wall on the western portion of the site — it is not clear if that is what is proposed currently. Given the amount of water that is present, it does not appear that a proposal to install a retaining wall with a wall drain to intercept most of the ground water prior to it entering the yard portion of the site is adequate, nor will this approach keep water from corning to the surface below the house or on the driveway. Please provide the following: a. Submit a new drainage and hydrology assessment conforming to the 2009 KCSWDM and to an updated geotechnical engineer's recommendations. The drainage report should evaluate the impact of the proposed development on stream hydrology and wetland function and accurately reflect the location and direction of the current stream flow. The original drainage assessment acknowledges that other water sheet flows across the site — what will happen to this flow when it is interrupted by the construction of a house and driveway (and fill if fill is proposed for the site)? b. Have a geotechnical engineer review the site and the 1999 geotechnical comments, update and revise the comments based on the current development proposal if necessary and make recommendations concerning dewatering the property. c. In addition to the wall drain and drainage system beneath the house, it is recommended that a deep (6'-8') cutoff trench across the back yard beneath the "valley" to intercept ground water flows. The trench would use an 8" perforated pipe surrounded by drain rock and wrapped in an approved geotextile fabric. This should allow the back yard to be usable and keep most of the groundwater from coming to the surface beneath the house. A geotechnical engineer should assess this recommendation based on actual subsurface conditions and modify or propose other means to accomplish the same goal. d. Pipes from the neighboring property and a trench were observed on the northwest side of this site. Please discuss how this drainage will be addressed — will it need to be piped or dealt with in another way? e. Additional dewatering may be required beneath the driveway to keep groundwater from flowing up through cracks and freezing on the planned 12% grade. Please address this issue. 2014 Sensitive Areas Study: 7. Revise the sensitive areas study to: a. Include the wetland mitigation square footages information from the response to the Reasonable Use criteria on amount of wetland impact, the amount of on-site mitigation and the amount of additional off-site mitigation needed in the sensitive areas study. b. Reflect increased planting densities over what has been submitted, including installation of vegetation along the stream banks c. Discuss impacts on the wetland and the watercourse (as well as the adjacent property to the north) from the proposed construction. CL Page 2 of 4 03/04/201411:37 AM H:\\L14-0002 Keirouz Reasonable use\Attachment A 4 I. L14-0002, Keirouz Reasonable Use Project Review Comments d. Provide a discussion on the off-site mitigation proposed to compensate for the wetland fill — how much and where it will be implemented; e. Correctly map the course of the stream, the springs on-site (or the location where springs daylight or flow on to the property) and the actual discharge point of the stream. Also, the Sensitive Areas Study states that the stream is both seasonal (page 1) and year-round (page 4) — please correct one of these references. f. Identify proposed in -stream improvements and describe new bank configuration and conditions (include a cross section). Tukwila's code requires that for any work proposed in a stream (such as rerouting part of it), the stream be restored to a better condition than existing conditions. g. Revise the conceptual mitigation plan to indicate how stream flow will be managed and where and how it will discharge; h. Provide more detail on how invasive vegetation will be managed and which vegetation (both invasive and non-invasive) will be removed. Reasonable Use Criteria 8. Please address more completely the impacts to adjacent properties from the wetland fill/displacement, based on the updated information from the drainage study and any other pertinent information. Mitigation Plans The mitigation plan is reviewed and approved as part of the reasonable use application, therefore more details are needed on what is proposed: 9. Identify the significant trees to be removed from the site and provide tree replacement figures, per TMC 18.54. 10. What off-site mitigation is proposed to compensate for the remaining area that is needed to achieve 12:1 mitigation for enhancement? 11. Sheet 2/3 of the Mitigation Plan, indicate where the silt fencing is to be located. 12. Sheet 2/3 of the Mitigation Plan, correct the wetland sign detail, per TMC 18.45.060 6. 13. Sheet 2/3 of the Mitigation Plan, Tree and Shrub Planting and Staking Detail — the vegetation is to be placed at the same level as the native soil, not one inch above it. Remove the staking notes. 14. Sheet 3/3 of the Mitigation Plan, note 9.13 —the entire mitigation area is to be amended, not just the planting pit areas where plants are to be located. 15. Sheet 3/3 of the Mitigation Plan, remove note 9.18 — there is to be no staking of trees. 16. Sheet 3/3 of the Mitigation Plan, correct all notations of the monitoring time from 3 years to 5, as required by TMC 18.45. 17. Sheet 3/3 of the Mitigation Plan, note 11.0 — third bullet — add two species of herbaceous/emergent plants to the trees and shrubs to be established at the end of the monitoring period. CL Page 3 of 4 03/04/2014 11:54 AM H:\\L14-0002 Keirouz Reasonable use\Attactiment A L14-0002, Keirouz Reasonable Use Project Review Comments 18. Please identify the mitigation proposed for the stream channel, particularly if additional piping or replacement piping will be used on the site. 19. Sheet 3/3 of the Mitigation Plan, note 12.1— include streambank/erosion monitoring in the transect and plot areas being monitored. 20. Sheet 3/3 of the Mitigation Plan, note 12.3 — add stream monitoring data criteria to the items being monitored. 21. Sheet 3/3 of the Mitigation Plan, change the heading of note 13.0 to "Financial Assurance/Developer Warranty" and revise the paragraph text to remove references to bonds. Other Permits Based on the site conditions and the proposed project, it appears that you will need the following other determinations or permits: a. Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Determination; b. Corps of Engineers individual 404 or Nationwide permit for filling wetland and altering a watercourse (if determined to be jurisdictional); and c. If watercourse relocation and working in a watercourse is proposed, then a HPA is required. Please provide a copy of these approvals/permits as soon as possible. It is important that any requirements of the COE or Washington State Dept. of Fish and Wildlife be reflected in the mitigation plan submitted to the City to avoid changes to the mitigation plan after the Hearing Examiner decision is issued. CL Page 4 of 4 03/04/2014 11:54 AM H:\\L14-0002 Keirouz Reasonable use\Attachment A Date: 03/19/2014 Cif. Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist City of Tukwila Endangered Species Act Screening Checklist pr--�,—.t MAR 1 9 2:4;;,i. Applicant Name: Dreamcatcher Homes PP tit-vl-L..n Ili Street Address: PO Box 2608 City, State, Zip: Lynnwood, WA 98036 Telephone: (206) 300-6874 DIRECTIONS: This Screening Checklist has been designed to evaluate the potential for your project to result in potential "take" of Chinook salmon, Coho salmon, or Cutthroat trout as defined by Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act. The checklist includes a series of "Yes" or "No" questions about your project, organized into four parts. Starting with Part A on Page 2, read each question carefully, mark the appropriate "Yes" or "No," and proceed to the next question as directed by the checklist. To answer these questions, you may need to refer to site plans, grading and drainage plans, critical areas studies, or other documents you have prepared for your project. The City will evaluate your responses to determine if "take" is indicated. Ii:\Land Use Applications in PDF SEPA Environmental Review Application-Jan201 Ldoc Page 1 Ct! of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist Part A: Please review and answer each question carefully. Consider all phases of your project including, but not limited to, construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 1-0 Will the project require any form of grading? Grading is defined as any excavating, filling, clearing, or creation of impervious surface, or any combination thereof, which alters the existing ground surface of the earth (TMC 18.06.370). Please mark the appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2-0 YES - Continue to Question 1-1 (Page 3) 2-0 Will the project require any form of clearing? Clearing means the removal or causing to be removed, through either direct or indirect actions, any vegetation from a site (18.06.145). Please mark the appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-0 ✓ YES - Continue to Question 2-1 (Page 4) 3-0 Will the project require work, during any time of the project, below the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers or in wetlands? Ordinary high water mark is the mark that is found by examining the bed and banks of a stream and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual as to distinctly mark the soil from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation (see TMC Chapter 18.06, Page 18-15). Please mark the appropriate response. ✓ NO - Continue to Question 4-0 YES - Continue to Question 3-1 (Page 5) 4-0 Will the project result in the processing or handling, storage, or treatment of hazardous substances? This does not include the proper use of fuel stored in a vehicle's fuel tank. Hazardous substances are any liquid, solid, gas, or sludge, including any material, substance, product, commodity, or waste, regardless of quantity, that exhibits the characteristics or criteria of hazardous waste as defined by Washington Administrative Code 173-303 (TMC 18.06.385). This includes fuel or other chemicals stored on-site during construction. Please mark the appropriate response. ✓ NO - Continue to Question 5-0 YES - Continue to Question 5-0 5-0 Will the project result in the withdrawal, injection, or interception of groundwater? Examples of projects that may affect groundwater include, but are not limited to: construction of a new well, change in water withdrawals from an existing well, projects involving prolonged construction dewatering, projects installing French drains or interceptor trenches, and sewer lines. For the purpose of this analysis, projects that require a geotechnical report pursuant to the requirements of TMC 18.45.060 or would require a geotechnical report if not exempt should answer Yes. Please mark the appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 6-0 ✓ YES - Continue to Question 6-0 6-0 Will the project involve landscaping or re -occurring outdoor maintenance that includes the regular use of fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides? This does not include the one-time use of transplant fertilizers. Landscaping means natural vegetation such as trees, shrubs, groundcover, and other landscape materials arranged in a manner to produce an aesthetic effect appropriate for the use of the land (TMC 18.06.490). For the purpose of this analysis, this includes the establishment of new lawn or grass. Please mark the appropriate response. NO — Checklist Complete YES — Checklist Complete H:\Land Use Applications in PDF\SEPA Environmental Review Application-Jan2011.doc Page 2 Ci of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist Part B: Please answer each question below for projects that include grading. Review each question carefully, considering all phases of your project including, but not limited to construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 1-1 Will the project involve the modification of a watercourse bank or bank of the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers between the ordinary high water mark and top of bank? This includes any projects that will require grading on any slope leading to a river or stream, but will not require work below the ordinary high water mark. Work below the ordinary high water mark is covered in Part C. Please mark the appropriate response. ✓ NO - Continue to Question 1-2 YES - Continue to Question 1-2 1-2 Could the construction, operation, or maintenance of the project result in sediment transport off site or increased rates of erosion and/or sedimentation in watercourses, the Green/Duwamish rivers, or the Black River? Most projects that involve grading have the potential to result in increased erosion and/or sedimentation as a result of disturbances to the soil or earth. If your project involves grading and you have not prepared a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan specifically designed to retain 100 percent of the runoff (including during construction) from impervious surface or disturbed soils, answer Yes to this question. If your project is normally exempt under the Tukwila Municipal Code and would not require the preparation of a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan, BUT may still result in erosion or sediment transport off site or beyond the work area, answer Yes to this question. Please mark the appropriate response. ✓ NO - Continue to Question 1-3 YES - Continue to Question 1-3 1-3 Will the project result in the construction of new impervious surfaces? Impervious surfaces include those hard surfaces which prevent or restrict the entry of water into the soil in the manner that such water entered the soils under natural conditions prior to development; or a hard surface area that causes water to run off the surface in greater quantity or at an increased rate of flow from the flow presented under natural conditions prior to development. Such areas include, but are not limited to, rooftops, asphalt or concrete paving, compacted surfaces, or other surfaces that similarly affect the natural infiltration or runoff patterns existing prior to development (TMC 18.06.445). Please mark the appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2-0 (Page 2) 1 YES - Continue to Question 1-4 1-4 Will your project generate stormwater from the creation of impervious surfaces that will not be infiltrated on site? For the purpose of this analysis, infiltration includes the use of a stormwater treatment and management system intended to contain all stormwater on site by allowing it to seep into pervious surface or through other means to be introduced into the ground. If your project involves the construction of impervious surface and does not include the design of a stormwater management system specifically designed to infiltrate stormwater, answer Yes to this question. Please mark the appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2-0 (Page 2) 1 YES - Continue to Question 2-0 (Page 2) H:\Land Use Applications in PDF\SEPA Environmental Review Application-Jan2011.doc Page 3 Ci of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist Part C: Please review each question below for projects that include clearing. Review each question carefully, considering all phases of your project including, but not limited to construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 2-1 ✓ Will the project involve clearing within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please mark the appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 2-2 2-2 Will the project involve clearing of any trees within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? A tree is defined by TMC 18.06.845 as any self-supporting woody plant, characterized by one main trunk, with a potential diameter -breast -height of 2 inches or more and potential minimum height of 10 feet. Please mark the appropriate response. ✓ NO - Continue to Question 2-3 YES - Continue to Question 2-3 2-3 Will the project involve clearing of any evergreen trees from within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis evergreen means any tree that does not regularly lose all its leaves or needles in the fall. Please mark the appropriate response. ✓ NO - Continue to Question 2-4 YES - Continue to Question 2-4 2-4 Will the project involve clearing within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please mark the appropriate response. ✓ NO - Continue to Question 3-0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 2-5 2-5 Will the project involve clearing within 40 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please mark the appropriate response. ✓ NO - Continue to Question 3-0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 3-0 (Page 2) H:\ and Use Applications in PDF\SEPA Environmental Review Application-Jan2011.doc Page 4 Cit f Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist Part D: Please review each question below for projects that include work below the ordinary high water mark of watercourses or the Duwamish/Green or Black Rivers or in wetlands. Review each question carefully, considering all phases of your project including, but not limited to, construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 3-1 Will the project involve the direct alteration of the channel or bed of a watercourse, the Green/Duwamish rivers, or Black River? For the purpose of this analysis, channel means the area between the ordinary high water mark of both banks of a stream, and bed means the stream bottom substrates, typically within the normal wetted -width of a stream. This includes both temporary and permanent modifications. Please mark the appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-2 YES - Continue to Question 3-2 3-2 Will the project involve any physical alteration to a watercourse or wetland connected to the Green/Duwamish River? For the purpose of this analysis, "connected to the river means" flowing into via a surface connection or culvert, or having other physical characteristics that allow for access by salmonids. This includes impacts to areas such as sloughs, side channels, remnant oxbows, ditches formed from channelized portions of natural watercourses or any area that may provide off channel rearing habitat for juvenile fish from the Duwamish River. This includes both temporary construction alterations and permanent modifications. Watercourses or wetlands draining to the Green/Duwamish River that have a hanging culvert, culvert with a flap gate, diversion, or any entirely man-made or artificial structure that precludes fish access should answer Yes to this question. Please mark the appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-3 YES - Continue to Question 3-3 3-3 Will the project result in the construction of a new structure or hydraulic condition that could be a barrier to salmonid passage within the watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, a barrier means any artificial or human modified structure or hydraulic condition that inhibits the natural upstream or downstream movement of salmonids, including both juveniles and adults. Please mark the appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-4 YES - Continue to Question 3-4 3-4 Will the project involve a temporary or permanent change in the cross-sectional area of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, the cross-sectional area is defined as a profile taken from the ordinary high water mark on the right bank to the ordinary high water mark on the Left bank. Please mark the appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-5 YES - Continue to Question 3-5 3-5 Will the project require the removal of debris from within the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, debris includes, but is not limited to fallen trees, logs, shrubs, rocks, piles, rip -rap, submerged metal, and broken concrete or other building materials. Projects that would require debris removal from a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers as part of a maintenance activity should answer Yes to this question. Please mark the appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-6 YES - Continue to Question 3-6 H:Uand Use Applications in PDFISEPA Environmental Review Application-Jan20 I I.doc Page 5 Cir f Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist Part D (continued) 3-6 Will the project result in impacts to watercourses or wetlands that have a surface connection to another watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers but do not contain habitat conditions that support salmonid use? Such areas may include, but not be limited to hillside seeps and wetlands isolated from the watercourse or river that have a surface water connection to the watercourse or river but are not assessable, nor would be assessable to salmonids under natural conditions. Wetlands with a "functions and values" rating for baseflow/groundwater support of 9 and above (or moderate) as described in Cooke (1996) should be included. Please mark the appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-7 YES - Continue to Question 3-7 3-7 Will the project include the construction of artificial waterways or wetlands connected to a watercourse containing salmonids? For the purpose of this analysis, the construction of artificial waterways or wetlands includes wetlands, channels, sloughs, or other habitat feature created to enhance wildlife use, particularly waterfowl use, or may be attractive to wildlife, particularly waterfowl. Please mark the appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-8 YES - Continue to Question 3-8 3-8 Will the project include bank stabilization? For the purpose of this analysis, bank stabilization includes, but is not limited to, rip -rap, rock, log, soil, or vegetated revetments, concrete structures, or similar structures. Please mark the appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 4-0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 4-0 (Page 2) H:\Land Use Applications in PDF\SEPA Environmental Review Application-Jan2011.doc Page 6 I. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. Single -Family Residence Reasonable Use Exception Wetland Impacts & Stream Buffer Impacts and Compliance with RUE Decision Criteria For 131 XX 33rd Ave. S. Tukwila, WA 98168 Tax Parcel No.: 735960-0473 Applicant: Jihad Kierouz Dreamcatcher Homes, LLC P.O. Box 2608 Lynnwood, Washington 98036 Dated: November 18, 2013 Revised December 30, 2014 (revisions in underline) Prepared by: Jeffery S. Jones, Professional Wetland Scientist & Wildlife Biologist RECENT -7 JAN 05 2015 cow,'. D _Vf_L01'M1i9I PO BOX 1908 ISSAQUAH, WASHINGTON 98027 253-905-5736 jeff.jsjo nes@comcast.net Dreamcatcher Homes RUE Project Description The applicant, Dreamcatcher Homes, LLC, proposes to construct a single-family residence on the subject property. The property is a vacant parcel zoned residential. The surrounding area is existing homes. Almost the entire property is a Category III wetland. The wetland has saturated soil with a black sandy loam texture in the upper 12 inches. Below 12 inches, the soils are gleyed and prominently mottled. The source of hydrology is a seepage spring. The plant community is Himalayan blackberry, red alder, willow, and reed canarygrass. A few conifers are present near the southeast property corner. The buffer requirement is 80 feet. A Type 4 (Ns) watercourse is present on-site; see the site plan for the location. The stream channel is an eroded ditch. A few 3 -foot sections of the exposed 12 inch diameter concrete pipe are present (see photos). The channel has eroded down to a hardpan. The channel gradient varies from 1-5%. The stream buffer and channel are dominated by reed canarygrass and Himalayan blackberry. Habitat conditions are poor. No endangered, threatened, or sensitive species are present. The stream discharges into the city storm drainage system under 33rd Ave. S. The stream buffer requirement is 50 feet. A buffer reduction is necessary for any use of the site under the current zoning. The existing stream flows into a 8" concrete pipeline that discharges to a city storm drainage system in the street. The 8" concrete pipe will be removed and the stream will be reconstructed as an open channel to the road ditch. This will result in 29 additional lineal feet of stream. The existing 7 -foot long section of 18: cmp pipe, above the city storm drainage catch basin, will be replaced with a 30 -foot long 18" cmp for the driveway. Impacts to the wetland and stream are unavoidable. The applicant proposes to minimize impacts by constructing the residence the minimum setback from the road right-of-way and avoiding impacts to the stream with the exception of a culvert for the driveway. Impacts will be mitigated by restoring the remainder of the site to a native plant community and providing money for other city mitigation projects. The ratio of wetland enhancement to wetland fill is 12:1. The proposed area of wetland impact is 2,800 square feet and the proposed buffer impact is 53 square feet. The area of proposed on- site vegetative enhancement is 3,177 square feet. The required mitigation at a 12:1 ratio for wetland impacts is 33,600 square feet and buffer impacts at a 1:1 ratio is 53 square feet, which will be 3,483 square feet on-site and 30,170 square feet off-site. An on-site mitigation plan has been prepared. Off- site mitigation may be either a fee -in -lieu of program or enhancement of a city owned property. 2 Dreamcatcher Homes RUE Eroded Concrete Pipe in Stream Channel Under Himalayan Blackberries Overview of Property Looking Southwest from the Northeast Property Corner 3 Dreamcatcher Homes RUE Decision Criteria The decision criteria for granting a reasonable use exception must be met for approval. The decision criteria and discussion are as follows: 1. There is no feasible on-site alternative to the proposed activities, including reduction in size or density, modifications of setbacks, buffers or other land use restrictions or requirements, phasing of project implementation, change in timing of activities, revision of road and lot layout, and/or related site planning that would allow a reasonable economic use with fewer adverse impacts to the sensitive area. The applicant is proposing one single-family residence on the parcel. The site plan used the minimum street setback, reduced side setbacks and a 15 -foot rear bsbl. Clearing, grading, foundation and restoration enhancement work will be performed from May 1St to September 31s'. Best Management Construction Practices will be required. 2. As a result of the proposed development there will be no unreasonable threat to the public health, safety or welfare on or off the development proposal site. There are no foreseeable threats to public health, safety, or welfare. The properties to the south and west are uphill from the site. The property to the north is a single-family residence, setback five feet off of the property line. The applicant proposed to install a drainage system around the perimeter of the building envelope and house footings that will intercept groundwater. This system will also provide drainage between the neighbor's house to the north and the proposed residence. The proposed use will not alter the upstream or downstream surface or shallow groundwater flows, because this water is already intercepted by the 33rd Ave. S. road ditch. Repairs and relocation of the lower stream channel will reduce sediment entering the public storm drainage system and redirect flows away from the neighbor to the north. 3. Alterations permitted shall be the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable use of the property. The applicant cannot reasonable use the property for any other use than residential. The proposal is the minimum usable area that will meet those needs. The proposed house is two stories high and 24 feet wide, to minimize the house footprint. 4. The proposed development is compatible in design, scale and use with other development with similar site constraints in the immediate vicinity of the subject property, if such similar sites exist. The community consists of older homes that were constructed prior to the sensitive area regulations, except for the house immediately adjacent to the north of the subject property. That house was in wetland buffer and therefore not similar in impact to this proposal. 5. Disturbance of sensitive areas has been minimized by locating any necessary alterations in the buffers to the greatest extent possible. Impacts to the wetland and stream are unavoidable because critical areas occupy almost the entire site. 6. The inability to derive reasonable use of the property is not the result of: 4 Dreamcatcher Homes RUE a. A segregation or division of a larger parcel on which a reasonable use was permittable after the effective date of the sensitive areas ordinance number 1599, June 10, 1991. b. Actions by the owner of the property (or the owner's agents, contractors or others under the owner's control) that occurred after the effective date of the sensitive areas ordinance provisions that prevents or interferes with the reasonable use of the property; or c. A violation of the sensitive areas ordinance The parcel has not been segregated or divided since the effective date of the sensitive areas ordinance. There have been no actions by individuals or parties that interfere with reasonable use of the property. There are no violations against the property owner for actions on the property. 7. The commission, when approving a reasonable use exception, may impose conditions, including but not limited to a requirement for submission and implementation of an approved mitigation plan designed to assure that the development: a. Complies with the standards and policies of the sensitive areas ordinance to the extent feasible; and b. Does not create a risk of damage to other property or to the public health, safety and welfare. The applicant will submit a mitigation plan for vegetative enhancement of the remainder of the property outside of the proposed building envelope. There is no risk to public health, safety and welfare that will be caused by proposed site plan and reasonable use exception. 8. Approval of a reasonable use exception shall not eliminate the need for any other permit or approval otherwise required for a project, including but not limited to design review. The applicant will obtain all required permits for the project. 5 J. S. Jones an. Associates, nC. WETLAND & STREAM ASSESSMENT of the Tax Parcel Nos. 7359600473 131XX 33rd Ave. S. Tukwila, Washington 98168 Prepared for: DREAMCATCHER HOMES, LLC. P. O. Box 2608 Lynnwood, WA 98036 Ph 1 206-300-6874 email 1 keirouzia@,gmail.com Dated: November 25, 2013 Revised December 31, 2014 (Revisions in Underline) Prepared by: Jeffery S. Jones, Professional Wetland Scientist PO Box 1908 Issaquah, Washington 98027 253-905-5736 jeff.jsjones@comcast.net RECEI`irr) JAN 05 2015 DE,VLLUk'MLFJ Table of Contents 1.0 Project Description 1 2.0 Site Address, Identification, and Directions 1 3.0 Methodology 1 4.0 General Site Description 1 5.0 Vegetation 2 5.1 Vegetation Methodology 2 5.2 Vegetation Results 2 6.0 Hydrology 3 6.1 Hydrology Methodology 3 6.2 Hydrology Results 3 7.0 Soils 3 7.1 Soils Methodology 3 7.2 Soil Series 3 7.3 Soils Results 3 8.0 Wetland & Stream Determination and Functions 4 9.0 Wetland & Stream Ratings and Buffers 4 10.0 Probable Impacts 4 11.0 Hazard or Risk to Wetland and Stream from Redevelopment 6 13.0 Limitations 6 14.0 References 7 Tables 1.0 Plant Indicator Status 3 Attachments Vicinity NW Maps PDF Field Data Sheets Wetland Rating Form Site Photos Wetland Map/Site Plan November 2013 J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. Dreamcatcher - 33rd Ave. S. 1.0 Project Description The applicant proposes to build one single-family residence on the property. The parcel is zoned LDR, single-family residence. The property is entirely wetland, stream and their associated buffers. Therefore, a reasonable use exception, from the City of Tukwila, will be necessary to develop the lot. 2.0 Site Address, Identification, and Directions The property is located at 131XX 33rd Ave. S., Tukwila, WA (see attached Vicinity Map). The tax parcel number is 735960-0473. The property is located in the northeast quarter of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, of the Willamette Meridian. Directions to the site from Tukwila City Hall are as follows: head west on Southcenter Blvd.; take the northbound I-5 on ramp; head north on I-5 and take the first northbound exit onto Hwy. 599; take the next exit off Hwy. 599 to Interurban Ave.; turn west and take the first left under Hwy. 599 onto S. 133rd; turn left onto S. 130th; turn left onto Tukwila International Blvd.; turn right onto S. 132nd St.; turn right onto 33 Ave. S. The parcel is a vacant lot on the west side of the street. 3.0 Methodology The wetland assessment and delineation were performed using the 1997 Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (DOE, 1997) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers "Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coastal Region (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010). The Routine Small Area Methodology is "used when the project area is small, plant communities are homogeneous, plant community boundaries are abrupt, and the project is not controversial." The wetland determination was based on the presence of the three criteria for jurisdictional wetlands, hydric soils, wetland hydrology, and hydrophytic vegetation. All three criteria must be present in order to classify an area as wetland. Wetlands were rated with the Washington State Department of Ecology wetland rating methodology (Hruby, 2006). The assessment included a review of the City of Tukwila critical area inventory and the USDA Soil Conservation Service's Soil Survey of the King County Area, Washington (Snyder, 1973). The field delineation was performed on September 20, 2013, on a sunny day. The delineator was Jeffery S. Jones;, SWS Professional Wetland Scientist No. 1025. The wetland boundary was flagged with consecutive numbered orange survey flagging. The wetland flags are numbered A- 1 to A-4 and B-1 to B-5 (see attached Wetland Sketch). 4.0 General Site Description The lot is an undeveloped lot which is 50 feet wide by 117.72 feet deep. The lot has several trees and areas of dense Himalayan blackberry and reed canarygrass. There is a seasonal stream channel that flows to the east across the parcel. Within the channel, there is a short section of eroded concrete pipe. The adjoining .parcels are single-family residences. There is an undeveloped 16 -foot wide alley on the west side of the parcel. October 2013 1 J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. Dreamcatcher - 33rd Ave. S. 5.0 Vegetation 5.1 Vegetation Methodology Hydrophytic vegetation has adaptations that allow these species to survive in saturated or inundated environments. These environments are classified according to the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin, 1979). The probability of plant species being found in wetland environments is provided by the National Wetland Plant List (COE, 2012). An indicator status was assigned to each species according to its probability of occurring in wetlands (see Table 1). Table 1.0 Plant Indicator Status Indicator Category, Symbol Obligate Wetland OBL Occurrence in Wetlands > 99% Facultative Wetland FACW 67-99% Facultative FAC 34-67% Facultative Upland FACU 1-33% Upland UPL < 1% Note: FACW, FAC, and FACU have + and - values to represent species near the wetter end of the spectrum (+) and the drier end of the spectrum (-) (USFWS, 1996). Vegetation data was recorded at four sample locations. At each sample location, the dominant species were assessed by indicator status to determine if the plant community was predominantly hydrophytic. Rules for determining dominant species were established in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (DOE, 1997). Dominants were determined using the 50/20 rule. Using this rule, percent cover was added by order of descending cover until 50% cover was reached. These species were considered dominants. The next most common species was also included as a dominant if it had over 20% cover. 5.2 Vegetation Results At sample location SL -1, the -plant community is dominated by Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra, FACW), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea, FACW), common horsetail (Equisetum arvense, FAC), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus, FACU), and morning glory (Convolvulus arvensis, not listed). The plant community is hydrophytic because 50% or more of the dominated by plant species have FAC•or wetter indicator status. At sample location SL -2, the plant community is dominated by cherry (Prunus sp., not identified to species), ornamental laurel (Kalmia sp., not listed), Western red cedar (Thuja plicata, FAC), English ivy (Hedera helix, not listed), and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus, FACU). The plant community is hydrophytic because less than 50% of the dominant plant species have FAC or wetter indicator status. At sample location SL -3, the plant community is dominated by Western red cedar (Thuja plicata, FAC), common horsetail (Equisetum arvense, FAC), creeping buttercup (Ranaculus repens, FAC), unidentified grasses (NI) and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus, FACU). The plant community is hydrophytic because 50% or more of the dominated by plant species have FAC or wetter indicator status. October 2013 2 J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. Dreamcatcher - 33rd Ave. S. 6.0 Hydrology 6.1 Hydrology Methodology The Corps of Engineers Regional Supplement has a more stringent standard for hydrology than earlier methodologies. Hydrology indicator A3, observation of saturation at 12 inches or less from the soil surface is primary indicator (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2010). Hydrology must be present 5 out of 10 years or with a greater than 50% probability. The presence of primary and secondary wetland hydrological indicators was determined at each sample location, by evaluating a variety of direct and indirect indicators. In addition to direct visual observations, secondary hydrologic indicators were used to infer wetland hydrology. Secondary indicators include oxidized channels (rhizospheres) associated with living roots and rhizomes, water marks on vegetation or fixed objects, drift lines, water -borne sediment deposits, water stained leaves, surface scoured areas, wetland drainage patterns, morphological plant adaptations, and hydric soil characteristics. 6.2 Hydrology Results SL -1 meets the criteria for wetland hydrology. The soils profile is saturated to the surface with a water table at 4 inches. SL -2 does not have wetland hydrology. The soil is not saturated with 12 inches from the soil surface. A water table is not present within the upper 18 inches of the soils profile. SL -3 meets the criteria for wetland hydrology. The soils profile is saturated to the surface with a water table at 16 inches. 7.0 Soils 7.1 Soils Methodology , Hydric soils are soils that are "saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (DOE, 1997)". They are either organic soils (peats and mucks), or are mineral soils that are saturated long enough to produce soil properties associated with a reducing environment. Soils were assessed for organic content and hydric characteristics in 16 -18 -inch soil pits at each sample location. In Washington State, soil color is the main indicator used to determine if a soil is considered hydric. Soil color immediately below the "A" horizon or at a depth of 10 inches below ground surface was determined using Munsell Soil Color Charts (MacBeth, 2000). Soils that had a one-chroma matrix or a two-chroma matrix with mottles were determined to be hydric. 7.2 Soil Series At the time the USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS) mapped soils in King County, this area was urbanized and not included in the mapping area. A natural soils structure appears to be present. The on-site soils are gravelly sandy loam and silt loam. 7.3 Soils Results At SL -1, from 0-18 inches the soils profile is a black (10YR 2/1) silt loam. From 18 inches+, the soils profile is at gray (10YR 6/1) glacial till. The soil is hydric because it has a one chroma matrix immediately below the "A" horizon or at ten inches, whichever is shallower (DOE, 1997). October 2013 3 J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. Dreamcatcher - 33rd Ave. S. At SL -2, from 0-12 inches the soils profile is a dark brown (10YR 4/2) gravelly sandy loam. From 12-16 inches +, the soils profile is a brown (10YR 4/3) gravelly sandy loam. The soil is non -hydric because it has a two-chroma matrix without mottles, immediately below the "A" horizon or at ten inches, whichever is shallower. (DOE, 1997). At SL -3, from 0-18 inches the soils profile is a black (10YR 2/1) silt loam with a sulfidic odor. The soil is hydric because it has a one chroma matrix immediately below the "A" horizon or at ten inches, whichever is shallower (DOE, 1997). 8.0 Wetland & Stream Determination and Functions The wetland slopes down to 33rd Ave. S. The entire parcel is wetland except for two small areas of non -hydric soil and the stream. There are a few trees, but the wetland is primarily reed canarygrass and Himalayan blackberry. Buffers are developed. The stream is un -named. It appears to be a ditch and a section 12" concrete pipe that carries water from seepage springs located above the subject property. The stream has eroded down to the compacted glacial till. The stream enters the city storm drainage system at 33rd Ave. S. It flows year-round and is non -fish bearing. 9.0 Wetland & Stream Ratings and Buffers The wetland rates as a Category III, using the DOE wetland rating form for Western Washington. Wetland A is a "Slope" system because the stream does not flood and the wetland is on a slope. The Cowardin system would classify it as a Palustrine Forested (PFO) and Palustrine Shrub/Scrub (PSS) wetland (Cowardin, 1979). The wetland is permanently saturated. The source of hydrology is a seepage spring. The outlet is a culvert. According to the Tukwila Municipal Code, Title 18.45.080.D, the buffer requirement is 80 feet. The wetland buffers extend off-site beyond the property lines. According to TMC Title 18.45.100.A.4, the stream is a Type Ns. "Type 4 (Ns) Watercourse: Those watercourses that have intermittent flows (do not have surface flow during at least some portion of the year) and do not meet the physical criteria of a Type F watercourse." Photos of the stream have been taken during the summer when it was dry. Fish cannot access the stream from the city storm drainage system on 33rd Ave. S. and there are no upstream fish sources. Type Ns streams have a 50 -foot buffer requirement (TMC Title 18.45.100.C). The stream buffer extends off-site beyond the property lines. 10.0 Probable Impacts Wetland and stream impacts are unavoidable. TMC Title 18.45.80, Exceptions, provides for a Reasonable Use Exception when certain conditions are met. A specific site plan must be proposed. Mitigation in the form of vegetative enhancement of the remaining wetland, stream and buffer will be required. The stream could be rerouted along the side of the proposed house or placed in a pipe. A narrow stream buffer will be required. The City of Tukwila code, Section 18.45.110, does not specify the amount of buffer width reduction allowed for vegetative enhancement; however the city's prior code allowed up to 50% reduction. Wetland impacts will be mitigated with on-site enhancement and off-site creation or enhancement, to the mitigation ratios and standards required in the city code. October 2013 4 J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. Dreamcatcher - 33id Ave. S. A wetland mitigation plan has been prepared for on-site mitigation. The proposed square footage of impacts and mitigation are as follows: Proposed House Footprint Proposed Building Envelope Wetland Impact Wetland Buffer Impact Stream Impact 1,280 sf 2,853 sf 2,800 sf 53 sf 24 if Mitigation Ratios Wetland Fill to Enhancement 12:1 Buffer Loss to Enhancment 1:1 Stream Replacement 52 If On-site Mitigation Enhancement Off-site Mitigation Enhancement 3,483 sf 30,170 sf The goal of mitigation is to restore a native plant community in the mitigation area. All non- native invasive shrubs and trees will be removed with an excavator to prepare the site for planting. The primary invasive plant species present are Himalayan blackberry and reed canarygrass. Himalayan blackberry can be removed prior to installation and maintained by hand. Reed canarygrass will reestablish from the seed reserve in the soil but is gradually eliminated by shading. The plant spacings are not less than 6 -foot on center for shrubs and 10 foot on center for trees. In addition the stream channel will be planted with emergent plants. The mitigation area will be maintained and monitored for a period of five years from installation. More information regarding mitigation is provided in the mitigation plan. Off-site mitigation will be at an approved city mitigation project on public property. The applicant may be required to design, install, maintain and monitor the off-site mitigation area. If a mitigation bank becomes available in the area, then payment to the bank may be an option. Hydrology to the wetland appears to be from seepage springs on the slope above and to the southwest of the property. These springs cannot be precisely located because they are associated with off-site wetlands and we do not have legal access to off-site properties. The stream will be restored to a much better condition that currently exists. The stream is a small excavated ditch that was probably constructed to attempt to drain the area. Rerouting the lower section of the stream will not affect the adjoining properties. The existing condition of the lower section of stream that will be rerouted is extremely poor. It is eroded where old concrete is exposed and fill with sediment at the inlet of the 8" culvert. The eroded channel will be replaced with a channel that has stable banks and a larger cross-sectional area than the upper existing channel. The channel will be vegetated with emergent plants which will slow the velocity of flows and protect it from erosion. The locations of the existing and proposed stream are shown on the civil engineers drainage plan and the mitigation plan. The proposed stream channel will discharge to the road ditch which flows to an 18" cmp, 8 feet to a catch basin. The proposed stream channel cross-section is shown on the civil engineers drainage plan. October 2013 5 J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. O Dreamcatcher - 33rd Ave. S. Drainage around the perimeter of the building envelope will intercept water that is currently reaching the neighbor's side yard, to the north. The proposed drainage system will reduce drainage problems for the neighbor. The existing stream flows into a 8" concrete pipeline that discharges to a city storm drainage system in the street. The 8" concrete pipe will be removed and the stream will be reconstructed as an open channel to the road ditch. This will result in 29 additional lineal feet of stream. The existing 8 -foot long section of 18" cmp pipe, above the city storm drainage catch basin, will be replaced with a 30 -foot long 18" cmp pipe for the driveway. 11.0 Hazard or Risk to Wetland and Stream from Redevelopment The existing condition of the wetland is degraded by dominant invasive plant species. The stream is an eroding drainage ditch. As of the date of this report, a site plan has not been prepared. The property is nearly surrounded by existing streets and residences. Redevelopment is unlikely to affect these properties because the wetland and steam already discharge into the city storm drainage system and development will not affect the source of hydrology, which is above the subject property. The condition of critical area buffers, wetland and stream are poor. Himalayan blackberry and reed canarygrass dominant the site. Mowed lawn, residential structures and pavement border the wetland. Reestablishment of native plants in the buffer and removal of invasive plants should benefit the stream and will provide a larger habitat corridor. 12.0 Authority This wetland and stream determination is in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the objective of which is to "maintain and restore the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the United States" (DOE, 1997). Wetlands are "areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water 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" (EPA, 1980) (EPA, 1982). 13.0 Limitations Stream OHWM mark determinations and wetland determinations, delineations, ratings and buffer sizes are not final until approved by regulatory agencies and/or local jurisdictions. J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. does not guarantee acceptance or approval by regulatory agencies, or that any intended use will be achieved. October 2013 6 J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. Dreamcatcher - 33rd Ave. S. 14.0 References COE. 2012. National Wetland Plant List. http://wetland_plants.usace.army.mil/ Cowardin, Lewis M. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Jamestown, North Dakota. DOE. 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Publication # 96-94. EPA. 1980. Federal Register 40 CFR Part 230: Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material. Vol. 45, No. 249, 85352-85353. US Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. EPA. 1982. Federal Register Title 33: Navigation and Navigable Waters; Chapter II, Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers. Vol. 47, No. 138, p 31810. US Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. Hruby. 2006. Department of Ecology's Wetland Rating Form for Western Washington. MacBeth. 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts -Revised Washable Edition. 617 Little Britain Road, New Windsor, NY 12553. 10p + 9 charts. Snyder, D.E. 1973. Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington. United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR -10-3. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. October 2013 7 J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. Dreamcatcher - 33`d Ave. S. Attachments October 2013 8 J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. DreamCatcher Homes Vicinity Map The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. Date: 11/27/2013 Source: King County iMAP - Property Information (http://www.metrokc.gov/GIS/iMAP) La King County NVENTORY WETLAND NWMaps.net Nearby Search Area (.25mi) 1 Search Result Location -o o a) CO � Q m a aoi 0) -o > _ co ca O O � L o U) a LL o o LL Q D.J 1 N Wetland Buffer Stream Buffer Landslide Area Shoreline Jurisdiction Area Printed on 10/6/2013 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: / 3 // ' Y ' 3 4- S , ounty: ��' j D n Sampling Date: / ! `3 Applicant/Owner: vecc C-A-i�� �� ![ ' "' ''/ es 6 4,..zState: W /"t Sampling Point: "54, Investigator(s): o J 1'`€ Landform (hillslope,,tterrrace, etc.): �7� - Local relief (concave, convex, none): �dYl 41-6-1 Slope (%): /) Subregion (LRR): w 1 Fo Y.e S 15 ` c, Lat: Long: Datum: NWI classification: Section, Township, Range: Al W /5/23 N/ Soil Map Unit Name: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes L• No Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. l' kit Ct„, Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes V No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? YesNo 3_C1— Yes 1" ---No Yes No Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) 3, Remarks: 4. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. 1 Tree Stratum(Pip. size: �J ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Indicator Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 1. t�4 e J ..V L (� l� / /01,0 3_C1— CA -6-6e) 2. / y Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) 3, 4. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75" (NB) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3 ) 3 D = Total Cover 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species x 1 = 3. FACW species x 2 = 4. FAC species x 3 = 5. FACU species x 4 = I I Herb Stratum (Plot size: / = Total Cover / / `, / 47c.— UPL species x 5 = 6-6 Column Totals: (A) (B) /) 1 ->Z it -1-(4-.1 / �]yv !ii/ e cc)/ 2. 1"12 e_cl .0 CL. -c -CL. -c -y cd—r ca_ 5 S Z / f /A -GW Prevalence Index = B/A = 3, (J _ 7 5 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation V— 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 4. 5. 6._ 7. $ 9. 10. 11. / Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: I l ) ' = Total Cover 3 C) \/ 'Ar_/'t l i N L Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes v No ` / 1. i�i�IYt Gly /e, r K.6 a -r--/ va.va 2. /14 u ✓.fn r";--1 z- l.Bpc� " _t) % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 5-0 = To al Cover Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 SOIL • Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm Depth Matrix Redox Features the absence of indicators.) Textufe Remarks (inches)Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 0-i r� )oyle241 /00 ..,_ -5i / 19"-i- I ov1g&SI /00 — S I 4-i // Saturation Present? Yes l0 No Depth (inches): b — (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: - 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) ✓Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) — Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer present): Type: -77 / Hydric Soil Present? Yesy No // Depth (inches): �� Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (except _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, ,High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) ✓Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Water Marks (B1) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (82) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (B3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (02) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC -Neutral Test (05) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No l/ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes y No Water Table Present? Yes L No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes l0 No Depth (inches): b — (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: - US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 CI5 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site:3 V r� f/1 t/ r S (tel i ounty: �G / 6 G•, Sampling Date:? / / /3 Applicant/Owner: ,�h.Gr, /i (' ..--'/4`C-I iS-i /-71---z-2-5 C_ State: t-) 4 Sampling Point: ge-i Z Investigator(s): J , J d 1 �.-S Section, Township, Range: w 44-) / r/ 3 AJ r '/ Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):tcS/6� -e- Local relief (concave, convex, none): �dv1 Slope (%):%.6- N 4A -)r - Subregion (LRR): vy.42 51-5 Lat: — Long: Datum: /rt.i 6 Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes V No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes i' No Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes \ No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No t, Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: ,3 ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Indicator Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: / (A) 1. (k?� 2-0 kJ N L. '!/ FA-C.Total / 2. Gt%-ell - h SGL (.fie Z.0 Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) 3. 4. Percent of Dominant Species Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3 1 �That t7 / v =Total Cover o / Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply bv: 2. 3. OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = I Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 3 6 = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = 1. Column Totals: (A) (8) 2. Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation I- Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. i / Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) =Total Cover 6 y ,v L \f i'i4•tq Hyd rophytic Vegetation '/ Present? Yes ✓ No 1. F K S A3 k A,/ y 2. _ad s• /ti i- _ / Bare Ground in Herb Stratum G-�t _ �(7 -6:5 =Total Cover Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm Depth Matrix Redox Features the absence of indicators.) Texture Remarks (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 b—/2 /°V/J2/ ,/—/e-04. '/ 4./O ynL1/3 /O© // Saturation Present? Yes No i� Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: `/ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No !( Depth (inches): Remarks: r// i Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) _ Surface Water (A1) Water -Stained Leaves (89) (except _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (85) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ FAC -Neutral Test (D5) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Water Table Present? Yes No Ls' Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No i� Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 �7 WETLAND / u DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 3 r/ 5-,C ounty: T( k.W r (&, Sampling Dat / () /3 Applicant/Owner: Dr cc ,wt A -'-�-a ri-t,e s f� L c_ State: L ) I Sampling Point: ��' Investigator(s): J, J a-PLe.5 Section, Township, Range: A)g) /� 2? N , 4/ E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): .5 J y/ � •e Local relief (concave, convex, none): / r5 -J'€ Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): A) L4-). /CC -7-1.-4' $ Lat: 0 A Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: �/ c7Y.zy Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes k No (If no, explain in Remarks.) significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes i/ No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? NWI classification: Are Vegetation , Soil Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology or Hydrology Remarks: Yes V No Yes L..-• No Yes l No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: I ) 1. Uuee.� 2. 3. 4. Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status / v y rAC Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3 0 f = Total Cover 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size:) % r c C Cr 2. t2 %i-7 s6 f' i o !— 3. ,f�`e /Ca` -0 / 0 AI L 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Wood Vi Stratum (Plot size: 1/(' 1 / 1. J i'NGck.4.. jl.�/--7/ �)L S3�r61/ Cv d 2. = Total Cover �Aal % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: = Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 171 (B) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species �s That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) Prevalence Index = B/A = (B) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation jell Dominance Test is >50% _ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 SOIL Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm Depth Matrix Redox Features the absence of indicators.) Te Remarks (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes i " No Water Table Present? Yes 1..,-` No Depth (inches): ,'h Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0 (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: _ Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) \ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: ' / Hydric Soil Present? Yes V No Depth (inches): Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) _ Surface Water (A1) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (except _ Water -Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, _ High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 4A, and 4B) ,6aturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (81) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) i - Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (B3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ Iron Deposits (65) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ FAC -Neutral Test (05) _ Surface Soil Cracks (86) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes i " No Water Table Present? Yes 1..,-` No Depth (inches): ,'h Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0 (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast— Version 2.0 `.r Wetland name or number A WETLAND RATING FORM — WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 - Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Updated Oct 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats Name of wetland (if known): Rated by J. Date of site visit 9/W/13 Trained by Ecology? Yes Flo Date of trainin / Q6 SEC: / STWNSHP:�3 RNGE: 9 Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes No t, Map of wetland unit: Figure ✓ Estimated size / I)) S747 SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland I_ II III IV Category I = Score >=70 Cateory II = Score 51-69 'Category III = Score 30-5 Category IV = Score < 30 Score for Water Quality Functions Score for Hydrologic Functions Score for Habitat Functions TOTAL score for Functions Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland I II Does not Apply 11- Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above) Summary of basic information I36 about the wetland unit /Z F Wctlad in has: Special"` � 1 uc 7 �� , FVyetland HGM Class: t.. �,._sexQr R at><ng _.. F,Chacterts><cS .. �.j*� x_ —_. Estuarine Depressional Natural Heritage Wetland Riverine Bog Lake -fringe Mature Forest Slope 1. --- Old Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal Lagoon Freshwater Tidal Intcrduna1 None of the above Check if unit has multiple HGM classes present I I Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 1 version 2 To be used with Ecology Publication 04-06-025 August 2004 4. - Wetland name or number Does the wetland unit being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. � z s ¢ cI LiMi. U, '1 Tee sdthtio Protection :. , , v alditoto th�e rotect o am` ,.io . _- ..- �_ coTed >fo Cate gorg .. SPI. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (T/E species)? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state or federal database. L --- SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Category 1 Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 19 of data form). L SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? I-- SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated. The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. See p. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. Wetland Rating Form —western Washington 2 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Wetland name or number Classification of Wetland Units in Western Washington 1. Awater levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? !NO f o to 2 YES — the wetland class is Tidal Fringe `..1 g If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES — Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO — Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were called estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is kept. Please note; however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed (see p. ). 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Gr water and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. o to:3 YES — The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet both of the following criteria? The, vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) at least 20 acres (8 ha) in size; At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)? go to 4 YES — The wetland class is Lake -fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? L—The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), L—The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3ft diameter and less than 1 foot deep). NO - go to 5 YES — The wetland class is Slope Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 3 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is t flooding. No to 6 YES — The wetland class is Riverine 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year. This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the in of the wetland �go to 7 YES — The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding. The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural_ utlet. NO o to 8 YES — The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM clases. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICI-I OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the class Listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. If you arc unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 4 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 AA- _iG"leas4tr uji hir3 e cnetlgndtu t i t gr ., l' GSI 0 s Q ow:00 fn Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake -fringe Lake -fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Depressional + Lake -fringe Depressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special characteristics If you arc unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 4 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Wetland name or number � y /N; c an �,1 f r +9 �.i 4 t .P� kt F 7r 18, F Z't Y _ s.�.st °: [ i : POints d "3 `,It ® :rir (`, t0 �` "`...� � .. _ vB ' y r j a� ,r ' � ld Wrilt� l]i1effopC % , Sonly 1 score _ 4 rv, } k " r poi ^twatez_quality k ar> `� ''— „s�_ .`: r _ box) - S S S S S S 1. Does the wetland unit have the 4 otential to improve water quality? (see p.64) S 1.1 Characteristics of average slope of unit: Slope is 1 % or less (a I% slope has a 1 foot vertical drop in elevation for every 100 ft horizontal distance) points = 3 Slopeisl%-2% points=2 Slopeis2%-5% ,per _ Slope is greater than 5% points = 6 S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS definitions) YES = 3 points 6-.0__=)0 points 0 S 1.3 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the vegetation in the wetland. Dense vegetation means you have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher than 6 inches. Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 90% of the wetland area is = Figure _ Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/2 of area points = 3 Dense, woody, vegetation > 1/2 of area points = 2 Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/4 of area points = 1 Does not meet any of the criteria above for vegetation points = 0 Aerial photo or map with vegetation polygons Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above / , S S 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? `(see p.67) multiplier Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, hut any single source would qual01 as opportunity. — Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft — Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland — Tilled fields, logging, or orchards within 150 feet of wetland Residential, urban areas, or golf courses are within 150 ft upslope of wetland r )CS multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 S TOTAL - Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from S1 by S2 Add score to table on p. 1 / _ omments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 11 version 2 Updated With new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Wetland name or number �Q1I1:ts i s 'Y -spore - (see p.68) s s s s s S 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion? S 3.1 Characteristics of vegetation that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms. Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fit conditions in the wetland. (stems of plants should be thick enough (usually > 1/8in), or dense enough, to remain erect during surface flows) Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation covers > 90% of the area of the wetland.Lints =D Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation > 1/2 area of wetland points = 3 Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation > 1/4 area points = 1 More than 1/4 of area is grazed, mowed, tilled or vegetation is not rigid S 3.2 Characteristics of slope wetland that holds back small amounts of flood flpoi ows:nts = 0 The slope wetland has small surface depressions that can retain water over at least 10% of its area. YES Lints = 2 ( N points = 0 (, Add the points in the boxes above j S 4. Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? Is the wetland in a landscape position where the reduction in water velocity it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows? Note which of the following conditions apply. -1--"Vetland has surface runoff that drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems — Other (Answer NO if the major source of water is controlled by a reservoir (e.g. wetland is a seep th n the downstream side of a dam) multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 D 'see p. 70) multiplier Comments TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from S 3 by S 4 I Add score to table on p. 1 I Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 12 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Wetland name or number /r H 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 Vegetation structure (see p. 72) Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin)- Size threshold for each class is % acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. Aquatic bed 1, -Emergent plants .Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover) 1,....Forested (areas where trees have >30% cover) If the unit has a forested class check if: The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon Add the number of vegetation structures that qual. If you have: 4 structures or more points = 4 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes 3 structures points = 7 2 structures points = 1 1 structure points = 0 H 1.2. Hydroperiods (seep. 73) Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or '4 acre to count. (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods) Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points = 3 Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present(—point .2 \./Saturated only 1 type present points = 0 Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally .flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake -fringe wetland = 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland = 2 points Map of hydroperiods H 1.3. Richness of Plant Species (see p. 75) Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ff. (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian Thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 List species below if you want to: 5 - 19 species omts = < 5 species points = 0 !oiuts (only1; score. pet. box) Figure Figure Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 13 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Total for page August 2004 Wetland name or number H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats (seep. 76) Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. None = 0 points Low = 1 point oderate = 2 poin [riparian braided channels] High = 3 points NOTE: If you have four or more classes or three vegetation classes and open water the rating is always "high". Use map of Cowardin vegetation classes H 1.5. Special Habitat Features: (seep. 77) Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the Lnumber of points you put into the next column. arge, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4in. diameter and 6 ft long). ►/Sianding snags (diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland Undercut banks are present for at Least 6.6 ft (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft (1m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft (10m) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (>30degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned grey/brown) At least 'A acre of thin -stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated. (structures for egg -laying by amphibians) Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants NOTE: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. Figure _ Z H 1. TOTAL Score - potential for providing habitat Add the scores from H1.1, H1.2, HI.3, H1.4, HI. S L Comments Wetland Rating Form—western Washington 14 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Wetland name or number 4 H 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers (seep. 80) Figure Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed" — 100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer. (relatively undisturbed also means no -grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use) Points = 5 — 100 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference. Points = 4 — 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water>95% circumference. Points = 4 — 100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% circumference, . Points = 3 — 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50% circumference. Points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above — No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80ft) of wetland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 — No paved .areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 — Heavy grazing in buffer. Points =1 — Vegetated buffers are <2m wide (6.6ft) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland Points = 0. — Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above.oints.� Aerial photo showing buffers H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (see p. 81) / H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES = 4 points (go to H2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.2 H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake -fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES = 2 points (go to H2.3) NO = H 2.2.3 H 2.2.3 Is the wetland: within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR within 3 mi of a large field or pasture (>40 acres) OR within 1 mi . . e greater than 20 acres? ' S=1 soint NO=0 .oints Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 15 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Total for page 2' August 2004 Wetland name or number H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (see new and complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in the PHS report http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phslist.htm ) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (100m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha (1 acre). Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152). Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old-growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80 - 200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158). Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161). Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report: pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendix A). Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.0 m (0.5 - 6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of> 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are > 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are > 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and > 6 m (20 ft) long. If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat —1 of No habitats = 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by :nition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4) Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 16 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Wetland name or number H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits) (seep. 84) There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development. points = 5 The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile points = 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within'' /z mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed CzOirts = 3� The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetland within 1/2 mile points = 3 There is at least 1 wetland within 1/2 mile. points = 2 There are no wetlands within % mile. points = 0 H 2. TOTAL Score - opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores from H2.1,H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 1 O (� TOTAL for H 1 from page 14 Total Score for Habitat Functions — add the points for H 1, H 2 and record the result on p. 1 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 17 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Wetland name or number CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the Category when the appropriate criteria are met. Category SC 1.0 Estuarine wetlands (see p. 86) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? — The dominant water regime is tidal, — Vegetated, and — With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES = Go to SC 1.1 NO 1 ---- SC SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES = Category I NO to SC 1.2 Cat. I SC 1.2 Is the wetland unit at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category II — The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp. are the only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual rating (1/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category I. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. — At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un -grazed or un -mowed grassland. — The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. • Cat. I Cat. II Dual rating I/II Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 18 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Wetland name or number 0 SC 2.0 Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 87) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland unit being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? (this question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHP/DNR) S/T/R information from Appendix D or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site YES — contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category I NO Griot a Heritage Wetland SC 3.0 Bogs (seep. 87) Does the wetland unit (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to idents if the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. 1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the soil profile? (See Appendix,] ra�teld key to identify organic soils)? Yes - go to Q. 3 No/go to Q. 2 2. Does the unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? Yes - go to Q. 3 No Is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? Yes — Is a bog for purpose of rating No - go to Q. 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. I. Is the unit forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann's spruce, or western white pine, WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover (> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)? 2. YES = Category I No Is not a bog for purpose of rating Cat. I Cat. I Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 19 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Wetland name or number 0 Pc Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 20 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (see p. 90) Does the wetland unit have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. — Old-growth forests: (west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm) or more. NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two -hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old-growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. — Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 — 200 years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53cm); crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth. YES = Category 1 NO ‘,...tft a forested wetland with special characteristics Cat. I SC 5.0 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (see p. 91) Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? — The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks — The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) YES = Go to SC 5.1 NO \ of a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meets all of the following three conditions? — The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has Tess than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). — At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un -grazed or un -mowed grassland. Cat. I — The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square feet) YES = Category I NO = Category II Cat. II Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 20 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Wetland name or number SC 6.0 Interdunal Wetlands (seep. 93) Is the wetland unit west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? r / YES - go to SC 6.1 NO_ not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. In practical terms: that means the following geographic areas: • Long Beach Peninsula- lands west of SR 103 • Grayland-Westport- lands west of SR 105 • Ocean Shores-Copalis- lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is once acre or larger? YES = Category II NO — go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2 Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES = Category III Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 21 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 ti Eroded Concrete Pipe in Stream Channel Under Himalayan Blackberries Overview of Property Looking Southwest from the Northeast Property Corner 1N4W.If,1iP ••1 SLOZ 9 T NY1 03A13332i SURVEY NOTES: INSTRUMENTS AND PROCEDURES: A SPECTRA FOCUS 30 3' ROBOTIC TOTAL STATION WAS USED FOR THE FIELD TRAVERSE SURVEY WORK. AN ASHTECH GPS 5Y51304 WAS USED FOR THE CONTROL WORN. ACCURACY EXCEEDS WAC 332-130-090. THE VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD-88. 1HE BENCH MARK IS SURVEY CONTROL POINT NO. 3448 PER SURVEY CONTROL POINT DATA SHEET DESCRIBED AS A MON N CASE SIN A 1' X 1' LEAD WITH '+' LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF 5.128TH ST AND 24TH AVE 5. ELEVATION - 395.83 FEET. THE BOUNDARY UNDER RECORDING NO. 981S 1179012.THELOARE TT NES SAID SURVEY HI RECORD OF SURVEY �� BEEN ROTATED TO NAD 83(1991) 8Y TYING A COUPLE OF FOUND LOT CORNERS. I MANE NO 899008TY AS TO THE ACCURACY OF SAID SURVEY. ONLY THE UTILITIES 174AT ARE VISIBLE HAVE BEEN LOCATED. UIUTIES THAT ARE UNDERGROUND OR ARE 085(2/RED BY VEGETATION MAY NOT HAVE BEEN LOCATED. PRIOR 10 DIGGING. INVESTIGATION FOR POSSIBLE HIDDEN UNDERGROUND UNITIES SHOULD BE VERIFIED. THE BASS OF BEARING IS STATE PLANE (NAD83 1891) AS ESTABLISHED BY CPS. 111E CONTROL PONT BEING POINT NO. 3448 PER SURVEY CONTROL / / POINT DATA SHEET DESCRIBED AS A MON N CASE 11TH A 1' X 1' LEAD WIN -+' LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF S.I28TH ST AND 24114 AVE S. / THE TREES SHOWN HEREON HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AND SIZED TO THE BEST OF / 111 ABIUTY. HOWEVER. I MAKE NO WARRENTY AS TO 7110 ACCURACY THEREOF. IF THE PROPER IDEN7ff1CATION OF THE SIZE AND SPECIES ARE OEEMED TO 8E CRITICAL TI(EN A TRAINED ARBORIST S4OULD FIELD VERIFY. THIS SURVEY WAS CONCOCTED WITHOUT THE MEM OF A CURRENT 111LE / ORTT AND THEREFORE DOES 901 SHOW ALL EASENENIS OR RESTRICTIONS / OF RECORD - IF ANY. / UTIUTY LEGEND OSS MH SANITARY SEWOR MANHOLE CONCRETE WALK ETC ■ CB CATCH BASIN IPP POWER POLE 0 0 ❑ W000 FENCE o WM WATER METER cc03 ROCKERY < A-4 I WETLAND FLAG ° HYMI ORDINARY HIGH WATER UNE �/- WETLAND BOUNDARY / / / I / I • N.W. 1/4 OF N.W. 1/4 OF SECTION 15, T. 23 N., R. 04 E., W.M. CITY OF TUKWILA, STATE OF WASHINGTON I❑ 12- PVC, CLEANOUT? TREE LEGEND • 20' DB* OR BIGGER TREE A5 910104 • 12' TO 18' DBH TREE A5 SHOWN • 6' TO 10' DBH TREE AS SHOWN • CEDAR CH OLD CHERRY GeV COTTONWOOD 8' THICKNESS 2'-6' RIP RAP OVER 4' BED OF CRUSHED ROCK 6"1'3• 22"CW PROPOSED BLOCK NALL WITH FUTURE 1, BU RUNG PEWIT 1! `.00000 CLU5IER DOS1N0 WALL LEGAL DESCRIPTION TOT)0AIX S ADTO DITION TO 1140 PLAT THEREOF. iMOLUAE8 F PLATS,PAGEB87. RECORDS Or KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON. EXISTING HOUSE CONCRETE 22R:VE 's\ ASPHALT DRIVE 8 WATER METERS CO -CP=248.044 1 30' ` I 23' 4L�.8ba29,8> I 1011 a 10-242.8* 00' caw FIRE HYDRANT) V 2 � aTOP PK ON NAIL� IN248.94 ASPHALT. E1F/ADFEET. DATUM: NAVDS& Y MAIL tkRAM <SL -1I Y' 7 WALL HEIGHT, TTP. I.E. 8' CONCRETE IN. ET. ELEV..246.99 'AlrPOLE ❑ � 1r •12"CW8TILE • 8UNC 19'CWI i STREAM CHANNEL 1 _ -- 488'23'20'W N87'52'33'W (PER ROS 981117018 2) -- \ 117.71' �- -7- ...7- 3. ROCK DROP -SEE SECRONIE 3" PVC OUTFALL-( \ -252.65 0 \ r, B -B 1'-2' HORZ. 1'-2' VERT. 30' 146 18' INTAKE W/ TRASH M00 E-244.78! MATCH M. DITCH BOTTOM IE 3" PVC OUTFALL =249,72 11 12' CONCRETE OUTFALL :247.31 N) 4) TBP r: TOP SPLICE N EAST SDE O Mat 8'CF1 - POLE ELEVATION - 249.51 FEET. DATUM: NAVD88. EXISTING WALL STREAM CHANNEL 8' THICKNESS 2'-8' RIP RAP OVER 4' BED OF CRUSHED ROC( ;'EDGE 08 ASPHALT \ EXTEND WALL , TO PROPERTY UNE SEE MITIGATION PLAN FOR PLANTING STREAM SEE MITIGATION 750 STFOR REAM PLANTING 30' SCALE: 1' - 10' 5 10 20 fly —0ooS A -A 1'-2' HORZ. 1'•2' VERT. RECEIVED JAN 192015 OfVEI UPMtNT O Ly V a Z 1 DREAMCATCHER HOMES LLC GRADING/DRAINAGE/STREAM PLAN JOB NO. 14684 DATE 1218/14 SCALE 1 -10' DESIGNED REM DRAWN .EF CHECKED REI APPROVED Rai SHEET 1 OF 1 Dreamcatcher Homes LLC - RUE Wetland/Stream Mitigation Plan 33rd Ave. S., Tukwila, WA 98168 Tax Parcel No.: 7359600473 Parcel 5882.2 SF 0.135 Acres Aa Nm.Mnf OWINS OINCIES awls MOULT aslvs % ;► E 4l v;�' il:d'�l� b'Lg 4`4A-;4• ►� i :4►si•h► a• '• ; B b TOP I. %MAW # MLT. a117UY JSM 1 ad 110111 olverzonr Das nos amnion, 33RD AVE. MR sac or PO= ezr. ►aa euw*1 .• PAW rn LFTwt WAWA r 6 Notes: 1. No Significant trees will be removed. 2. 30,170 square feet of Off—site Mitigation is required, If mitigation is in the form of vegetative enhancement of existing degraded wetland. LEGAL. 'DESCRIPTION LOT 12 BLOCK 5, ROBBINS SPRINGBROOK ADDITION TO RIVERTON, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN VOLUME 16 OF PLATS, PAGE 67, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. UTILITY LEGEND 0 SS MH SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE. CONCRETE: WALK ETC. CATCH BASIN PP POWER POLE ---D {] WOOD FENCE ra WPd WATER METER €-'o:1 ROCKERY 4 1 WETLAND FLAG OHWM ORDINARY HIGH WATER UNE ..---W--- WETLAND BOUNDARY TREE LEGEND 20" DBH OR BIGGER TREE AS SHOWN • 12" TO 18" DBH TREE AS SHOWN • 6" TO 10" DBH TREE AS SHOWN C CEDAR CH WILD CHERRY CW COTTONWOOD EIdfCO05 RFCEIVFD ANV.L.15 n JI.1IN'Ni I4f 0 • J 8 J - N E e oe NN0 la CA Na 2 g• 43n O m • g m L S Q N w U 0 0 0 0 CHECKED BY: 0 5 Dreamcatcher Homes LLC - RUE Wetland/Stream Mitigation Plan 33rd Ave. S., Tukwila, WA 98168 Tax Parcel No.: 735960-0473 NORTH SCALE: 1 " = 1 O' • LL ♦ " 4 A E i v-azs PLANT SCHEDULE raE0. MamOHNNLH R.d Alda SU* Secure �W ' Pecilc allow OO Red -osier Oog.aod ONooks Rm OS Sa'vmr0ary 0 Lod>faa Slough Sedge 50011W10NWE O' 42E Aiwa Mn 10 1gal Pima aifarWa 0 29al Saks lob. ear.laIWKIM 12 lgal Cann aolmilera 12 1 gal Rose nulkarus 25 2gel Raba speSaoills 50 255 ANTrWm fir -(emirs 30 1gel Cam wnalare as Clumps.tea 0505 Split Rail Fence Detail FENCE NOTES: FENCE MAYBE CONSTRUCTED OF SPLIT RAIL, PRESSURE TREATED RNL, OF VINYL COATED PLASTIC. THE ONLY REQUIREMENT 15 THAT THE FENCE NOT SE SOLID AND MUST ALLOW WILDLIFE TO BE ABLE TO PASS THROUGH. JiceC I«-u:;u u' 1 Tih list { TREE AND SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL r Stream Channel Location O 00 cs a 05 0 O 05 o o Ju o® mm tl 01 3 0542 L x3• Zm9Y y 0034o . C E JD 15 0 I 0 N w U 0 U O w 2 O c ❑ z g] w m W O 0 a w J p Uu 1.0 Project Description The applicant proposes to construct a 1,280 sf single-family residence on the subject property. The square footage includes the house and patio, but does not include the on -grade patio. Almost the entire parcel is a Category 111 Wetland with an 80 -foot buffer. A Type 3 (Np) watercourse is on-site. Impacts to the wetland and stream are unavoidable. The proposed wetland impact is 2,800 sf and the proposed buffer impact is 53 sf A section of the stream. 24 feet long must be relocated by creating 52 feet of stream. A30' long road ditch culvert will be installed for the driveway. On-site mitigation will be 3,483 sf of wetland and buffer enhancement and 30,170 sf of off-site enhancement mitigation, which is a 12:1 exchange ratiofor wetlands impacts and 1:1 for buffer impacts. The off-site mitigation may be a fee program with the city. 1.1 Goals and Objectives The goal of mitigation is to increase the functions and values of buffer. Installation of native plant species will increase plant diversity, and improve wildlife habitat and water quality. The objectives necessary to meet the above stated goal are as follows: • Record the sensitive area in a `Notice on Title" • Install erosion control filter fencing • Remove invasive plant species and clear the site • Remove exposed concrete pipe • Relocate the stream/ditch • Install plant materials • Install split rail fencing and critical area signs at the edge of the development area • Maintain and monitor the enhancement area for a period of three years or until the site meets the specified performance standards • Implement contingency measures as nailed during the maintenance and monitoring period 2.0 Project Location The property is located at 1300( 33rd Ave. S., Tukwila, Washington 98168. 3.0 Responsible Parties Property Owners DreamCatcher Homes, LLC P.O. Box 2608 Lynnwood, Washington 98036 206-300-6874 keirouzja@gmail.com Environmental Consultant J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. Attn: Jeffery S. Jones, Professional Wetland Scientist, SWS No. 1025 P.O. Box 1908 Issaquah, Washington 98027 253-905-5736 jell jsjones@comcast.net 4.0 Standards All work and materials shall conform to landseage industry standards and specifications, and to the specifications and details shown on these plans. 5.0 City of Tukwila Contact Certain actions within this mitigation plan require inspection or approval by local agency staff Requests for inspection/approval shall be coordinated through the City of Tukwila Planning Department. 6.0 Contractor Information When it is available, contact information shall be provided to local jurisdiction that includes names, addresses and phone numbers of persons/firms that will be responsible for site preparation, installation and maintenance and monitoring. 7.0 Contractor's Qualifications Contractor/Landscape Installer must be experienced in mitigation work. Thc Permittee shall provide that there is one person on the site at all times during work and installation who is thoroughly familiar with the type of materials being installed and the best methods for their installation, and who shall direct all workbeing performed under these specifications. 'this person shall be experienced installing native plant materials for wetland mitigation or restoration projects, unless otherwise allowed by the Landscape Designer, Wetland Scientist and/or the local jurisdiction staff. 8.0 Site Conditions The Contractor shall immediately notify the Landscape Designer and/or Wetland Scientist of drainage or soil conditions likely to be deterimental to the growth or survival of plans. The Landscape Designer and/or Wetland Scientist may adjust the locations of plantings shown on plans based on field conditions. Planting operations shall not be conducted under the following conditions: freezing weather, when the ground is frozen, excessively wet weather, excessively windy weather, or in excessive heat. Site conditions must be documented on as-builtdrawings submitted to the local jurisdiction. 9.0 Plants 9.1 Origin: Plant materials shall be Northwest native plants, nursery grown in the Puget Sound region of Washington. 9.2 Plant Names: Plant names shall comply with those generally accepted in the native plant nursery trade. Any questions regarding plant species or variety shall be referred to the Landscape Designer or Wetland Scientist. All plant materials shall be true to species and variety. 9.3 Plant Substitutions: Same species substitutions of larger size do not require special permission. All plant substitutions shall be approved by Landscape Designer, Wetland Scientist andror local jurisdiction staff. 9.4 Quality and Condition: Plants shall be normal in pattern of growth, healthy, well -branched, vigorous, with well-developed root systems, and free of pests and diseases. Damaged, diseased, pest -infested, scraped, bruised, dried -out, burned, broken, or defective, plans will be rejected. Dreamcatcher - RUE Wetland/Stream Mitigation Plan 33rd Ave. S., Tukwila, WA 98 Tax Parcel No.: 735960-0473 9.5 Intermediate Inspections: All plants shall be inspected and approved by the Landscape Designer and/or Wetland Scientist prior to installation. Condition of plants will be inspected upon delivery and prior to planting. Plant materials may be rejected at the discretion of the Landscape Designer and/or Wetland Scientist. 9.6 Handling: Plants shall be handled so as to avoid all darnage, including breaking, bruising, root damage, sunburn, drying, freezing or other injury. Plants must be covered during transport. Plants shall not be bound with wire or rope in a manner that could damage branches. Protect plant roots with shade and wet soil in the time period between delivery and installation. Do not lift container stock by trunks, stems, or tops. Do not remove from containers until ready to plant Water all plants as necessary to keep moisture levels appropriate to the species horticultural requirements. Plants shall not be allowed to dry out. All plants shall be watered thoroughly immediately upon installation. Soak all containerized plants thomugbly prior to installation. Bare root plants are subject to the following special requirements, and shall not be used unless planted between December 15th and March 15th, and only with the permission of the Landscape Designer, Wetland Scientist, and/or local jurisdiction staff. Bareroot plants must have enough fibrous root to insure plant survival. Roos must be covered at all times with mud and'or wet straw, moss, or other suitable packing material until time of installation. Plans whose roots have dried out from exposure will not be accepted at installation inspection. 9.7 Damaged Planta: Damaged, dried out, or otherwise mishandled plans will be rejected at installation inspection. All rejected plants shall be immediately removed from the site. 9.8 Roots: All plants shall be balled and burlapped, containerized, or bareroot as appropriate for their size and condition, unless explicity authorized by the Landscape Designer andtor Wetland Scientist. Root bound containerized plants or B&B plants with damaged, cracked or loose rootballs (major damage) will be rejected. Immediately before installation, plants with minor root damage (some broken and/or twisted) must be root -pruned. Matted or circling roots of containerized plantings must be pnmed or straightened and the sides of the root ball must be roughened from top to bottom to a depth of approximately half and inch in two to four places. 9.9 Sizes: Plant sizes shall be the size indicated in the plant schedule. Larger stock are acceptable provided they are not rootbound or damaged and that the root ball is proportionate to the size of the plant Plant size measurements, if any used, shall conform to the American Standard of Nursery Stock by the American Assoiciation of Nurserymen (latest edition). 9.10 Form: Evergreen trees, if used, shall have single -trunks and symmetrical, well-developed form. Deciduous trees shall be single -trunked unless specified as multi -stem in the plant schedule. Shrubs shall have multiple stems and be well -branched. 9.11 Planting: Planting shall be done in accordance with illustrated details in the mitigation plan set and accepted industry standards. Plant locations shall also be inspected and approved prior to planting. 9.12 Timing of Planting: Unless otherwise approved by the local jurisdiction, all planting shall occur between September 1st and May 31st If temporary irrigation is installed, planting may occur at any time of year. 9.13 Planting in Pis: Planting pits shall be circular or square with vertical sides, and shall be 6" larger in diameter than the rootball of the plant. Break up the sides of the pit in compacted soils. Set plants upright in pits, as illustrated in planting detail. Burlap shall be removed from the planting pit. Backfill shall be worked back into holes so that air pockets are removed, without adversely compacting soils. 9.14 Sail Amendments: The entire mitigation area will be amended with Cedar Grove compost 3 inches deep, rmotilled or worked into the soil by hand The amendment of soil is to replace soillost during removal of invasives and to improve poor soil conditions. The estimated quantity of material is 42 cubic yanis. 9.15 Mulch: The soil surface surrounding all planting pit areas shall receive no less than 2"-3" of hog fuel, landscaper chip, or medium bark mulch atter planting. Mulch shall be kept well away (at least 2") from the tnmks and stems of woody plants. 9.16 Fertilizer: Slow release fertilizer may be used. Fertilizers shall be applied only at the base of plantings underneath the required covering of mulch (that does not make contact with stems of the plants). No fertilizers will be placed in planting holes. 9.17 Water: Plants shall be watered at planting. Plants shall be watered a second time within 24-48 hours after installation. A temporary irrigation system must installed for summer irrigation of the buffer plantings. 9.18 Staking: Tree and shrub stake is not required. 1 and 2 gallon shrubs and trees do not require staking. 9.19 Weeding: Existing and exotic vegetation in the mitigation and buffer areas will be hand -weeded from the planting areas and on a routine basis throughout the monitoring period No chemical control of vegetation on any portion of the site is allowed without the written permission of the local jurisdiction staff. 9.20 Wildlife Control: As determined by the Landscape Designer and/or Wetland Scientist, fencing or deer repellents may be needed to limit deer browse and rodent girdling. 10.0 Maintenance Maintenance shall be required in accordance with management recommendations of the consulting wetland scientist and the local jurisdiction staff. 10.1 Duration and Extent: In order to achieve performance standards, the Permittee shall have the mitigation area maintained for the duration of the monitoring period, 5 years. All maintenance shall be directed by the Landscape Designer and/or Wetland Scientist. Maintenance will include: • watering (see 11.7 for details) • weeding • replacement (see 11.5 for details) • removalof all classes of noxious weeds (see Washington State Noxious Weeds List, WAC 16-7150-005) as well as Himalayan blackberry • any other measures needed to insure plant survival (see 11.6 for details) • general maintenance activities which include the replacement of any vandalized or damaged signs, habitat features, fences, signage or other structural component of the mitigation site. 10.2 Survival: The Permittee shall be responsible for the health of l00% of all newly installed plants for one growing season, after installation has been accepted by the local jurisdiction (see Performance Standards). A growing season for these purposes is defined as occurring from March i. to October 31. For fall installation (often required), the growing season will begin the following spring. The Permittee shall replace any plants that are failing, weak, defective in a manner of growth, or dead during this growing season, as directed by the Landscape Designer, Wetland Scientist. and/or local jurisdiction. 10.3 Installation Timing for Replacement Plants: Replacement plants shall be installed between September 1st and May 31st, unless otherwise allowed by the Landscape Designer, Wetland Scientist, and/or local jurisdiction staff 10.4 Standards for Replacement Plans: Replacement plans shall meet the same standards for size and type as those specified for original installation unless otherwise directed by the Landscape Designer, Wetland Scientist, and/or local jurisdiction staff. Replacement plants shall be inspected as described above for the original installation. 10.5 Replanting: Plants that have settled in thein planting pis too deep, too shallow, loose, or crooked shall be replanted as directed by the Landscape Designer, Wetland Scientist, and/or local jurisdiction staff, 10.6 Herbicides/Pesticides: Chemical controls shall not be used in the mitigation area, sensitive areas or their buffers. However, limited use of herbicides may be approved depending on site specific conditions, only if approved by the local jurisdiction staff. 10.7 Irrigation/Watering: Water shall be provided during the summer and fall seasons (June 1st - October 15th) at least for the first two years after installation to ensure plant survival and establishment Water should be provided by a temporary above ground irrigation system. Water should be applied at a rate of 1" of water one to two times a week for Year 1 and 1" of water once a week during Year 2. 11.0 Performance Standards - Plant Cover and Survival • Plant survival and cover standards are established to measure mitigation success as follows: Plant Vegetative Cover' Plant Survival "Includes native volunteer plants Year 1 >10% 100% Year 2 >15% >85% Year 3 >20% >75% • Less than l0% invasive vegetation during any monitoring event. • The establishment of 2 species of native trees and 4 species of native shrubs and 2 species of herbaceous/emergent plants, by the end the the monitoring period. 11.1 Performance Standards - Streambank and Channel Erosion The stream channel must be stable with no visual evidence of streambank or channel erosion. 12.0 Monitoring Monitoring shall be conducted annually for 5 years in accordance with the approved mitigation monitoring plan. 12.1 Vegetation Monitoring: Belt transects and plots will be established for vegetation monitoring. Linear belt transects arc the preferred method for vegetation monitoring for this site. No less than one (1) 100 -foot transect 3 feet wide per 10,000 square feet of arca will be established in restoration and mitigation areas. Permanent transect location(s) must be identified on mitigation site plans in the first monitoring report (they may be drawn on approved mitigation plans by hand). Plots located at one end of each transect shall detail herb, shrub, and ace acrid cover at radii of 1 tit, 5m, and 10m respectively. Monitoring of vegetation transects shall occur annually between August 1st and September 30th (prior to leaf drop), unless otherwise specified. 12.2 Streambank/Erosion Monitoring: The entire on-site stream channel will be visually inspected for signs of erosion. if erosion is evident, photos will be taken documenting the condition. The stream will be stationed in feet with 18 inch stakes to one side of the channel, beginning at the 33rd Ave. S. road ditch upstream on-site. Staking will provide a reference for monitoring the channel. 12.3 Photopoins: No less than four (4) permanent overview photo points and one (1) photo point along each transact, will be taken. Photographs will be taken to visually record the condition of the mitigation area Photos shall be taken annually between August 1st and September 30th (prior to leaf drop), unless otherwise specified. 12.4 Reports: Monitioring reports shall be submitted by December 31st of each year during the monitoring period. As applicable, monitoring reports must include description/data for: • Site plan and location map • Historic description of project, including date of installation, current year of monitoring, restatement of mitigation goals, and performance standards • Plant survival, vigor, and aerial coverage from every plant community (transect data), and explanation of monitoring methodology in the context of assessing per formance standards • Site hydrology, including extent of inundation, saturation, depth to groundwater, function of any hydrologic structures, piezometer or staff guage if available, inputs, outlets, etc. • Slope condition, site stability, any structures or special features • Buffer conditions, e.g. surrounding land use, use by humans, wend and domestic creatures • Observed wildlife, including amphibians, avians and others • Assessment of nuisance/exotic biota and recommendations for management • Soils. including texture, Munsell color, rooting and oxidized rhizoshperes • Color photographs taken front permanent photo points as shown in the first as -built plan or the first monitoring report. • Summary of maintenance and contingency measures proposed for next season and completed for past season 12,4 Deficiences: Any deficiency discovered during any monitoring or inspection visit must be corrected within 60 days of approval bythe local jurisdiction. 12.5 Contingency Plan: Should any monitoring report reveal the mitigation has failed in whole or in part, and should that failure be beyond the scope of routine maintenance, a Contingency Plan will be submitted The Contingency Plan may range in complexity from a list of plants substituted, to cross-sections of proposed engineered structures. If stream erosion occurs, modification to the channel such as the installation of log drops to reduce the hydrologic gradient and velocity of flow. Contingency measures must be approved before implemented. If the failure is substantial, the local jurisdiction may extend the monitoring period for that mitigation. 13.0 Financial Assurance/Developer Warranty Prior to beginning any work, the Permittee must provide financial assurance of funds for the local jurisdiction to implement, maintain and monitor the project, if the developer fails to meet their obligation. A project cost estimate worksheet will be completed based on all elements of the mitigation plan. The total cost, plus contingency fees has bcen determined to be S , which will be the amount of the financial assurance/developer warranty the Permittee is required to provide to the city. Financial assurances are eligible for reduction to the maintenance and monitoring portion upon approval of installation by the local jurisdiction. 'a t. • 6/g-odos-- 0 z a 0 0 U 0 0 Q 0 E 0 i m 3 Q9 a 9 g3 i m 0 g ilOgo ,I5d Cm E � II o 0 c °a w U U w o o: O z to 0 15 0 c r w ad 0 Q Z O 0 Z DREAMCATCHER HOMES PARCEL # 735960-0473 33RD AVE S P L14-0002 L14-0002 LN-acso6 &'q- oa5 APPLICATION FOR REASONABLE USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW City of Tukwila Alcan Ekberg, Mayor April 2, 2018 Department of Community Development - Jack Pace, Director Jay Keirouz Dreamcatcher Homes P.O. Box 2608 Lynwood, WA 98036 RE: L14-0002, L14-0006 & E14-0005 Dreamcatcher Homes, Parcel # 735960 -047333rd Ave. S. Dear Mr. Keirouz: On December 16, 2014, you, and Jeffrey Jones, your wetland consultant were notified about items that were needed to continue our review of your reasonable use and SEPA applications for development on parcel # 735960-0473. That letter also notified you that pursuant to Section 18.104.070(E) you must submit the missing materials within 90 days of the date of the letter, otherwise the applications would expire. We followed up the December 16, 2014 letter with a letter dated March 30, 2015, discussing the amount of off-site wetland mitigation needed if development were to proceed on the site. You and Mr. Jones met with me and Andrea Cummins, the City's urban environmentalist, on April 14, 2015 to discuss details of wetland mitigation on the site. Since that time, there has been no additional activity on the two land use applications. The ninety day period in which to submit the missing materials expired on July 14, 2015. You have not provided the requested information and as a result your applications for reasonable use and environmental review have expired. If you wish to pursue this project, you must re -apply with new application materials and pay new application fees. As part of any new submittal, please make sure you include the items that were missing and identified in previous correspondence with you and Mr. Jones. A copy of that letter is attached. If you have any questions, please call me at 206-431-3661. Sincerely, Carol Lumb Senior Planner cc: Minnie Dhaliwal, Planning Supervisor Jeffrey Jones, J.S. Jones & Associates Enclosure: December 16, 2014 & March 30, 2015 letters Tukwila City Hall • 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, WA 98188 • 206-433-1800 • Website: TukwilaWA.gov c Carol Lumb From: jeffjsjones@comcast.net Sent: Monday, April 6, 2015 11:58 AM To: Carol Lumb Cc: keirouzja@gmail.com Subject: Re: Reasonable Use Application Carol, We would like to set up a meeting at the city to discuss off-site locations. What dates and times work for you? Thanks, Jeff Jones From: keirouzja@gmail.com To: "jell jsjones" <jeff.jsjones@comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2015 3:58:29 PM Subject: Re: Reasonable Use Application Thx Sent from my iPhone On Apr 2, 2015, at 3:30 PM, jeff.isionesAcomcast.net wrote: think so, but I will have to get back to you. I may have a 1 pm meeting in Bellevue. From: keirouziaagmail.com To: "jeff jsjones" <jeff.isionesacomcast.net> Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2015 3:25:59 PM Subject: Re: Reasonable Use Application Can we make it at 2? Sent from my iPhone On Apr 2, 2015, at 3:15 PM, jeff.isiones aacomcast.net wrote: Monday at 3 pm works for me From: "Jihad Keirouz" <keirouzia aagmail.com> To: "jeff jsjones" <ieff.isiones a@@comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2015 8:23:31 AM Subject: Re: Reasonable Use Application 1 Yes, I'm open next week. Thanks J On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 7:30 AM, <ieff.isiones(c�comcast.net> wrote: J, We should meet at the city with Carol and their new wetland scientist to discuss using city property for mitigation. Jeff Jones From: "Carol Lumb" <Carol.Lumb(a�TukwilaWA.gov> To: "ieff.isionesa(�comcast.net" <jeff.jsionesCc�comcast.net>, "keirouzia(a7gmail.com" <keirouziaCa�gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 6:05:22 PM Subject: Reasonable Use Application Jay and Jeff, I am attaching a letter with questions and comments on the reasonable use application — the hard copy letter will go out in tomorrow's mail to each of you. After the two of you have had a chance to consult, let me know if you have questions or want to meet. Carol Carol Lomb, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 206-431-3661 CaroLLumb(a, Tukwila Wa.gov 2 Tukwila, the City of opportunity, the community of choice. J A KEIROUZ DREAMCATCHER HOMES, LLC. P. O. Box 2608 Lynnwood, WA 98036 Ph 1 206-300-6874 email 1 keirouzia(@.gmail.com www. dreamcatcherhomes. us March 30, 2015 City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jeffrey Jones J.S. Jones and Associates P.O. Box 1908 Issaquah, WA 98027 RE: L14-002 — Off-site Mitigation Sites Dear Jeff and Jay, Jay Keirouz Dreamcatcher Homes P.O. Box 2608 Lynwood, WA 98036 Jack Pace, Director As part of our analysis of the reasonable use request for tax parcel 735960-0473, we need to evaluate the total mitigation proposed to compensate for the construction of a single family dwelling in a wetland, wetland buffer and stream buffer. This information is needed prior to scheduling the public hearing for the reasonable use and lot size variance requests. The Wetland Impacts and Stream Buffer Impacts analysis prepared by Mr. Jones on November 18, 2013 and revised on December 30, 2014, identifies 2,800 sq. ft. of total wetland impact and 53 sq. ft. of wetland buffer that needs to be mitigated for the property. The wetland has been categorized as a Category III wetland and enhancement is proposed for mitigation — the required wetland mitigation ratio for enhancement of a Category III wetland is 8:1 (not 12:1 as noted in the wetland report). I calculate the required amount of wetland mitigation as 22,400 sq. ft. plus 53 sq. ft. of wetland buffer enhancement for a total of 22,453 sq. ft. of needed wetland enhancement (per TMC 18.45.090 E.b. (2)). The site provides the opportunity for 3,177 sq. ft. of enhancement, leaving the need for 19,276 sq. ft. (or .44 acres) of off-site wetland mitigation. The reasonable use analysis states that the off-site mitigation may be either a fee -in -lieu program or enhancement of a city -owned property. Next Steps/Process The City does not have a fee -in -lieu program in place at this time, so the off-site option for wetland mitigation will be on either private or public property. We need you to identify where the off-site mitigation will take place and provide us with the costs for both the implementation of the mitigation and the on-going maintenance and monitoring that will be required. The required City monitoring and maintenance time period is five years for both the on- and off-site mitigation. Please keep in mind, additional requirements, alternative locations, and a longer monitoring period may be required by other permitting agencies (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ecology, WDFW). If you have not contacted these agencies yet to discuss this project, you may want to do so now, so that you are aware of the possible full range of mitigation required for the project outside of what the City will require. CL Page 1 of 2 H:\\L14-0002\Off-site Wetland Mitigation and Stream Assessment 03/30/2015 10:58 AM (Th Mr. Jay Keirouz Mr. Jeffrey Jones L14 -0002 -Off-site Mitigation and Stream Assessment Needed Additional' Information and Clarifications 1. The Wetland and Stream Assessment identifies two different ratings for the stream on the site — on page 1, the stream is identified as a seasonal stream while on page 4, the stream is identified as a Type 3 stream — please clarify what the stream typing is for this property and how this deter. 2. Please provide a baseline/existing conditions drawing, clearly indicating the existing stream location, significant trees that will be removed/retained, and the boundaries of the wetland for our records. A "wetland sketch" is referenced in the application materials but was not included. If you have any. questions, please let me know. If you would like to schedule a meeting to discuss the off-site mitigation options, or any other issue, please let me know and I will set up a meeting. Sincerely, Carol Lumb Senior Planner cc: Minnie Dhaliwal, Planning Manager Andrea Cummins, Urban Environmentalist CL Page 2 of 2 H:\\L14-0002\Off-site Wetland Mitigation and Stream Assessment 03/30/2015 10:58 AM City of Tukwila Washington Resolution No. / b O A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, APPROVING AN OFF-SITE WETLAND MITIGATION PROGRAM ON CITY -OWNED PROPERTIES, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO NEGOTIATE AGREEMENTS WITH DEVELOPERS FOR USE OF CITY -OWNED PROPERTY FOR WETLAND MITIGATION. WHEREAS, in an effort to address the increasing pressure for development in Tukwila on properties that have wetlands, staff has proposed a program for off-site wetland mitigation when on-site alternatives are not adequate; and WHEREAS, the proposed program has been conceived to help facilitate development, particularly for small developers, while at the same time providing environmental benefits by directing mitigation for many small wetland losses to larger or more highly functioning sites; and WHEREAS, the proposed program could help the City achieve some of the goals of the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Enhancement Plan, such as development of riparian wetland areas along the Green/Duwamish River; and WHEREAS, projects under the CIP, where wetland mitigation is needed, could benefit from this proposed program; and WHEREAS, the Sensitive Areas Ordinance allows for off-site wetland mitigation when on-site mitigation is not scientifically feasible; or not practical, due to adverse impacts from surrounding land uses; or functional values created at the proposed restoration/enhancement site are significantly greater than lost functions; or regional goals have been established and justify location of mitigation off-site; and WHEREAS, staff evaluated possible alternatives for off-site mitigation programs and sites, and determined that the proposed alternative of consolidated mitigation on certain City -owned properties is the most straightforward approach, which would make the developer responsible for designing and implementing wetland mitigation under staff supervision; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The concepts of the Off -Site Wetland Mitigation Program (contained in the attached Staff Report - "Off -Site Wetland Mitigation Program for Tukwila," April 24, 2006) are hereby approved. Section 2. The Mayor of the City of Tukwila is hereby authorized to enter into agreements with developers for using portions of City -owned properties for off-site wetland mitigation. C \Documents and Settings\All Users \Desktop\KeIly\MSDATA\Resolutions\Off-site Wetland Mitigation Program.doc SW.kn 6/15/2006 Page 1 of 2 0 Section 3. Any agreement for use of City -owned property for such mitigation shall be consistent with all applicable City of Tukwila ordinances and regulations, including Tukwila's Sensitive Areas Ordinance, in force at the time of development approval. Section 4. Funds received from developers for use of City -owned property shall be used solely to support wetland or stream enhancement projects within Tukwila. Section 5. Any agreement for use of the City property for such mitigation shall incorporate measures approved by the Director of the Department of Community Development to ensure the long-term ecological success of the mitigation program. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OTU�A, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this / 9 day of _ , 2006. ATTEST/ AUTHENTICATED: 1 F 1 E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: atb Dennis Robertson, Council President Filed with the City Clerk: 6 -/5"-e6 Passed by the City Council: - /99—G'6 Resolution Number: /60 Attachment: Staff Report -- "Off-Site Wetland Mitigation Program for Tukwila," April 24, 2006 C:\Documents and Settings All Users\Desktop\Kelly\MSDATA\Resolutions\Off-site Wetland Mitigation Program.doc SW:kn 6/15/2006 Page 2 of 2 J Attachment to Resolution No. 1608 Staff Report -- "Off-Site Wetland Mitigation Program for Tukwila," April 24, 2006 is available upon request from the City Clerk's Office. STAFF REPORT OFF-SITE WETLAND MITIGATION PROGRAM FOR TUKWILA April 24, 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1 2. OBJECTIVES AND RATIONALE OF THE PROPOSED PROGRAM 1 3. ANALYSIS OF REGULATORY AND PLANNING CONTEXT 3 4. ALTERNATIVE WETLAND MITIGATION MANAGEMENT APPROACHES AND INSTRUMENTS EVALUATED 6 5. ESTIMATE OF "DEMAND" 12 6. IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF AVAILABLE MITIGATION SITES ON CITY -OWNED LAND 13 7. POTENTIAL WETLAND MITIGATION SITES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY IN TUKWILA 29 8. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDED PROGRAM 30 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Map showing City -Owned sites 15 Figure 2. Aerial view of Existing Macadam Wetland . 17 Figure 3. Macadam, Type 1 Wetland - from Macadam Road S 18 Figure 4. Macadam, Type 3 Wetland 18 Figure 5. Fire Station 53 site showing existing wetland boundaries 21 Figure 6. Fire Station 53 wetland, looking east. 22 Figure 7 North end of Fire Station 53 wetland looking northeast 22 Figure 8. Green River/Riverview Plaza site 24 Figure 9. Green River/Riverview Plaza site . 25 Figure 10. Green River/Riverview Plaza Site, lower trail, looking easterly . 25 Figure 11. Green River/Riverview Plaza Site 26 APPENDICES APPENDIX A - PROPOSED WRIA 9 PROJECTS IN TUKWILA APPENDIX B — MAP OF TYPE 3 WETLANDS ON PRIVATE LAND AND RIGHTS OF WAY IN TUKWILA APPENDIX C — MAP OF CITY -OWNED PROPERTIES, WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES APPENDIX D - CITY -OWNED SITES CONSIDERED AND ELIMINATED FOR WETLAND CREATION OR ENHANCEMENT APPENDIX E. CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN — FIRE STATION SITE APPENDIX F. CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN - MACADAM SITE APPENDIX G. CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN - GREEN RIVER SITE S. Whiting 2/7/2013 12:03:00 PM Q\\TUK2\VOL3\HOME\SANDRA\WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING & POLICIES\STAFF REPORT\FINAL\WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction In an effort to address the increasing pressure for development in Tukwila on properties that have wetlands, staff is proposing a program for off-site wetland mitigation when on- site alternatives are not adequate. The program has been conceived as a way to help facilitate development, particularly for small developers, while at the same time providing an innovative mechanism for mitigating wetland impacts. It could be beneficial environmentally, by directing mitigation for many small wetland losses to larger or more highly functioning sites. This report summarizes the key points of a study carried out by staff, with the support of a wetland consultant. It also establishes program objectives and components, presents conceptual mitigation plans for selected sites on city -owned properties, and identifies the next steps necessary for implementing the program. Regulatory and Planning Context As part of the study, staff analyzed the regulatory and planning context related to wetland mitigation. Tukwila's Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC18.45) establishes mitigation sequencing that first requires avoidance of wetland impacts, then minimization of impacts, and finally compensation through mitigation. It allows for off-site mitigation under certain circumstances. The proposed program respects the intent of the ordinance. The US Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Ecology also regulate wetland impacts, but the Corps does not have jurisdiction over isolated wetlands (those not "connected" hydrologically to waters of the United States). Tlfeproposed program' Iwouid be limited,.a east;initially, to wetlands not:regulated.liy*th4Goi s.1 — -�- � �,�1 k, " vVets Tukwila's commitment to implementing the WRIA 9 Salmon Enhancement Plan is also an important consideration when thinking about off-site wetland mitigation, as some wetland mitigation projects could be directed to also enhancing salmon habitat, thus achieving some of the objectives of the plan. Alternative Wetland Mitigation Management Approaches Staff evaluated three alternative wetland mitigation management instruments that could be used to implement the program: 1) Alternative 1: wetland banking; 2) Alternative 2: consolidated mitigation at designated sites; and 3) Alternative 3: in -lieu fee program S. Whiting i 2/7/2013 12:03:00 PM Q:\\ TUK2\VOL3\HOME\SANDRA\WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING & POLICIES\STAFF REPORT\FINAL\WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT Wetland banking (Alternative 1) would require the City to implement mitigation up front at a designated site and later "sell" credits to developers that need to do off-site wetland mitigation. This approach would require a complicated and lengthy authorization process with the Corps of Engineers and the Department of Ecology. Consolidated mitigation (Alternative 2) would be an informal program that directs off- site mitigation to designated sites (both City -owned and privately -owned properties), but the mitigation would be carried out by the developer under City supervision. An in -lieu fee program (Alternative 3) would establish fees to be charged to developers in -lieu of them carrying out wetland mitigation. The City would then use the fees to implement a mitigation plan and to conduct ongoing monitoring and maintenance. The following table summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Instrument Advantages Disadvantages Comments Wetland Mitigation Bank Consolidates mitigation for greater environmental benefit Mitigation in advance, ensures success, no lag between impact and mitigation Difficult and lengthy process for set-up City (or other sponsor) would have to fund mitigation up -front Risk of not being able to sell credits/recoup investment No suitable city - owned sites available Consolidated mitigation at designated sites (city and privately -owned sites) Consolidates mitigation for greater environmental benefit Applicants would prepare and carry out detailed mitigation plans under City oversight Minimal lag time between impact and mitigation Potential for coordinating with WRIA 9 projects Potential adverse environmental impacts to some existing wetlands due to repeated interventions over time Not as feasible for Macadam or Green River sites unless a proposed project needed a medium to Large site for mitigation. Actual availability over time of privately owned sites is uncertain In -lieu fee program at designated sites Could consolidate mitigation for greater environmental benefit Mitigation would be entirely under City control Would allow for fees to be contributed towards WRIA 9 projects with wetland components Possible long period between when impact occurs and mitigation takes place Risk of not receiving enough fees to carry out a full mitigation or long-term maintenance Risk of cost overruns that would have to be borne by City Modification to TMC 18.45 needed Sufficient staff needed to implement (contracting, construction oversight, monitoring, long-term maintenance) S. Whiting ii 2/7/2013 12:03:00 PM Q:\\ TUK2\VOL3\HOME\SANDRA\WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING & POLICIES\STAFF REPORT\FINAL\WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT Identification of Potential Wetland Mitigation Sites on City -Owned Land Staff mapped all City -owned sites and overlaid this information on the Sensitive Areas Map to determine possible locations suitable for wetland creation or enhancement. Criteria were applied for evaluating the sites and Public Works, the Fire Department, and the Parks and Recreation Department were consulted in the process to ensure that there were no conflicts with future proposed uses of the sites. The results of the analysis of available sites for wetland mitigation indicate that: • feasible sites do not exist for every sub -basin where there is potential demand; • it will not be possible to achieve "in-kind" mitigation in every case (i.e. to match wetland classifications between the wetlands impacted and the wetland sites to be used for mitigation); and ■ Tukwila suffers from a shortage of suitable areas on City -owned land (and in general) and there are no large amounts of contiguous acreage that would be suitable as a large bank or mitigation site. As a result of this effort, three sites were initially identified for preparation of conceptual mitigation plans: 1) Macadam wetlands, located on the east side of Macadam Road and just south of S. 144th (mostly south of the proposed Winter Garden). A small amount of wetland creation and considerable wetland enhancement would be possible at this site and would also complement the Winter Garden project. Buffers would not be extended any further on to private property. 2) Fire Station 53 (undeveloped portion), located 4202 S. 115th, behind the fire station. This site presents opportunities for wetland enhancement and a small amount of creation, without causing buffers to be expanded. 3) A site on the Green River, located adjacent to and north of the Riverview Plaza development, and across the river from the Best Western Hotel. The site has an upper and lower bicycle trail managed by the Parks Department. The lower trail periodically floods during high water. The site presents an opportunity for wetland creation along the river (while leaving the upper trail in place) that would also provide off -channel salmon habitat. An access point for boat launching could also be incorporated into the project. Additional city -owned sites, such as Tukwila Pond, could be candidates for off-site mitigation in the future. S. Whiting iii 2/7/2013 12:03:00 PM Q. TUK2\VOL3\HOME\SANDRA\WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING & POLICIES\STAFF REPORT\FINAL\WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT Potential Wetland Mitigation Sites on Private Property Off-site wetland mitigation on private properties is allowed under the Sensitive Areas Ordinance and is already an established practice in Tukwila. However, with the idea of helping to facilitate off-site mitigation, especially for small developments, staff researched the availability of privately -owned sites in Tukwila. The idea would be to serve as a matchmaker between developers needing mitigation sites and property owners interested in making their sites available for mitigation. Negotiations regarding financial compensation and easements would be between the property owner and the developer. We identified potential wetland mitigation sites on privately -owned properties using the same process and criteria that were used for identifying city -owned sites and began contacting the property owners to see if they would be interested in the program. Staff has been unable to reach all of the property owners as of this writing, but some interest by has been expressed those reached. Recommended Approach Staff recommends the consolidated mitigation approach, using designated City or privately -owned properties, but requiring that the developer be responsible for preparation and implementation of detailed mitigation plans under the City's oversight. The consolidated mitigation approach could work well at Fire Station 53, where there are separate, well-defined small sections of the site that could be mitigated by different applicants at different times. The Macadam site would best accommodate one or two large projects to avoid repeated interventions into the wetland. Smaller projects are not out of the question, but this would require very careful planning and coordination to accommodate small projects. The Green River site would be better suited to large projects (such as a WSDOT or Sound Transit project), where a one-time intervention would be preferable due to costs and to minimize negative impacts. The consolidated approach could lend itself to supporting WRIA 9 projects in some circumstances, where a WRIA 9 project is underway or close to starting up, and an applicant could provide part of the restoration as mitigation (such as purchasing plants, planting, or some other discrete task related to the restoration project). In order to implement the proposed plan staff is seeking CAP Committee approval of program and a Council resolution approving the use of City properties for wetland mitigation under the program and establishing criteria for determining fees on a case-by- case basis. S. Whiting iv 2/7/2013 12:03:00 PM Q:\\ TUK2\VOL3\HOME\SANDRA\WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING & POLICIES\STAFF REPORT\PINAL\WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND As available land becomes more and more scarce in Tukwila, we are starting to see an increase in proposals for development on properties with wetlands. Often, these are small sites that would be denied use of their property because of the percentage of wetland on the site. Although the Sensitive Areas Ordinance establishes a preference for on-site mitigation of wetland impacts, it is often not technically or environmentally feasible to carry out mitigation on-site, particularly on small sites. In such situations, requiring on-site wetland mitigation could result in smaller and smaller fragments of wetlands with inadequate buffers to protect them. Staff has been working on an approach for off-site wetland mitigation. The proposed program is presented in this report. It has been conceived as a way to provide an alternative mitigation mechanism and is aimed primarily at small property owners. Such a program could be beneficial for environmental reasons, in addition to facilitating development. Much of the remaining wetland in Tukwila consists of small, hydrologically isolated wetlands that are degraded and disconnected from surrounding natural areas. Although these wetlands provide some functions, their small size and isolation significantly limit those functions. An innovative mitigation approach to allow off-site mitigation of unavoidable impacts to these wetlands could result in some creation of new wetland areas and improvement of wetland functions in other, more suitable locations in the city. We are proposing a program to allow for consolidated wetland mitigation, based on a study carried out by staff during 2005 and early 2006. A wetland consultant, Adolfson Associates, Inc., was hired in 2005 to provide some technical support for the work. This report summarizes the key points of the study, establishes objectives and program components, presents conceptual mitigation plans for selected sites, and identifies the next steps necessary in carrying out the program. 2. OBJECTIVES AND RATIONALE OF THE PROPOSED PROGRAM The objective of the proposal is to establish a program that provides a flexible mechanism to allow for consolidated off-site wetland mitigation in situations where small wetland fills cannot be avoided on a property, and where on-site mitigation is not practical. The program would provide a network of city -owned and possibly some privately -owned sites. It would also provide a management instrument for wetland compensation on city property, with the goal of consolidating wetland compensation or restoration actions into S. Whiting Page 1 of 33 2/7/2013 12:03:00 PM Q:\\ TUK2\VOL3\HOME\SANDRA\WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING & POLICIES\STAFF REPORT\FINAL\WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT larger, less isolated and/or higher functioning sites. The goal would be to achieve no net loss of wetland and/or an increase in wetland functions. This program is not intended to alter the mitigation sequencing requirement in TMC 18.45.090 C, which states that applicants must demonstrate that reasonable efforts have been made to avoid and minimize impacts. Only after it is demonstrated that on-site mitigation is not practicable or would result in a net wetland loss or a net loss in wetland function, would off-site mitigation under this program be considered. Properties eligible to participate in the program would be limited to those where wetland fills are not regulated by the US Army Corps of Engineers — i.e. isolated wetlands (those that are not hydrologically connected to other wetlands or to watercourses). Both private and public projects would be eligible to participate in the program — including projects carried out by Public Works. Benefits of such a program include: • Consolidating mitigation for many small losses in larger sites can be more environmentally beneficial than traditional piecemeal on-site compensatory mitigation; ■ Selected mitigation sites can be more efficiently monitored than numerous smaller sites, providing some economies of scale with respect to staff oversight and monitoring. ■ The wetland resources on city -owned property can be protected in perpetuity; • Some wetland mitigation projects could work hand in hand with Parks and Recreation Department projects; • Some mitigation could be directed to the Green/Duwamish River in support of WRIA 9 goals; and S. Whiting Page 2 of 33 2/7/2013 12:03:00 PM Q:\\ TUK2\VOL3\HOME\SANDRA\WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING & POLICIES\STAFF REPORT\FINAL\WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT 3. ANALYSIS OF REGULATORY AND PLANNING CONTEXT This section of the memorandum summarizes the regulations, policies, and plans that affect development in wetlands and establish requirements for compensation of adverse wetland impacts, including off-site mitigation. They include Tukwila's zoning ordinance, Corps of Engineers and Department of Ecology authority, and the policies established in the recently adopted WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Enhancement Plan. 3.1 Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan The Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan — Policy 4.1.8, allows off-site wetland and flood control mitigation. The policy is: "Allow off-site wetland and flood control mitigation where there is an equivalent benefit within the affected basin, no significant adverse impact to the adjacent property, and where it may be combined with City - sponsored programs." 3.2 Tukwila Sensitive Areas Ordinance The Sensitive Areas Ordinance (18.45.090 B) establishes that alterations to wetlands must be limited to the minimum necessary for project feasibility. Alterations may only be approved if they will not adversely affect water quality; fish, wildlife or their habitat; storm drainage or detention capacities; other properties; other sensitive areas or cause erosion hazards or slope instability. TMC 18.45.090 C establishes mitigation sequencing to ensure that all reasonable efforts have been made to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to wetlands. When an alteration to a wetland is proposed the following preference of actions (mitigation sequencing) is required: (a) Avoidance by relocating proposed activities or finding a different site; (b) Minimizing impacts by limiting degree of impact; and (c) Compensation through restoration of wetlands on upland sites, enhancement of significantly degraded wetlands, and finally, creating wetlands on disturbed upland sites. TMC 18.45.090E allows for off-site mitigation under certain circumstances when: (a) On-site mitigation is not scientifically feasible due to problems with hydrology, soils, waves or other factors; or (b) Mitigation is not practical due to potentially adverse impact from surrounding land uses; or S. Whiting Page 3 of 33 2/7/2013 12:03:00 PM Q:\\ TUK2\VOL3\HOME\SANDRA\WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING & POLICIES\STAFF REPORT\FINAL\WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT (c) Existing functional values created at the site of the proposed restoration are significantly greater than lost wetland values; or (d) Established regional goals for flood storage, flood conveyance, habitat or other wetland functions have been established and strongly justify location of mitigation at another site. The ordinance further states that mitigation shall occur within the same watershed where the wetland loss occurred and that mitigation sites located within Tukwila City limits are preferred. The Director may approve mitigation sites in other jurisdictions if certain conditions are met that guarantee that the mitigation site will receive long-term protection. Type 1 wetlands cannot be altered except for certain specific permitted uses. Type 2 wetlands cannot be altered except for certain specific permitted uses and except where the location or configuration provides practical difficulties that can be resolved by modifying up to 0.10 acre of wetland. For these wetlands, mitigation must be contiguous to the impacted wetland, thus no off-site mitigation would be allowed, except, perhaps, under a reasonable use exception. However, under a reasonable use application, it is possible that off-site mitigation would be necessary for Type 1 and 2 wetlands. To summarize, the existing Sensitive Areas Ordinance allows for off-site mitigation of wetland impacts that affect Type 3 wetlands. 3.4 Corps of Engineers and Department of Ecology Regulatory Authority The Corps of Engineers regulates dredging and filling of wetlands, except those that are determined to be isolated. The determination of whether a wetland is isolated is to be made by the Corps of Engineers through a jurisdictional determination. Filling of wetlands that are not isolated are subject to Corps jurisdiction even if they are small fills. Small fills are generally managed under nationwide permits, which simply require notification by the applicant. The Department of Ecology regulates all wetlands, including isolated wetlands. Ecology's authority over wetlands is through Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. In the case of an isolated wetland, Ecology issues an administrative order regarding alterations to the wetland. Thus, Ecology would have a role in approving all wetland filling and mitigation that occurs in Tukwila, be it for isolated or non -isolated wetlands. The Corps and Ecology also regulate the establishment of wetland mitigation banks, which are sites established for wetland creation/restoration/enhancement where mitigation is carried out in advance for future projects and the acreage of mitigated wetland is converted into credits which can be used to offset future wetland impacts (see S. Whiting Page 4 of 33 2/7/2013 12:03:00 PM Q:\\ TUK2\VOL3\HOME\SANDRA\WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING & POLICIES\STAFF REPORT\FINAL\WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT 4 C� Section 4.2 for a more detailed discussion of wetland banks and the rules that govern them). In addition to the establishment of wetland banks, both the Corps and Ecology have supported alternative wetland mitigation management instruments, including consolidated mitigation at designated sites and in -lieu fee programs. Both the Department of Ecology and the Corps would have to approve use of existing wetlands for enhancement projects in non -isolated wetlands that are identified as mitigation sites. Ecology would have to approve enhancement for existing, isolated wetlands used as mitigation sites. Staff has consulted with Ecology on these issues but further coordination will be needed both with the Corps of Engineers and Ecology if this proposed wetland mitigation program is to be implemented. 3.5 WRIA 9 Plan As a party to the WRIA 9 Salmon Enhancement Plan, Tukwila has agreed to support and help implement several policies, programs and specific projects related to the enhancement of salmon habitat. A wetland mitigation program could play a role in carrying out some of Tukwila's responsibilities for the plan implementation. The policies generally related to wetland mitigation are: Policy IN 1: "Local governments shall encourage activities within the designated land uses of WRIA 9 that: maintain, restore, and rehabilitate natural watershed and ecological processes; facilitate the expansion of refugia; and enhance connectivity between refugia ....." Policy IN4: "Support new and existing incentives to protect salmon habitat, including mitigation banking....". Policy IN6: "Local governments should evaluate shorelines and critical areas under public ownership prior to sale or exchange in light of WRIA 9 salmon habitat priorities." Policy I16: "An appropriate level of mitigation funding should be re -directed (either on- site or off-site, whichever is applicable) toward Habitat Plan priority actions in the distinct habitats outlined".... (including Duwamish Estuary transition zone habitat and Lower Green River rearing and spawning habitat). This last policy suggests that local jurisdictions should, direct some off-site mitigation activities to enhancement projects along the river. A number of specific restoration projects, located in Tukwila, have been identified in the WRIA 9 plan for the Duwamish Estuary and the Lower Green River. Many of the S. Whiting Page 5 of 33 2/7/2013 12:03:00 PM Q:\\ TUK2\VOL3\HOME\SANDRA\WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING & POLICIES\STAFF REPORT\FINAL\WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT projects are general in nature and depend on the willingness of private landowners to sell or otherwise make available their property abutting the river. Many of the projects that have elements of riparian wetland restoration could potentially be used as off-site mitigation sites to compensate for wetland impacts elsewhere in Tukwila. The projects in the WRIA 9 plan are shown in Appendix A along with a brief analysis of their suitability as wetland mitigation sites. 4. ALTERNATIVE WETLAND MITIGATION MANAGEMENT APPROACHES AND INSTRUMENTS EVALUATED There are several ways that a wetland mitigation program could be set up and managed in Tukwila. The goal of any of the alternatives would be to achieve no net loss of wetland or wetland function and to provide in-kind mitigation at larger and/or higher functioning wetland sites wherever possible. In some cases in-kind mitigation is not always possible or desirable. These situations involve resource trade-offs. Resource trade-offs occur when losses of a certain type of habitat are not replaced in-kind, but are replaced with other types of habitat creation or restoration. Normally, under state and local policies of no net loss of wetland or wetland functions, the goal is to replace wetlands or their functions through creation, restoration or enhancement of other wetlands. In some cases, however, compensation of wetland losses through non -wetland mitigation can be justified and approved by the regulatory agencies. An example cited by Ecology is riparian restoration when the functions provided by those resources are limiting or are critical for restoring the health and function in a watershed. An example for Tukwila would be allowing compensation for wetland impacts to be applied to salmon habitat enhancement projects that don't necessarily involve wetland creation or restoration. The potential wetland mitigation management instruments that staff evaluated, with the assistance of Adolfson and Associates are: 1) providing for consolidated mitigation at designated sites; 2) establishing sites as formal mitigation banks; and 3) establishing a fee -in -lieu of mitigation program that would allow the city to use the fees in future wetland creation and/or enhancement. Each of these instruments is discussed in more detail below. S. Whiting Page 6 of 33 2/7/2013 12:03:00 PM Q:\\ TUK2\VOL3\HOME\SANDRA\WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING & POLICIES\STAFF REPORT\FINAL\WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT 4.1 Consolidated Mitigation at Designated Mitigation Sites This approach would direct wetland compensation projects to an area (or areas) previously identified as desirable for restoration or additional wetland creation. Staff has explored two approaches: 1) identification and evaluation of potential sites that are in city ownership and 2) identification of potential privately -owned sites that could be used for various mitigation projects. The first approach would involve establishing sites in city ownership or identifying potential easements that could be used as mitigation sites for impacts from projects where on-site mitigation is not feasible. The City would establish overall mitigation goals for the site(s) and as projects needing compensation occur, the City could direct the applicant(s) to develop and carry out a mitigation plan at the designated site, depending on each applicant's requirements for compensation. A variation on this approach would be to designate specific sites for which a conceptual mitigation plan has been prepared by the City and where the plan allows for phased mitigation. Under this approach, different phases could be carried out by different applicants, depending on how much compensation each would be required to provide. The mitigation plan would need to be designed in such a way as to minimize potentially recurring impacts to the remainder of the wetland as mitigation projects are carried out. The second approach would involve identification of privately -owned sites that could be used for wetland mitigation, where the city would function to match the sites with developers needing locations for carrying out off-site mitigation. Under this approach, private owners could negotiate fees for use of their property for mitigation (through easements) and the developers would be responsible for carrying out the basic wetland studies and for preparing and implementing mitigation plans as approved by the City. The advantage of either or both of these consolidated wetland mitigation approaches is that they can allow wetland creation in desirable areas or the enhancement of larger or more valuable wetlands in a consolidated manner, instead of many small, individual wetland compensation projects in scattered locations. It would make the applicants responsible for implementation and not the City, although the City would eventually become responsible for ongoing maintenance and monitoring on city -owned sites. Another advantage is that there would not necessarily be a time lag between when wetland impacts occur and when mitigation is carried out. The risks of this approach relate to the timing and staging of mitigation and the potential negative impacts that could result. That is, different mitigation projects with different acreage requirements carried out at different times would mean repeated disruptions to the wetland area being mitigated and could result in this approach not being feasible from an environmental or technical perspective. S. Whiting Page 7 of 33 2/7/2013 12:03:00 PM Q:\\ TUK2\VOL3\HOME\SANDRA\WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING & POLICIES\STAFF REPORT\FINAL\WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT The consolidated mitigation approach, where applicants carry out mitigation off-site, has been used successfully to some extent in Washington. An example is the Mill Creek Area in Auburn where several very large wetland compensation projects have been performed by private developers in response to the area being designated as a preferred restoration area. According to the Department of Ecology this approach has also been used in Kitsap County in a designated watershed and in the Willapa Bay watershed under an agreement with WSDOT. In addition to the costs incurred by the applicant for detailed design and implementation of the wetland compensation, applicants could be charged a fee for the right to use City - owned property. Alternatively, the applicant could carry out additional enhancement work as an in-kind contribution in lieu of paying the fee. Staff's interpretation of Tukwila's Sensitive Areas Ordinance is that carrying out a wetland mitigation program under this instrument would not require an amendment to TMC 18.45. 4.2 Mitigation Banking Mitigation banks usually involve the consolidation of many small wetland mitigation projects into one larger, more ecologically valuable mitigation area. They are formal instruments that require permitting from the federal and state government. The federal definition of a wetland mitigation bank is: Wetland restoration, creation, enhancement, and in exceptional circumstances, preservation undertaken expressly for the purpose of compensating for unavoidable wetland losses in advance of development actions, when such compensation cannot be achieved at the development site or would not be as environmentally beneficial. It typically involves the consolidation of small, fragmented wetland mitigation projects into one large contiguous site. Units of restored, created, enhanced or preserved wetlands are expressed as "credits" which may subsequently be withdrawn to offset "debits" incurred at a project development site.] Wetland mitigation banks establish "credits" related to the values the wetland provides. As development projects with unavoidable wetland impacts and need for off-site mitigation are permitted, credits equivalent to the estimated unavoidable losses are withdrawn or purchased by the applicant. As withdrawals/purchases of credits continue over time, the bank credits are eventually exhausted. 1 Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigation Banks Federal Register: November 28, 1995 (Volume 60, Number 228) Pages 58605-58614 S. Whiting Page 8 of 33 2/7/2013 12:03:00 PM Q:\\ TUK2\VOL3\HOME\SANDRA\WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING & POLICIES\STAFF REPOR"ITINAL\WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT The benefits of wetland mitigation banking include the possibility of achieving a cost- effective mitigation and reducing uncertainty and delays for qualified projects. Also, because wetlands in the banks are restored and become functional in advance of project impacts, the success of the compensation can be ensured and the temporal losses of wetland values that occur during or after the development impacts can be eliminated or reduced. An important consideration to keep in mind with regard to mitigation banking is that the construction/restoration of the wetland bank must be done in advance by the wetland bank sponsor. So if Tukwila were to choose to establish a mitigation bank, the resources would need to be available up -front to complete the mitigation. Another important consideration is that establishment of a wetland mitigation bank requires state and federal approval. Federal guidance2 requires that a prospectus be submitted to the Corps of Engineers to begin the process of establishing a bank. A banking instrument (a document that details the physical characteristics, legal obligations, operational procedures, monitoring, and maintenance requirements) must be developed by a bank sponsor (the agency or company that wants to set up the bank) and approved by an interagency Mitigation Bank Review Team (MBRT). Draft regulations have been published in Washington for wetland mitigation banking. They are being "tested" currently through several pilot projects with Department of Ecology. These draft regulations would be applicable if Tukwila were to pursue a mitigation bank. The Ecology regulations are similar to the federal guidelines in that they require that wetland banks be certified by a MBRT. One bank in Snohomish County was recently inaugurated under this demonstration program and is being operated by a private company. It consists of 225 acres. Other banks proposed include two in Skagit County of 311 and 260 acres, one in Moses Lake of 11.3 acres, and one in Stevens County of 11 acres. A variation of wetland mitigation banking that has been used frequently is "programmed wetland compensation", which is a type of mitigation bank developed for the exclusive use of one entity such as a highway department or a port authority. These sites are used for mitigating future wetland impacts expected to be caused by the agency's own infrastructure development and they are not established as a for profit endeavor. Examples in Washington State include a WSDOT operated site in Moses Lake that is under a memorandum of agreement with Corps, USFWS, Ecology, Moses Lake and others. WSDOT took on the responsibility of restoring/enhancing an existing degraded wetland, owned by the City, as compensation for being unable to avoid wetland impacts (or mitigate on site) for future highway projects in the basin. Another example is a mitigation bank established by and for Paine Field for impacts related to construction at the airport. 2 Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigation Banks, Federal Register, Nov. 28, 1995. S. Whiting Page 9 of 33 2/7/2013 12:03:00 PM Q:\\ TUK2\VOL3\HOME\SANDRA\WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING & POLICIES\STAFF REPORT\FINAL\WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT King County has several mitigation banks in operation and began with one developed for the County's own use on the Sammamish Plateau for mitigating impacts to public works road projects. There are some private sector mitigation banks already established in the state, where private owners sell credits to parties needing locations for off-site mitigation of wetland impacts. The City of Eugene, Oregon operates a large complex of wetlands (over 1,000 acres) as a mitigation bank that sells credits for various public and private projects. Some privately owned and operated mitigation banks also exist in the Puget Sound region. There are no wetland banks in Tukwila or the immediate vicinity, but a bank is under development in Renton (the Springbrook wetland mitigation bank). It is being created by WSDOT for mitigation of highway construction impacts. Credits not needed by WSDOT will be used or sold by the City of Renton for mitigation of other projects. Staff research into existing wetland mitigation banks in the Pacific Northwest revealed that most wetland banks: 1) involve very large parcels where wetland can be created or restored; 2) are in less urbanized areas than Tukwila; and 3) are most often established and operated by a large public infrastructure agency with experience in doing so (such as a highway department or airport authority). Because Tukwila doesn't have any large city -owned sites suitable for wetland creation or restoration, it is unlikely that an agency like WSDOT would be interested in sponsoring a wetland bank here on City -owned property. Creation of wetland mitigation banks in Tukwila would require an amendment to TMC 18.45. 4.3 In -Lieu Fee Mitigation Another tool available for wetland mitigation programs is the "in -lieu fee" instrument whereby the applicant would be required to pay a fee to a third party (in this case the City) as compensation for permitted impacts, instead of conducting project -specific mitigation. The idea would be that the City could use the collected funds for larger wetland projects in the future when sufficient funds are accumulated. S. Whiting Page 10 of 33 2/7/2013 12:03:00 PM Q:\\ TUK2\VOL3\HOME\SANDRA\WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING & POLICIES\STAFF REPORT\FINAL\WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT Advantages to this approach include: • The local jurisdiction would have full control over the mitigation, thereby better ensuring its success, since applicant -provided mitigation often fails; and • The cumulative impacts of minor projects could be offset to a greater extent than for mitigation for small wetland fills carried out on a piecemeal basis in isolated, low functioning wetlands. One big drawback to in -lieu fee programs is that mitigation is not done in advance of when the impact occurs and considerable time might pass between when a wetland was filled and when mitigation takes place. There may be no way to shorten this time lag. A problem that has been detected in researching other in -lieu fee programs is that the revenue paid to local jurisdictions "in lieu" of mitigation has not always been spent on creating or restoring wetlands. In some cases, fees have been used for projects other than wetland mitigation. In others, fees have been accumulated and not been used at all. Therefore, the standard of "no net loss" of wetlands can be compromised when in -lieu fees are not spent on replacing lost wetlands. To help avoid these problems an in -lieu program could identify specific mitigation site(s) where the funds must be used and a mitigation plan and cost estimates could be pre- established indicating where and how funds would be applied. An ordinance could place limits on the use of the funds. The fees the applicant must pay into the fund if on-site mitigation is not feasible should include costs related to development of detailed mitigation design, contract preparation, construction and construction oversight of mitigation, and long-term monitoring and maintenance of the mitigated site. Fees could also include an amount for use of City - owned property and some type of inflation factor to allow for increases in the costs of wetland work done at a future date. A risk associated with the in -lieu fee approach is related to "demand" for off-site wetland mitigation sites. If demand is low, sufficient funds may not be accumulated to carry out full wetland creation or restoration at a designated site. However, portions of a plan could be carried out. Another potential risk is that if fees are perceived to be high, applicants may prefer to request reasonable use exemptions, where applicable, by filling a portion of a wetland and enhancing the remaining degraded wetland on the site. This would result in a net loss of wetlands and potentially only a short-term gain in wetland functions if the property owner does not maintain the wetland. This approach would end up maintaining a system of scattered isolated and even smaller wetlands. Depending on the wetland function being provided at each site this may or may not be a desirable outcome. A way S. Whiting Page 11 of 33 2/7/2013 12:03:00 PM Q:\\ TUK2\VOL3\HOME\SANDRA\WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING & POLICIES\STAFF REPORT\FINAL\WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT around this would be that under some circumstances, when it can be shown that off-site mitigation provides better wetland function, applicants be required to provide off-site mitigation rather than enhancement of the remaining wetland on the site. Another disadvantage or potential difficulty related to implementing an in -lieu fee program is that the City would be taking on all the risk of ensuring that mitigation is effective. Also, the City would be responsible for contracting and contract supervision. In addition, if costs were to rise much higher than whatever inflation factor was incorporated into the fee, the City could potentially have to make up the difference in order to complete a mitigation and/or to ensure the availability of staff to carry out construction oversight, monitoring, and maintenance. Creating an in -lieu fee program would require an amendment to TMC 18.45. 5. ESTIMATE OF "DEMAND" Since TMC 18.45 prohibits alterations in Type 1 wetlands and provides that any alterations allowed in Type 2 wetlands (up to 0.10 acres) must be contiguous to the impacted wetland(unless the developer applied for a reasonable use exemption), these types of wetlands were excluded from consideration for estimating `demand" for off-site mitigation. Using the Sensitive Areas Ordinance map and the County Assessor's data, staff identified the approximate acreage of wetlands on private property of all Type 3 wetlands (those less than 1 acre and with two or fewer wetland classes). Tukwila's Type 3 wetlands are generally isolated and have low wetland functions and may be altered with permission of the Director. A copy of the map generated as a result of this process is provided in Appendix B. A worst case estimate was developed using the assumption that no on-site mitigation of the Type 3 wetlands was feasible and that all these wetlands would be 100% filled on residential, commercial and industrial zoned sites, as well as private rights-of-way. This would bring the total worst case "demand" for alterations to Type 3 wetlands to approximately 11.44 acres. This acreage would be multiplied by the appropriate mitigation ratio stipulated in TMC 18.45.090 D — 1.5:1 for creation or restoration and 3:1 for enhancement. So to meet the worst case demand, if applicants wanted to use City -owned sites for off-site mitigation, the City would need between 17.16 acres (if all mitigation was for creation/restoration) and 34.32 acres (if all mitigation was for enhancement) of available acreage. Staff did not include the potential demand for wetland filling due to Public Works projects because it was not possible to determine at this time. This is not to say that these S. Whiting Page 12 of 33 2/7/2013 12:03:00 PM Q:\\ TUK2\VOL3\HOME\SANDRA\WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING & POLICIES\STAFF REPORT\FINAL\WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT types of projects would not have access to any mitigation sites established by this program. Staff divided the estimated worst-case demand by sub -basins in order to determine if demand could be met with available mitigation acreage within each sub -basin. The largest demand may be in the Gilliam Creek sub -basin (about 6.8 acres), followed by the P-17 sub -basin (3.1 acres) and then Southgate Creek sub -basin (1.2 acres). No Type 3 wetlands exist on private property in the Nelson Place/Longacres or the Southeast CBD sub -basins. 6. IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF AVAILABLE MITIGATION SITES ON CITY -OWNED LAND As an initial attempt to identify potential sites available for wetland mitigation under this program, only currently city -owned properties were considered. Staff mapped and conducted the initial analysis of all the currently City -owned properties (identified from King County property files) and overlaid this information on the Sensitive Areas map. A copy of the map is provided in Appendix C. A determination was made regarding each site's feasibility for wetland creation, restoration, or enhancement. The criteria used for evaluating feasibility were: • Hydrology (as demonstrated by presence of existing wetland, or proximity to stream or river); • Extent of isolation versus connectivity of site to other wetlands, streams, wildlife corridors, vegetated areas, parks; • Potential conflicts with the City's future development plans; • Size; • Accessibility for achieving enhancement of existing wetlands or creation of new wetland; and • Geographic location by sub -watershed (in an attempt to locate potential mitigation sites for every sub -watershed where there could be demand). Those sites that were extremely small, had no habitat connectivity and had no obvious hydrology were immediately eliminated from consideration. City -owned sites that had already been restored as part of required mitigation or current federally -funded salmon enhancement projects were also eliminated from further consideration (the Codiga site, the Cecil B. Moses park site, and the North Winds Weir site). Public Works, Parks and Recreation and the Fire Department were consulted to discuss potential conflicts with the preliminary list of sites and to identify additional sites based on their specialized knowledge. S. Whiting Page 13 of 33 2/7/2013 12:03:00 PM Q:\\ TUK2\VOL3\HOME\SANDRA\WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING & POLICIES\STAFF REPORTWINAL\WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT Staff conducted field visits to the sites and from this effort a short list of sites was developed. Feasibility was further assessed by Adolfson Associates, the consultant hired to assist with this project. Sites considered but eliminated from further consideration are shown in Appendix D, with the explanation of why they were eliminated from consideration at this time. The results of the analysis of available sites for wetland mitigation indicate that: • feasible sites do not exist for every sub -basin where there is potential demand • it will not be possible to achieve "in-kind" mitigation in every case (i.e. to match wetland classifications between the wetlands impacted and the wetland sites to be used for mitigation) • Tukwila suffers from a shortage of suitable areas on City -owned land (and in general) and there are no large amounts of contiguous acreage that would be suitable as a large bank or mitigation site. Based on the feasibility evaluation and the consultant's review of staff conclusions, three sites were selected for the development of initial conceptual mitigation plans and cost estimates. The cost estimates will help provide the basis for assessing the fees to applicants for an in -lieu of mitigation program or other instrument. The three sites are Macadam wetlands, Fire Station 53, and a site on the Green River. Site locations are shown in the map in Figure 1. A brief description of each site is provided below along with an assessment of the potential mitigation opportunities and estimated costs for wetland creation or wetland enhancement. S. Whiting Page 14 of 33 2/7/2013 12:03:00 PM Q:\\ TUK2\VOL3\HOME\SANDRA\WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING & POLICIES\STAFF REPORT\EINAL\WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT .11111- ? mm Mem 111 attI __ in 1 1 ii a III Fire Station Site r11■i,,� - � fi>lii1'`• ai IIiL _.I !ice _icei. . Lake, • .l...1{41.001:11 ..pirtoNw1 it :'''�,``�:=►' ' 1i J � %Iwo * Iii �r f1Ckik,. AIM* 1 J NW' 1RI cMagi WM Nr i OEM. man 1. City of SeaTac a w ■ ,Pa 1 ��t ><:,eo sl` amara l 11N -- ]r, Ir S Legend Roads `J Potential Mitigation Bank Site .1.= City Boundary Weterbodies 0 1.12 2 y� ewe.. t'ISYIS f221GvC .cs.+.„++, J?: Macadam Site Now Riveryiew Plaza Site acorn. a.4 y L. mnw City of Renton City of Kent FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP TUKWILA MITIsATlCN CAh1(FRQ1ELT TU KWILA. W A3'1:MQTCY Figure 1. Map showing City -owned sites selected for initial development of conceptual wetland mitigation plans S. Whiting Page 15 of 33 2/7/2013 12:03:00 PM Q:\\ TUK2\VOL3\HOME\SANDRA\WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING & POLICIES\STAFF REPORT\FINAL\WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT 6.1 Macadam Wetlands This site is located on the east side of Macadam Road and south of S.144th Street. The wetlands are just south and east of the proposed Winter Garden. Figure 2 shows an aerial view of the City -owned portions of the wetland with existing buffers. The site consists of a series of five city -owned parcels and one utility easement, totaling approximately 10 -acres. The site supports undeveloped forest, shrub, and emergent habitat. A single-family residence and associated landscaping occupies the southwest corner of the southernmost parcel. Most of the 10 -acre site is occupied by a large wetland (Figure 3) that contains primarily shrub and wetland grass habitat types. The dominant plants in the wetland are Douglas' spirea, Himalayan blackberry, and reed canarygrass, with some red alder and black cottonwood trees along the perimeter. There is a small area of open water that can be seen in Figure 3. The wetland is classified as a Type 1 wetland under Tukwila's Sensitive Areas Ordinance. The entire Type 1 wetland, which extends off site to the east and south, covers about 5.85 acres. Approximately 4.71 acres of this wetland occurs on City -owned parcels. Additionally, a small (approximately 0.02 acres) Type 3 wetland is located just north of the large Type 1 wetland (see Figure 4). Assuming that the Winter Garden will be created, and therefore, excluding that area from the assessment, mitigation opportunities at the Macadam site include: • Creation of additional wetland along the east, north (between the northern edge of the Type 1 wetland and the Type 3 wetland) and on the southwest side of the existing Type 1 wetland, by excavating fill materials and planting with appropriate plants. The total creation opportunity here is approximately 0.37 acres, which would still allow for a 100 -foot buffer, without additionally impacting existing residences along the west side of Macadam Road, the existing residence to the south, or the planned Winter Garden. • Enhancement of the Type 1 wetland through creation of open water, removal of invasive plants, and planting of native wetland plants. Approximate enhancement opportunity is 4 acres. • Enhancement of Type 3 wetland through removal of invasive plants and planting of native vegetation. Approximate enhancement opportunity is 0.29 acres. S. Whiting Page 16 of 33 2/7/2013 12:03:00 PM Q:\\ TUK2\VOL3\HOME\SANDRA\WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING & POLICIES\STAFF REPORT\FINAL\WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT maw a ac tin n.e. 0.41.0w�:vqui,`�a�� FIGURE 3 MACADAM SITE TUKWILA MI'IGATION BMX PROJECT TUiMRLA, WA7IMNOTOR Figure 2. Aerial view of existing Macadam wetland showing current wetland boundaries in orange and existing wetland buffers in pink (Note: boundaries of the small Type 3 wetland are not shown, nor is the wetland visible in this photo). S. Whiting Page 17 of 33 2/7/2013 12:03:00 PM Q:\\ TUK2\VOL3\HOME\SANDRA\WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING & POLICIES\STAFF REPORT\FINAL\WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT Figure 3. Macadam, Type 1 wetland 5 from Macadam Road S, looking east (03/06). Figure 4. Macadam, Type 3 wetland, located north of larger Type 1 wetland (03/06) S. Whiting Page 18 of 33 2/7/2013 12:03:00 PM Q:\\ TUK2\VOL3\HOME\SANDRA\WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING & POLICIES\STAFF REPORT\FINAL\WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT The proposed areas for wetland creation will not cause wetland buffers to be extended on to private property as a result. Buffers that are already located on private property will not change. A conceptual mitigation plan for this site is provided in Appendix E. The areas for possible enhancement are not indicated in the plan, but virtually all areas of the two wetlands could benefit from enhancement due to the presence of invasive plants. This site would have the advantage of improving the surroundings of the future adjacent Winter Garden and improve opportunities for future passive recreation opportunities such as viewing platforms and trails around the edges of the wetland. Some of these improvements could potentially be included as part of mitigation. The estimated cost for creation of wetland on the edge of the Type 1 wetland range from $3,500.00 to $5,000.00, not including costs for formal delineation, detailed design, use of the land, or ongoing maintenance and monitoring. The 2006 King County assessed value of the parcel where this creation would be done is $38,300 per acre. However, it should be noted that this assessment does not take into account the wetland located on the property. Recent appraisals in the region suggest that values for properties containing wetlands are much lower than assessed value and are in the neighborhood of $20,000.3 The estimated cost for creation of wetland on the edge of the Type 1 wetland range from $3,500.00 to $5,000.00, not including costs for formal delineation, detailed design, use of the land, or ongoing maintenance and monitoring. The 2006 King County Assessed value of the parcel where this creation would be done is $38,300 per acre. As previously mentioned, the market value may be lower. Estimated costs for wetland creation around the Type 3 wetland range from $6,300.00 to $9,300.00, not including costs for detailed design, use of the land, or ongoing maintenance and monitoring. No assessed value of the parcel where this creation would be done is available in the King County database. Tukwila purchased the property for $155,000.00 in 1992 (around $122,000.00 per acre). Estimated costs for enhancement of the Type 1 wetland range from $286,000.00 to $462,000.00, and of the Type 3 wetland from $23,000.00 to $36,000.00 not including costs for detailed design, use of the land, or ongoing maintenance and monitoring. The King County assessed value of land that would be enhanced varies, depending on the parcel. Assessed values range from $38,000.00 to nearly $60,000.00 per acre. Market value for the parts of the property with wetland would likely be much less. 3 Complete Summary Appraisal Report, Tukwila Pond Mitigation Parcel, Andover Park West, Strickland, Heischman and Hoss, Inc., September 19, 2005. S. Whiting Page 19 of 33 2/7/2013 12:03:00 PM Q:\\ TUK2\VOL3\HOME\SANDRA\WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING & POLICIES\STAFF REPORT\FINAL\WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT 6.2 Fire Station 53, Allentown This site contains an existing degraded wetland located behind the fire station (to the east) at 4202 S. 115th . An aerial photo of the site showing wetland boundaries and the existing buffer is provided in Figure 5. The parcel is about 1.8 acres in size and the wetland consists of approximately 1.13 acres. The wetland, which is classified as a Type 3 wetland under the Tukwila Sensitive Areas Ordinance, is characterized by a forested plant community on the north underlain by reed canarygrass and Himalayan blackberry and an emergent area to the south dominated by reed canarygrass and blackberry. The wetland is small, but has some habitat connectivity because of its proximity to the Duwamish River and the intermittent corridor formed by the Burlington Northern right-of-way, which is forested in places. The buffers along the east and west sides are very narrow and suffer from invasive plants. The buffer on the north is forested steep slope, which is mostly off-site. Photos of this site are shown in Figures 6 and 7. A conceptual mitigation plan for the site is provided in Appendix F. Mitigation opportunities at this site include a very small amount of area for creation (0.086 acres) and about 0.8 acres for enhancement. This would allow for the wetland's use for a few small mitigation projects totaling no more than 0.26 acres of fill. it , 3 2 5 . (/ A disadvantage of this site in terms of enhancing the wetland for wildlife habitat is the periodic disruption due to noise when there is a response to a fire and from the railway activities on the east side of the wetland. Buffer widths were taken into account in the design of the conceptual mitigation plan to avoid potential economic impacts to adjacent properties. Therefore, creation of additional wetland on this site would not cause wetland buffers to extend any further on to private property. Wetland enhancement and/or creation will not cause a change in wetland category and, therefore, there would be no required increase in buffer widths as a result. This site could incorporate some recreational access through a viewing location and signage if this were deemed desirable. Estimated costs for creation of wetland range from $3,500.00 to $5,000.00, not including costs for detailed surveying and design, use of the land, or ongoing maintenance and monitoring. Cost for enhancement of the wetland range from $35,000.00 to $62,000.00. The King County assessed value of the land (not including improvements) at the site was $333,100.00 in 2005 and jumped to $888,500 in 2006. The market value of the wetland portion of the site is likely much less. S. Whiting Page 20 of 33 2/7/2013 12:03:00 PM Q:\\ TUK2\VOL3\HOME\SANDRA\WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING & POLICIES\STAFF REPORT\FINAL\WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT } Legend 1=1 w-Fdtt Type 3 Welland Stflt [ttrxed venin bowatry G8y Mem! Pit} e e> tb oic=e4u FIGURE 2 FIRE STATION SITE D.WW LAILVRIATKK! ZAAK PP.OJELT 7VKWM, WA3Me1.31-ON Figure 5. Fire Station 53 site showing existing wetland boundaries in orange and existing buffers in pink. S. Whiting Page 21 of 33 2/7/2013 12:03:00 PM Q:\\ TUK2\VOL3\HOME\SANDRA\WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING & POLICIES\STAFF REPORT\FINAL\WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT Figure 6. Fire Station 53 wetland, looking east. Note Reed canarygrass in middle and disturbed buffer of blackberries. Railroad cars in background. (March 2006). Figure 7 North end of Fire Station 53 wetland looking northeast (March 2006) S. Whiting Page 22 of 33 2/7/2013 12:03:00 PM Q:\\ TUK2\VOL3\HOME\SANDRA\WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING & POLICIES\STAFF REPORT\FINAL\WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT 6.3 Green River — Riverview Plaza/Bicycle Trail/Picnic Site. This site is located on the left bank of the Green River, across the river from the Best Western Hotel and adjacent to (north of) Riverview Plaza. An aerial photo of the site is provided in Figure 8 showing the current fringe of riparian wetland and its current wetland buffer. The site is currently a picnic area that is part of the Duwamish Green River Trail. The trail splits into an upper and lower trail at Christiansen Road. The upper trail is part of the King County Drainage District flood protection levee. According to the County the lower area is entirely within the floodplain, and overtops when flows at Auburn exceed about 6,000 cfs. During the recent rains in the region, the lower trail was flooded and water was flowing into the area between the upper and lower trails. The riverbank along the lower trail is covered with blackberries, as is the area in between the two trail segments. Large cottonwood trees also populate the site. Picnic tables are located near the lower trail. Photos of the site are provided in Figures 9 and 10. The entire site consists of about 2.5 acres, of which the City owns 1.46 acres. The remainder of ownership (levee) is in easements. There is a narrow band of riverine wetland along the edge of the river that is very degraded and dominated mostly by Himalayan blackberry with some interspersed willows. It meets the criteria for a Type 2 wetland because it is connected to a Type 2 watercourse. In terms of mitigation opportunities at this site, wetland could be created between the lower bike trail and upper trail (levee) and it could be connected to the river through culverts (culverts would be required due to the differences in elevation between the upland and the river on either end of the site). This alternative could provide off -channel habitat for salmon, which is consistent with the goals of the WRIA 9 Plan. Another alternative would be to excavate the entire area from the river's edge up to the upper trail, eliminating the lower trail to create wetland alongside the river and re -sloping the river side of the levee. A very preliminary conceptual mitigation plan is provided in Appendix G. The maximum potential acreage available for wetland creation is about 1.7 acres. However, this amount might need to be reduced in order to provide adequate buffer on the south and to avoid expanding the buffer on to private property (as is shown in the conceptual mitigation plan). S. Whiting Page 23 of 33 2/7/2013 12:03:00 PM Q:\\ TUK2\VOL3110ME\SANDRA\WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING & POLICIES\STAFF REPORT\FINAL\WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT Legend O110 -Poet Typ 2 Welland etl.f E.Fm.t.o W.tlafo Euulay Cly Owed Paces IVAI OpOin orww� oA:. v.tawa4 xa. FIGURE 7 PIVERVFEW PLAZA SITE TUKWILA MI -16%110N MAK PROJECT TI (WIA. WASMMGTW Figure 8. Green River/Riverview Plaza site showing current riparian wetland fringe in orange and its buffer in pink. Riverview Plaza development is to the right. Best Western Hotel is across the river to the left. S. Whiting Page 24 of 33 2/7/2013 12:03:00 PM Q:\\ TUK2\VOL3\HOME\SANDRA\WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING & POLICIES\STAFF REPORT\FINAL\WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT Figure 9. Green River/Riverview Plaza site showing lower trail, looking southeast from Christensen Road. Riverview Plaza in background. (March 2006). Figure 10. Green River/Riverview Plaza site, lower trail, looking easterly (03/06). S. Whiting Page 25 of 33 2/7/2013 12:03:00 PM Q:\\ TUK2\VOL3\HOME\SANDRA\WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING & POLICIES\STAFF REPORT\FINAL\WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT Figure 11. Green River/Riverview Plaza site — lower trail,l6oking east, during partial flooding of lower trail area. (January 2006) Under both scenarios, due to the extensive earthwork involved, it is highly likely that grants would need to be sought for financing the design and at least part of the wetland creation. Wetland mitigation projects could contribute to the effort but would not likely be sufficient to carry out the entire mitigation, unless there was a very large project with significant wetland impacts that would utilize the site. Extensive coordination with the County and the Corps of Engineers would be required for design and permitting. The project could become a WRIA 9 project and then be eligible for receiving salmon habitat - related grants. The mitigation could incorporate interpretive access for the public, along the upper trail. Wetland creation would enhance the visual aspects of the site and therefore also improve the recreational experience. In addition, the design of the mitigation could include installation of a boat ramp for hand launching of small boats, thus improving public access even further. The site also offers some potential enhancement opportunity of about 0.2 acres to improve habitat conditions in the existing wetland along the shoreline. S. Whiting Page 26 of 33 2/7/2013 12:03:00 PM Q:\\ TUK2\VOL3\HOME\SANDRA\WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING & POLICIES\STAFF REPORT\FINAL\WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT Disadvantages of the site include the likely high cost of implementing mitigation, the loss of picnic area, and the possible loss of several cottonwood trees on the site. Very rough estimated costs4 for creation of wetland/off-channel habitat at this site range from $700,000 to just over a million dollars, not including costs for use of the land or ongoing maintenance and monitoring. The King County assessed value of the land for 2006 is set at $1,017,500.00. The estimated cost for simply enhancing the existing riverine wetland ranges from $14,300.00 to $23,000.00. 6.4 "Demand" Versus "Supply" Comparing the estimated worst case demand for filling of Type 3 wetlands to "supply" provided by the above three sites, it is obvious that Tukwila does not have enough available and feasible City -owned acreage to satisfy all the potential demand. This demand could be even higher in the case of reasonable use exemptions for filling Type 1 and 2 wetlands. A worst case "demand" for entire filling of Type 3 wetlands on private property and rights-of-way is estimated at 11.44 acres, which would result in a compensation need of between 17.16 and 34.32 acres. The "supply" provided by the above three sites is about 2.1 acres of opportunity for creation and 4.84 acres of opportunity for enhancement. However, it is unlikely that all Type 3 wetlands would be completely filled and more likely that only a portion of them will be filled through on-site enhancement of remaining wetland that is not filled. This would result in the wetlands not being candidates for off- site mitigation. Therefore, establishing the three sites analyzed above as mitigation sites, together with future sites and opportunities would partially meet demand. This program, using the three proposed sites, even though it wouldn't meet all potential demand, would have some other benefits: providing habitat improvements in Tukwila without needing to use much in the way of City funds, enhancing public access and passive recreation, and restoring some salmon habitat. 4 Cost estimate based on data from WRIA 9 plan for similar projects. S. Whiting Page 27 of 33 2/7/2013 12:03:00 PM Q:\\ TUK2\VOL3\HOME\SANDRA\WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING & POLICIES\STAFF REPORT\FINAL\WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT 6.6 Other Potential Wetland Mitigation Sites on Tukwila -Owned Property As mentioned in the introduction to this section, other sites are potentially available to form part of a wetland mitigation program in the future. The most likely sites are: • Tukwila Pond wetlands west of the pond (between the existing park and the pond). These existing wetlands could be enhanced and a small amount of additional wetland could possibly be created. The amount of mitigation potential is very small, however, and a means of restricting access would be needed. The buffer on the west of the wetlands could be enhanced with additional plantings. Coordination would be needed with the Parks and Recreation Department to ensure there are no conflicts with the plans for that part of the site. • Tukwila Pond, open water. The pond could be enhanced by creating different types of wetland within the open water, through filling of selected areas. This approach could increase wetland functions, particularly for wildlife, by providing nesting and perching sites. This alternative should be evaluated in the context of proposed improvements to Tukwila Pond. It is uncertain how the regulatory agencies would view enhancement of the pond for compensation of wetland impacts. A functional assessment of the pond under existing conditions and under proposed enhancement conditions would need to be carried out to demonstrate whether significant gains in function would be possible. Obviously, this alternative would not provide additional wetland to meet the objective of no net loss of wetland. • Nelson Farm. This site is located near the intersection of I-405 and West Valley Highway. It contains a small wetland which is believed to be the remnant of a channel of the Green River. The site has been identified as a potential WRIA 9 project (see Appendix A — project LG 15) with the goal of reconnecting the wetland to the river to provide off -channel salmon habitat. It would likely also involve wetland creation and enhancement. It has been suggested that WSDOT might use the site for mitigation of impacts from the widening of I-405, but now that the agency is setting up a wetland mitigation bank in Renton, it is uncertain if WSDOT will choose to use the Nelson Farm site for mitigation. Therefore, the site might be available as an off-site mitigation candidate under the City's program, if other funding sources did not already exist. Further coordination with WSDOT would be necessary. In addition to the sites mentioned above, other sites might become available if the City acquires new properties. S. Whiting Page 28 of 33 2/7/2013 12:03:00 PM Q:\\ TUK2\VOL3\HOME\SANDRA\WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING & POLICIES\STAFF REPORT\FINAL\WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT 7. POTENTIAL WETLAND MITIGATION SITES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY IN TUKWILA Off-site wetland mitigation on private properties is allowed under the Sensitive Areas Ordinance and is already an established practice in Tukwila. However, with the idea of helping to facilitate off-site mitigation, especially for small developments, Staff researched the availability of privately -owned sites in Tukwila. We identified potential wetland mitigation sites on privately -owned properties using the same process and criteria that were used for identifying possible city -owned sites (see page 13). It should be noted that the availability of potentially suitable sites is very limited. Sound Transit has already purchased several sites for its own mitigation needs. Other sites already contain significant development, are surrounded by development, or contain wetland that spans several small properties with different owners. One site located on the Duwamish River has been identified as a potential WRIA 9 project (the Carosino property). This property is being evaluated by the WRIA 9 staff as a potential location for creation of off -channel habitat for salmon. Purchase of the site with grant funds and turn over of ownership to Tukwila is under consideration. The site is about 2.18 acres. A few other privately -owned sites were identified as being good candidates for use as mitigation sites. Two sites are located along Macadam Road South, between South 136th and South 138th. Two sites are located just south of South 128th, to the east of Military Road and west of 32nd Avenue South (one parcel is owned by Highline Community Hospital and the other is the site of the formerly proposed Opus Gardens Living Care Senior Housing (currently owned by a private holding company). Letters were sent out to the property owners explaining the program and asking if they might be interested in participating. They were then contacted by telephone, where possible, to follow up and determine their level of interest in the program. One of the property owners of a site on Macadam would be interested in selling his property outright for wetland mitigation or another use but expressed reservations about easements, fearing that this would affect the value of the property. Highline Community Hospital may be interested in the program, but further discussions will be needed as well as a preliminary assessment of the wetland enhancement and creation potential. Staff has been unable to talk with the other property owners to determine their interest in the program, but will continue to try and contact them, as demand for off-site mitigation locations materializes. S. Whiting Page 29 of 33 2/7/2013 12:03:00 PM Q:\\ TUK2\VOL3\HOME\SANDRA\WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING & POLICIES\STAFF REPORT\FINAL\WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT 8. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDED PROGRAM This section presents a brief analysis of each wetland mitigation instrument and provides staff's recommendations for the preferred alternative. Table 1 summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of the main wetland mitigation instruments evaluated. Table 1. Comparison of Three Wetland Mitigation Instruments Instrument Advantages Disadvantages Comments Wetland Mitigation Bank Consolidates mitigation for greater environmental benefit Mitigation in advance, ensures success, no lag between impact and mitigation Difficult and lengthy process for set-up City (or other sponsor) would have to fund mitigation up -front Risk of not being able to sell credits and recoup investment No suitable city - owned sites available Consolidated mitigation at designated sites (city and privately -owned sites) Consolidates mitigation for greater environmental benefit Applicants would prepare and carry out detailed mitigation plans under City oversight Minimal lag time between impact and mitigation Potential for coordinating with WRIA 9 projects Potential adverse environmental impacts to some existing wetlands due to repeated interventions over time Not as feasible for Macadam or Green River sites unless a proposed project needed a medium to large site for mitigation. Actual availability over time of privately owned sites is uncertain In -lieu fee program at designated sites Could consolidate mitigation for greater environmental benefit Mitigation would be entirely under City control Would allow for fees to be contributed towards WRIA 9 projects with wetland components Possible long period between when impact occurs and mitigation takes place Risk of not receiving enough fees to carry out a full mitigation or long-term maintenance Risk of cost overruns that would have to be borne by City Modification to TMC 18.45 needed Sufficient staff needed to implement (contracting, construction oversight, monitoring, long-term maintenance) S. Whiting Page 30 of 33 2/7/2013 12:03:00 PM Q:\\ TUK2\VOL3\HOME\SANDRA\WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING & POLICIES\STAFF REPORT\FINAL\WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT Given the limited amount of available city -owned acreage for wetland creation and enhancement and the difficulty of setting up and operating a wetland bank, Staff does not recommend this alternative. An in -lieu fee program, although in principle is simple, carries risks associated with the delay between an impact to a wetland and when mitigation is implemented; the potential lack of demand and insufficient fees to complete mitigation at a site; the potential for unforeseen increases in costs for mitigation over time; and the fact that the City would be responsible for carrying out the mitigation. There may also be the public perception that a developer can simply pay his/her way out of a problem without taking any responsibility for wetland mitigation. For these reasons, Staff does not recommend this alternative. Recommended Approach and Actions Despite some potential problems with the consolidated mitigation approach, Staff recommends this alternative. It would combine the use of City -owned sites and the referral of developers to the private property owners who have expressed interest in using their land as a mitigation site. If the expected demand materializes, it is probable that several applicants with very small fills on Type 3 wetlands would be likely candidates for using City -owned sites or privately -owned sites for mitigation. The consolidated mitigation approach using designated sites could probably work well at the Fire Station site, where there are separate, well-defined small sections of the site that could be mitigated by different applicants at different times. The Macadam site is better suited to one or two large projects to avoid repeated interventions into the wetland. Using the site to accommodate mitigation of several small projects, although not out of the question, would require very careful planning and coordination. The Green River site would be better suited to large projects (such as a WSDOT or Sound Transit project), where a one-time intervention would be preferable due to costs and to minimize negative impacts. The consolidated approach could lend itself to supporting WRIA 9 projects in some circumstances, where a WRIA 9 project is underway or close to starting up and there are insufficient funds for fully completing the project. An applicant could provide part of the restoration as mitigation (such as purchasing plants, planting, or some other discrete task related to the restoration project). However, it wouldn't be our intent to allow a developer to use a WRIA 9 site for mitigation if sufficient outside funding was already identified or expected for that site. S. Whiting Page 31 of 33 2/7/2013 12:03:00 PM Q:\\ TUK2\VOL3\HOME\SANDRA\WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING & POLICIES\STAFF REPORT\PINAL\WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT If this recommended approach is adopted, staff suggests that the fees that would be charged for the use of city property as wetland mitigation sites be negotiated on a case- by-case basis, to allow for fluctuations in property values over time. Staff also recommends that the fees be used for ongoing maintenance of the mitigated wetland after the developer's responsibility for monitoring and maintenance has been completed, and/or to carry out further enhancements or create infrastructure for passive recreation, such as trails, viewing platforms, etc. The City would function as a matchmaker for privately -owned sites that are available for mitigation and would, of course, review and approve all off-site wetland mitigation plans. How the Program Would Function The program would be carried out as follows 1. Applicant submits permit application for development and indicates the need to fill a wetland or portion of a wetland on the property to be developed. 2. Applicant prepares Sensitive Area Special Study characterizing the wetland to be filled and proposing a conceptual plan for on-site mitigation. 3. City Urban Environmentalist reviews the Sensitive Area Special Study and verifies field conditions. If it is determined that wetland filling cannot be avoided and that on-site mitigation is not technically feasible and would result in a net loss of wetland or wetland function, the City Urban Environmentalist recommends off-site mitigation and tries to match the mitigation needs to the sites already identified as mitigation candidates. 4. If the best off-site mitigation alternative is on City property, DCD and the applicant negotiate a fee for use of the property and develop an easement or lease agreement. 5. The applicant prepares a detailed mitigation plan based on the conceptual mitigation plan already prepared by the City. The applicant would be responsible for developing any additional information (such as topographical surveys) necessary to adequately prepare a detailed mitigation plan. 6. The City's Urban Environmentalist reviews and approves the plan once it is considered satisfactory.5 7. Upon permit approval, the applicant implements the mitigation plan and provides the agreed on remuneration to the City. 8. The applicant monitors and maintains the mitigated area for the period of time established in the permit and reports annually to DCD. 9. Upon termination of the monitoring and maintenance plan, the City takes on responsibility for ongoing maintenance of the mitigated wetland. 5 For some mitigation sites, the Corps of Engineers and Department of Ecology may also be involved in approving a mitigation plan. S. Whiting Page 32 of 33 2/7/2013 12:03:00 PM Q:\\ TUK2\VOL3\HOME\SANDRA\WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING & POLICIES\STAFF REPORT\FINAL\WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT Recommended Actions The actions needed in order to carry out this plan include: City Council Action: ■ Obtain CAP Committee approval of program ■ Obtain Council resolution approving the use of City properties for wetland mitigation under the program and establishing criteria for determining fees on a case-by-case basis. Staff Action (if program is approved): ■ Coordinate with Department of Ecology and Corps of Engineers ■ Establish procedures and criteria for assessing fees for use of city property and establish an account for the destination of the fees ■ Develop conceptual mitigation plans for additional city -owned sites that could be used as mitigation sites ■ Additional follow-up with owners of private sites ■ Seek grant funding through WRIA 9 for developing a detailed plan for Green River site S. Whiting Page 33 of 33 2/7/2013 12:03:00 PM Q:\\ TUK2\VOL3\HOME\SANDRA\WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING & POLICIES\STAFF REPORT\FINAL\WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT APPENDIX A - PROPOSED WRIA 9 PROJECTS IN TUKWILA Project Number Title/Location Description Potential for wetland mitigation site Duw-1 Shallow Water Habitat Creation at RM 11.0-7.0 (both banks) (Allentown, Gateway, Foster Golf Course) Create 15 acres (not necessarily contiguous) of new off -channel shallow water/marsh habitat with associated riparian vegetation. Possible but in very distant future, project depends on finding willing landowners Duw-2 Shallow Water Habitat Creation and Bank Reshaping at RM 10.3 — 9.9 (right bank) (across from Foster Golf Course - rendering plant property) Create off -channel, shallow water refuge habitat, re -slope rock -lined and over -steepened bank to create low bench (sand beach) and excavation of shallow off -channel habitat. Possible site for wetland creation along river, property not yet acquired Duw-3 Bank Restoration and Revetment Set Back at RM 8.9-8.6, 8.4-8.2 (Gateway South) Reshape revetment by relocating a segment of the Green River Trail and place large woody debris and install riparian vegetation. Low — not enough area to create wetland Duw-4 Wastewater Pipeline Crossing Retrofit, RM 8 (King County pipeline near pedestrian bridge in Allentown) Evaluate pipeline's effect on upstream salinity & if technically worthwhile, lower pipeline below bed of river (as per original plan when it was installed) none Duw-5 42' Ave S. Bank Restoration, RM 7.9-7.1 (both banks) Improve riparian habitat conditions. Relocate water main that is on west edge of 42"d Ave. S to other side. Restore more stable bank angle and/or excavate benches along river. Place large woody debris on existing island. Fence off northern portion or post to eliminate parking. Complementary project: work with property owners on RM 7.6-7.1 to restore riparian vegetation and create a flat bank toe on inside bend at mile 7.3- 7.2 Low — immediate project won't allow enough area for wetland creation. Long term project has low likelihood due to need to find willing landowners Duw-6 S. 115`s St. Bank Restoration and Revetment Setback, RM 7.2-6.9 (Grandmother's Hill park) Reshape and re -vegetate bank, set back revetment where possible. Place large woody debris and plant native vegetation Low due to potential conflict with park plans Duw-7 Shallow Water Habitat Creation, RM 7.0-5.5, both banks (W Marginal Way, near North Winds Weir site, north of intersection with Int. Blvd, W. Marginal Way S, E. Marginal Way S, north of Boeing Access Rd) Create minimum of 20 acres of off- channel shallow water/marsh habitat with associated riparian vegetation. Possible with Carosino property, which County is exploring now — might be transferred to Tukwila. Otherwise low potential due to need to find willing landowners S. Whiting 2/7/2013 12:03:00 PM TUK2\VOLS\HOME/SANDRA\WETLANDBANKING&MITIGATIONPOLICIES\STAFF REPORT\FINAL\ WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT Duw-8 Riverton Creek Habitat Rehabilitation and Fish Passage Improvement, RM 6.6 left bank (where creek meets Duwamish) Replace flapgate with self-regulating tidegate, place large woody debris, remove accumulated sediment, add gravel, re -vegetate (ERP project) none Duw-9 Bank Restoration and Revetment Setback, RM 6.6-5.5, left bank (W. Marginal Way S) Set back and restore bank, re -vegetate. Low not enough area for wetland creation Duw-10 North Wind's Weir Shallow Water Habitat Rehabilitation, RM 6.3, right bank Create 2 acres of off -channel shallow water habitat. Remediate soil contamination (completed). Low — assume funds already available for project Duw-11 Shallow Water Habitat Creation, RM 5.5-5.7, both banks (Turning Basin, partly in proposed Tukwila annexation area) Create a minimum of 10 acres of off- channel shallow water/marsh habitat Possible, but in distant future if property owners willing LG -10 Mainstem maintenance RM 20.5 — 16.3 (only partially in Tukwila annexation area — Segale property) Set back levee, reshape shoreline, widen channel cross-section, excavate low benches, riparian vegetation and LWD Low — little opportunity to create wetland LG -11 Acquisition and Off Channel Habitat Rehabilitation RM 17.3-16 (left bank) and Between Johnson Creek Mile 0 and 0.5 (Segale site) Excavate flood refuguim, realignment of stream channel, improvement of fish passage, restoration of wetland complex, planting, LWD Being done by developer LG -15 Off -Channel Habitat Rehabilitation, RM 12.65- 12.5, right bank (Nelson Farm site) Reconnect abandoned river channel segment, re -slope banklines, install large woody debris, plant riparian vegetation (note: Site currently regulated as wetland) Possible - depends on WSDOT participation. LG -16 Gilliam Creek Fish Passage Improvements and Riparian Rehabilitation, RM 12.5, left bank Eliminate fish passage barrier (fish ladder & self-regulating tide gate), improve 2000 feet of creek for rearing and refuge habitat (widen, add gravel, riparian vegetation, LWD) none LG -17 Levee Setback RM 11.7- 11.4 (right bank) — Fort Dent Set back levee (without affecting soccer fields or trail), plant native vegetation, LWD Low — not likely enough area to create wetland LG -18 Black River marsh RM 11 (right bank) Remove 200 cu yd fill, plant with wetland vegetation, LWD. Create 50 ft wide riparian buffer High, depending on existing funding S. Whiting 2/7/2013 12:03:00 PM TUK2\VOL3\HOME/SANDRA\WETLANDBANKING&MITIGATIONPOLICIES\STAFF REPORT\FINAL\ WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT APPENDIX B - MAP OF TYPE 3 WETLANDS ON PRIVATE LAND AND RIGHTS OF WAY IN TUKWILA Type 11 Private etlands by Basin RI vs3t r CrEEIt 53sTn Uw'a llEr Puler Bas:l Scaiinga Creel:. ea5n Nelson Pace! Lorgaaa--es Bash L wen! E A vane a..e ti ra(TpC1) ;x swmn.a, r,�v Sautneest C50 Earn S. Whiting 2/7/2013 12:03:00 PM TUK2\VOL3\HOME/SANDRA\WETLANDBANKING&MITIGATIONPOLICIES\STAFF REPORT\FINAL\ WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT APPENDIX C — MAP OF CITY -OWNED PROPERTIES, WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES S. Whiting 2/7/2013 12:03:00 PM TUK2\VOL3\HOME/SANDRA\WETLANDBANKING&MITIGATIONPOLICIES\STAFF REPORT\FINAL\ WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT APPENDIX D - CITY -OWNED SITES CONSIDERED AND ELIMINATED FOR WETLAND CREATION OR ENHANCEMENT Site Reason for initial consideration Reason for Elimination Comment P-17 Stormwater pond Existing wetland on edges of pond could be expanded. Proximity to Duwamish Currently classified as stormwater pond and not wetland. Untreated stormwater goes into pond. If we changed classification to wetland could interfere with stormwater management (and wouldn't be able to discharge untreated stormwater) Not feasible P-17 Stormwater pond upland area Public works wants to move out of site, might make it available Property value would suggest that selling site would be better than developing it as wetland Not feasible Strander Blvd/West Valley Blvd Currently upland, adjacent to restored wetland mitigation site Extension of Strander Blvd planned through this site Not feasible unless Strander Blvd extension abandoned Fort Dent Possible wetland creation or expansion of wetland around stormwater pond Untreated stormwater goes into pond, which is not classified as wetland. Wetland expansion along pond would interfere with stormwater management function. Wetland creation in vicinity would potentially interfere with future plans for park (additional parking) Maybe consider a separate site in park for wetland creation near the pond in the future, depending on Park plans Southgate Park Streams present — possible wetland creation opportunity, existing wetland in northeast corner could be enhanced or possibly expanded Access to wetland difficult. Sewer line runs between two forks of the creek. Too steep for effective wetland creation Not feasible Tukwila Pond Opportunity to improve/expand small wetlands on west side, wetland enhancement on southeast corner, create different types of wetland by filling areas of open water Wetland enhancement of southeast corner expected to be carried out by developer as mitigation for wetland filling on J.C. Penney site. Planning process for Tukwila pond programmed for next year — better to wait until planning process finished before designating any area for wetland expansion Consider as part of proposed improvements to Tukwila Pond Grandmother's Hill Existing wetland along north border (not owned by City) — possibility for expansion into park area Wetland would have to be expanded into steep slope Not feasible S. Whiting 2/7/2013 12:03:00 PM TUK2\VOL3\HOME/SANDRA\WETLANDBANKING&MITIGATIONPOLICIES\STAFF REPORT\FINAL\ WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT Ryan Heights Rights -of -Way Several mapped wetlands that straddle rights -of- way could be enhanced Rights-of-way too small to have any significant enhancement opportunity Land surrounding ROW could be acquired by developers in future for enhancement of larger areas Nelson Place, sheep farm Existing wetland could be reconnected to Duwamish. Identified in WRIA 9 plan. Potential site for mitigation of I-405 widening, by DOT. Could be Tukwila wetland enhancement/ creation site in future if not mitigated by DOT. Crystal Springs Existing wetlands — Wetlands in reasonably good Some Park Wetlands potential for condition, potential for enhancement enhancement enhancement very limited. could be carried out by volunteers — mainly removal of invasive plants S. Whiting 2/7/2013 12:03:00 PM TUK2\VOL3\HOME/SANDRA\WETLANDBANKING&MITIGATIONPOLICIES\STAFF REPORT\FINAL\ WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT APPENDIX E. CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN - FIRE STATION SITE Legend •.3-FOrA Type 3 Wtaana&r., We n Cnribn Area ltrtar Eteivad Welland 63taIGary ® Wetland Creatlal Area Watlild E9Nl'AafMnlAni 1=1 EsaravIsmande W} [WWI Pa<tt: au`:�w 6otike. M+'Yn.�.I�x, acas 4 FIGURE 3 FERE STATION CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION TUKWItA mricAnom !AAX PROJECT IUKWILA. WASHINGTON S. Whiting 2/7/2013 12:03:00 PM TUK2\VOLS\HOMFJSANDRA\WETLANDBANKING&MITIGATIONPOLICIES\STAFF REPORT\FINAL\ WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT APPENDIX F. CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN - MACADAM SITE balm orw�.rw, ivx» 111.01.3C, 4:040111),11131, SCIA FIGURE 6 MACADAM CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION TUKIYILA 6R'IGATICN CAh4 FROJECT 7UKW'LA. WASHINGTCI S. Whiting 2/7/2013 12:03:00 PM TUK2\VOL3\HOME/SANDRA\WETLANDBANKING&MITIGATIONPOLICIES\STAFF REPORT\FINAL\ WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT APPENDIX G. CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN - GREEN RIVER SITE Legend VertJana Crealfcn Area — Wetland Crealfm Arta Etner Itastlaina Enna1Ge1Te![ARa O -!,a Typ42 Welfare OWN' City Owrea Para' 1144 Min as 1 140 11...•••••• •31.1, uaar_e-e ��Wi=ae .. wra�i.�- as. FIGURE 8 R VERVIEW CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION TUK'WILA 11.1r.1GATION!Afi K PROJECT TUKWS.A, WASHINGTON S. Whiting 2/7/2013 12:03:00 PM TUK2\VOL3\HOME/SANDRA\WETLANDBANKING&MITIGATIONPOLICIES\STAFF REPORT\FINAL\ WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT City of Tukwila Mitigation Agreement WETLAND MITIGATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TUKWILA AND , FOR WETLAND MITIGATION TO BE CARRIED OUT ON CITY PROPERTY THIS MITIGATION AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the City of Tukwila, hereinafter the "City," and a organized under the laws of the State of Washington, hereinafter the "Developer." WHEREAS, the Tukwila City Council adopted Resolution No. 1608 authorizing the use of City -owned property for off-site wetland mitigation, when on-site mitigation is not technically or environmentally feasible per TMC 18.45.090.E; and WHEREAS, Resolution No.1608 authorizes the Mayor to enter into agreements with developers for using portions of City -owned property for off-site wetland mitigation; and WHEREAS, the proposed wetland mitigation plan prepared by the Developer has been reviewed by City staff and has been determined to be consistent with all applicable City of Tukwila ordinances and regulations, including the Tukwila Sensitive Areas Chapter of the Zoning Code (TMC 18.45); and WHEREAS, the proposed off-site mitigation has incorporated measures approved by the Director of the Department of Community Development, to ensure the long-term ecological success of the mitigation program; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: Section 1. Property. The Developer is the owner of certain property located at (Parcel Number: ) containing Type wetland(s), as determined by the approved Sensitive Areas Study/Wetland Delineation Report, (hereinafter the "Subject Property"). The City is the owner of certain property located at (Parcel Number: ) where existing wetland can be enhanced or additional wetland can be created (hereinafter the "City Property"). Section 2. Effective Date and Term. The effective date of this Agreement shall be the last date of execution as set forth below, and shall continue in force until terminated. Page 1 of 7 S.Whiting, h:\Wetland Mitigation\Mitigation Agreement template. 03/23/2015 City of Tukwila Mitigation Agreement Section 3. Mitigation. 3.1. Wetland Mitigation. The Developer shall perform mitigation as detailed in the Wetland Mitigation Plan ("Mitigation Plan"), entitled dated , City File No. on the City Property. The Mitigation Plan establishes mitigation goals, performance standards, a conceptual site preparation and planting plan, a schedule and a monitoring and maintenance program. Execution of this plan will satisfy the Developer's requirement for mitigation of the wetland filled on the Subject Property. 3.2 Consideration for City Property Use. The Developer shall pay the City a one time fee of $ in exchange for the right to carry out wetland mitigation on City Property. This dollar amount is based upon a sales comparison of wetland properties from an appraisal by dated and must be paid prior to issuance of the development permit that causes wetland filling on the Subject Property. 3.3 Wetland Permitting. The Developer shall obtain all required city, state and federal permits and shall complete any required SEPA process for filling the wetlands on the Subject Property and for carrying out the mitigation on the City Property. No City permit shall be issued for the development of the Subject Property that causes filling of wetlands until the necessary permits for the work on the City Property have been issued and the Developer has provided a financial guarantee to the City as required below. 3.4 Wetland Mitigation Timing. The Developer will work on the City Property in accordance with the schedule in the approved Mitigation Plan. Section 4. Protection of Work, Property and Persons. The Developer will adequately protect the wetland mitigation work, adjacent property and the public and shall be responsible for any damage or injury due to its act or neglect. The Developer will permit and facilitate observation of the work on the City Property by the City and its agents and public authorities at all times. Section 5. Financial Guarantee. In order to ensure the construction of the wetland mitigation, prior to the issuance of the development permit that requires wetland filling on the Subject Property, the Developer shall provide a bond or other financial guarantee approved by the City for 150% of the cost of the work specified in the Mitigation Plan. The financial guarantee may be used by the City for the completion of the mitigation if it is not completed pursuant to the actions and schedule in the Mitigation Plan. The financial assurance will be released in accordance with TMC 18.45.210. Section 6. Indemnification. The Developer shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City its officers, agents and employees, from and against any and all claims, losses or Page 2 of 7 S.Whiting, h:\Wetland Mitigation\Mitigation Agreement template. 03/23/2015 City of Tukwila Mitigation Agreement liability, including attorney's fees, arising from injury or death to persons or damage to property occasioned by an act, omission or failure of the Developer its officers, agents and employees, in performing the work required by this Agreement. With respect to the performance of this Agreement and as to claims against the City its officers, agents and employees, the Developer expressly waives its immunity under Title 51 of the Revised Code of Washington, the Industrial Insurance Act, for injuries to its employees and agrees that the obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless provided for in this paragraph extends to any claim brought by or on behalf of any employee of or contractor for the Developer. This waiver is mutually negotiated by the parties. This paragraph shall not apply to any damage resulting from the sole negligence of the City, its agents and employees. To the extent any of the damages referenced by this paragraph were caused by or resulted from the concurrent negligence of the City, its agents or employees, this obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless is valid and enforceable only to the extent of the negligence of the Developer, its officers, agents and employees. Section 7. Insurance. The Developer will carry public liability and property damage insurance with carriers satisfactory to the City in the following amounts: i. $ 50,000 property damage ii. $ 500,000 public liability (each person) iii. $1,000,000 public liability (each occurrence) The Developer will provide the City with endorsements naming the City as an additional insured and with certificates of insurance prior to start of mitigation and with 30 days notice prior to cancellation. Section 8. Liens. Developer shall have no authority, express or implied, to create or place any lien or encumbrance of any kind or any nature whatsoever upon, or in any manner to bind, the City Property. Should a lien be created arising from Developer's mitigation on the City Property, the Developer agrees that the lien shall be attached to the Subject Property. Section 9. General Provisions. 9.1 Assignment of Interests, Rights, and Obligations. This Agreement shall be binding and inure to the benefit of the Parties. No Party may assign its rights under this Agreement without the written consent of the other Party, which consent shall not unreasonably be withheld. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the heirs, successors, and assigns of the Developer and the City. 9.2 Incorporation of Recitals. The Whereas provisions contained in this Agreement are hereby incorporated into this Agreement as if fully set forth herein. Page 3 of 7 S.Whiting, h:\Wetland Mitigation\Mitigation Agreement template. 03/23/2015 City of Tukwila Mitig ton Agreement 9.3 Severability. The provisions of this Agreement are separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or portion or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Agreement, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances. 9.4 Termination. This Agreement shall be terminated as follows: 9.4.1. This Agreement shall expire and be of no further force and effect if the mitigation contemplated in this Agreement and all of the permits and/or approvals issued by the City for such mitigation is not substantially underway prior to expiration of such permits and/or approvals. Nothing in this Agreement shall extend the expiration date of any permit or approval issued by the City for any mitigation. 9.4.2. This Agreement shall expire and be of no further force and effect if the Developer does not perform mitigation as contemplated by the Mitigation Plan, and submits permit applications that are inconsistent with the Mitigation Plan. 9.4.3. This Agreement shall terminate upon the abandonment of the Mitigation Plan by the Developer. The Developer shall be deemed to have abandoned the Mitigation Plan if within two years from the effective date of this Agreement the Developer has not submitted a complete development permit application that requires wetland filling on the Subject Property and has not submitted a financial guarantee as required by this Agreement. 9.5 Specific Performance. The parties specifically agree that damages are not an adequate remedy for breach of this Agreement, and that the parties are entitled to compel specific performance of all material terms of this Agreement by any party in default hereof. 9.6 Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. Venue for any action shall lie in King County Superior Court or the U.S. District Court for Western Washington. 9.7 Attorney's Fees. In the event of any litigation or dispute resolution process between the Parties regarding an alleged breach of this Agreement, the prevailing party in any such action shall be entitled to its attorney's fees and costs. 9.8 No Third -Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is for the benefit of the Parties hereto only and is not intended to benefit any other person or entity, and no person or entity not a signatory to this Agreement shall have any third -party beneficiary or other rights whatsoever Page 4 of 7 S.Whiting, h:\Wetland Mitigation\Mitigation Agreement template. 03/23/2015 © O City of Tukwila Mitigation Agreement under this Agreement. No other person or entity not a Party to this Agreement may enforce the terms and provisions of this Agreement. 9.9 Integration. This Agreement and its exhibits represent the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. There are not other agreements, oral or written, except as expressly set forth herein. 9.10 Authority. The Parties each represent and warrant that they have full power and actual authority to enter into this Agreement and to carry out all actions required of them by this Agreement. All persons are executing this Agreement in their representative capacities and represent and warrant that they have full power and authority to bind their respective organizations. 9.11 Covenants Running with the Land. The conditions and covenants set forth in this Agreement and incorporated herein by the Exhibits shall run with the land and the benefits and burdens shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties. The Developer and every purchaser, assignee or transferee of an interest in the Subject Property, or any portion thereof, shall be obligated and bound by the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and shall be the beneficiary thereof and a party thereto, but only with respect to the Subject Property, or such portion thereof, sold, assigned or transferred to it. Any such purchaser, assignee or transferee shall observe and fully perform all of the duties and obligations of a Developer contained in this Agreement, as such duties and obligations pertain to the portion of the Subject Property sold, assigned or transferred to it. 9.12 Amendment to Agreement; Effect of Agreement on Future Actions. Either party may request changes in the Agreement. Proposed changes which are mutually agreed upon shall be incorporated by written amendments to this Agreement. address: 9.13 Notices. Notices to the City of Tukwila shall be sent to the following City Clerk City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 Notices to the Developer shall be sent to the following address: 9.14 Third Party Legal Challenge. In the event any legal action or special proceeding is commenced by any person or entity other than a party to this agreement to challenge this Agreement or any provision herein, the City may elect to tender the defense of such lawsuit or individual claims in the lawsuit to Developer and/or Landowner(s). In such Page 5 of 7 S.Whiting, h:\Wetland Mitigation\Mitigation Agreement template. 03/23/2015 City of Tukwila Mitig Aon Agreement event, Developer shall hold the City harmless from and defend the City from all costs and expenses incurred in the defense of such lawsuit or individual claims in the lawsuit, including but not limited to, attorneys' fees and expenses of litigation, and damages awarded to the prevailing party or parties in such litigation. The Developer shall not settle any lawsuit without the consent of the City. The City shall act in good faith and shall not unreasonably withhold consent to settle. 9.15 No Presumption against Drafter. This Agreement has been reviewed by legal counsel for both Parties and no presumption or rule that ambiguity shall be construed against the party drafting the document shall apply to the interpretation or enforcement of this Agreement. 9.16 Headings. The headings in this Agreement are inserted for reference only and shall not be construed to expand, limit or otherwise modify the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 9.17 Recording. Developer shall record against the Subject Property an executed copy of this Agreement with the King County Auditor. 9.18 Legal Representation. In entering into this Agreement, Developer represents that it has been advised to seek legal advice and counsel from its attorney concerning the legal consequences of this Agreement; that it has carefully read the foregoing Agreement and knows the contents thereof, and signs the same of its own free act; and that it fully understands and voluntarily accepts the terms and conditions of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed on the last date as set forth below: CITY OF TUKWILA Date: Mayor ATTEST: By City Clerk DEVELOPER Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By City Attorney Page 6 of 7 S.Whiting, h:\Wetland Mitigation\Ivlitigation Agreement template. 03/23/2015 City of Tukwila Mitigation Agreement STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) On this day of , 20, before me personally appeared , to me known to be the individual that executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be his/her free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she is authorized to execute said instrument. Print name: NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington Residing at Commission expires: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) On this day of , 20_, before me personally appeared , and said person acknowledged that he/she signed this instrument, on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute the instrument, and acknowledged as the of the City of Tukwila to be the free and voluntary act of said party for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. Print name: NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington Residing at Commission expires: Page 7 of 7 S.Whiting, h:\Wetland Mitigation\Mitigation Agreement template. 03/23/2015 September 11, 2013 City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Jim Haggerton Members of Tukwila City Council FM: Jack Pace, Director, Dept. of Community Development BY: Sandra Whiting, Urban Environmentalist RE: Issues regarding Off-site Wetland Mitigation and Fee -in -Lieu Policies Background At the work session on September 9, 2013, Council asked staff to present additional information for a future discussion of policies referenced in items 17 through 21 of the Natural Environment Element comment matrix. These issues encompass proposed Policies 4.6.5 through 4.6.7 and the fifth and sixth Implementation Strategy. These items are presented below, as excerpted from the comment matrix: 1 7 Pgs. 20-21 of SO/UL, Policy 4.6.5, The policy needs to ensure that downstream and other drainage impacts do not occur from allowing off-site mitigation. Therefore revise the policy to read: "Allow off-site wetland mitigation only when there is greater functional benefit, no significant adverse impact to the drainage sub -basin adjacent 8/21/13 , CM Roberts on Staff concurs. property, and no signficant adverse impact to existing wetlands or watercourses. Preference shall be first to Tukwila's given mitigation sites within portion of the Green-Duwamish watershed; followed by located in the sites elsewhere water." 1 8 Pg. 21 of SO/UL, Policy 4.6.6: Delete this policy - we should not be allowing mitigation outside the City. ':•:-• - • 8/21/13 , CM Roberts on This policy and Policy 4.6.7 were included because Federal and State wetland guidance favor in -lieu fee programs to allow for larger & potentially more successful wetland mitigation sites instead of on-site mitigation at wetlands that are likely fragmented in the landscape. This policy was phrased "consider" so that: the pros and cons of this _ .. _ . fee for mitigation Tukwila program outside of where ecological benefits of such actions be will - •• • - _• - - - CL/SW. WA\Long Range Projects\2014 Comp Plan Update\CITYCOUNCILWE Element -Council memo.docx 6300 South.center Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax 206-431-3665 September 11, 2013 Mayor Haggerton and Members of Tukwila City Council Natural Environment Element Memo Regarding Off -Site Wetland Mitigation Policies All of the above -referenced issues relate to whether to allow or promote off-site wetland mitigation, or allow it outside of Tukwila. This memo presents background information on what the City's current regulations allow/require, summarizes what has been happening in practice and discusses Federal and State guidance on Best Available Science for wetland mitigation. What Current Codes/Policies Allow Sensitive Areas Ordinance The Sensitive Areas Ordinance (revised in 2010) currently requires on-site wetland mitigation except under certain circumstances as summarized below (TMC 18.45.090.F -Wetland and Buffer Mitigation Location): • When on-site mitigation is not scientifically feasible (problems with hydrology, soils, other factors); • when on-site mitigation is not practical due to potential adverse impacts from surrounding land uses; • when an off-site location provides significantly greater functions than the on-site location; or • when regional goals for flood management, habitat or other wetland functions strongly justify mitigation at another location. If the City determines that proposed off-site mitigation meets one of the conditions listed above, then the code requires that the mitigation be done within the watershed (i.e. the Green/Duwamish watershed) with a SW 2 03/23/2015 11:08 AM W:\\Long Range Projects\2014 Comp P1anUpdate\CITYCOUNCIL\NE Element -Off-site wetland mitigation analysis memo.doc approach could be fleshed out for further consideration by the Council. 1 9 Pg. 21 of SO/UL, Policy 4.6.7: Delete this policy. "Consider creating a City in lieu fee for 8/21/13 , CM Roberts on See explanation for policy 4.6.6 above - staff looking for guidance from Council on the issue of off-site and in -lieu fee issue. program - - •• • - • . . . _ . ... - .. County to in lieu fee in Tukwila for establish sites wetland restoration including projects, project:, the Green/Duwamish River along shoreline." 2 0 Pg. 21 of SO/UL, Fifth Implementation Strategy bullet: delete "Encourage off-site wetland mitigation and"; new strategy would read: "Encourage off site mitigation 8/21/13 , CM Roberts on Staff concurs wetland and oOffer assistance to property owners interested in providing mitigation sites, where appropriate." 2 1 Pg. 21 of SO/UL, Sixth Implementation Strategy: Delete this strategy " - :::: •'- • : 8/21/13 , CM Roberts on If the Council deletes Policies 4.6.6 and 4.6.7, then deleting this implementation strategy would be appropriate. ... . . Federal and State requirements for in lieu fee wetland mitigation and discuss options programs, for County designated in Tukwila. using sites Provide recommendations to decision makers." All of the above -referenced issues relate to whether to allow or promote off-site wetland mitigation, or allow it outside of Tukwila. This memo presents background information on what the City's current regulations allow/require, summarizes what has been happening in practice and discusses Federal and State guidance on Best Available Science for wetland mitigation. What Current Codes/Policies Allow Sensitive Areas Ordinance The Sensitive Areas Ordinance (revised in 2010) currently requires on-site wetland mitigation except under certain circumstances as summarized below (TMC 18.45.090.F -Wetland and Buffer Mitigation Location): • When on-site mitigation is not scientifically feasible (problems with hydrology, soils, other factors); • when on-site mitigation is not practical due to potential adverse impacts from surrounding land uses; • when an off-site location provides significantly greater functions than the on-site location; or • when regional goals for flood management, habitat or other wetland functions strongly justify mitigation at another location. If the City determines that proposed off-site mitigation meets one of the conditions listed above, then the code requires that the mitigation be done within the watershed (i.e. the Green/Duwamish watershed) with a SW 2 03/23/2015 11:08 AM W:\\Long Range Projects\2014 Comp P1anUpdate\CITYCOUNCIL\NE Element -Off-site wetland mitigation analysis memo.doc September 11, 2013 Mayor Haggerton and Members of Tukwila City Council Natural Environment Element Memo Regarding Off -Site Wetland Mitigation Policies preference for sites within Tukwila. The Director may approve sites outside of Tukwila when they meet certain standards but the code establishes priorities for the location. First priority is for sites in the same drainage sub - basin (i.e., south tributary of Gilliam Creek); and the second priority is for sites within the next higher drainage basin (i.e, Gilliam Creek basin, Southgate Creek basin, Duwamish River basin, Riverton Creek basin, etc. — see Figure 1 for a graphic showing the drainage basins in Tukwila); and the third priority is elsewhere in the watershed (Green/Duwamish). The Sensitive Areas Ordinance also allows mitigation to take place in a wetland mitigation bank (TMC 18.45.090.E.4.) if certain criteria are met, including the requirement that the impacted wetland be in the service area defined for the wetland bank. Current regulations do not allow wetland mitigation via an in -lieu -fee program. It should be noted that where impacts from development affect wetland buffers (not the actual wetlands themselves) or where only a portion of a wetland is impacted and buffers are impacted, on-site buffer mitigation is required. The SAO does not explicitly allow off-site watercourse mitigation nor does it prohibit it, but off-site mitigation of watercourse impacts would not likely be allowed if proposed, nor would off-site buffer mitigation (except for unavoidable buffer impacts for public road or infrastructure projects that cannot avoid impacting the buffer— in this case buffer mitigation would be required Off -Site Wetland Mitigation Program In 2006, the Council approved an Off -Site Wetland Mitigation Program (Resolution 1608) that established an approach for off-site wetland mitigation at sites within Tukwila (at City -owned and privately owned properties). The plan identified several City -owned sites where off-site wetland mitigation could be performed by project proponents under the oversight of City staff. As part of this plan preparation staff analyzed and summarized alternative tools for wetland mitigation, including wetland mitigation banks and an in -lieu fee program. Staff concluded that establishment of a wetland bank was not practical, given the lack of a significant amount of suitable land and the complex and costly requirements to be met, including establishing a mitigation banking instrument and management board, preparing a mitigation plan and constructing the mitigation using City funds, prior to any wetland impacts. Staff also briefly evaluated the pros and cons of establishing an in lieu fee program for wetland mitigation and concluded that it was not a good approach at the time due to the possibility that there would not be sufficient funds collected from developers to allow the City to implement the mitigation. Staff has not revisited this possibility since 2006, but Federal and State requirements have become more stringent since then (see discussion below) How Off -Site Wetland Mitigation has been Working in Tukwila Off -Site Wetland Mitigation in Tukwila There have been several off-site wetland mitigation projects in Tukwila. Most notable is a wetland mitigation site established by Sound Transit to compensate for permanently filling wetlands along the light rail alignment, where SW 3 03/23/2015 11:08 AM W:\\Long Range Projects\2014 Comp PlanUpdate\CITYCOUNCIL\NE Element -Off-site wetland mitigation analysis memo.doc r September 11, 2013 Mayor Haggerton and Members of Tukwila City Council Natural Environment Element Memo Regarding Off -Site Wetland Mitigation Policies on-site wetland mitigation was not possible. While the mitigation location is technically "off-site" it is in the vicinity of the wetlands impacted and in the same drainage basin. To date, none of the sites identified in the Off -Site Wetland Mitigation Program have been used for mitigation projects. One project was proposed for off-site mitigation to compensate for wetland impacts at a short plat, but the project was never executed due to the economy. Wetland Mitigation Outside of Tukwila There have been two instances of off-site wetland mitigation that were carried out outside of Tukwila for wetland impacts that occurred within the City. WSDOT filled wetlands as part of its recent SR 518 improvements. The mitigation for the wetland filling was done by withdrawing wetland mitigation bank credits from the Springbrook Wetland Mitigation Bank, located in Renton (in the Green/Duwamish watershed, but in the Springbrook Creek drainage basin). Mitigation at the wetland mitigation bank was done after WSDOT demonstrated that it was unable to perform on-site wetland mitigation and unable to locate suitable sites with sufficient acreage for mitigation in the Tukwila City limits. In the Tukwila South Project, governed by a Sensitive Areas Master Plan (SAMP), off-site wetland mitigation was carried out at two sites north and south of S. 204th. On-site wetland mitigation was not feasible, because entire areas of the Tukwila South site were being filled for development. One of the mitigation sites is located to the south of S. 204th, partially in Kent and partially in King County. Although the site (known as Wetland 11) is outside the City limits, through inter -local agreements, Tukwila controlled the permitting, oversaw the wetland mitigation construction, and is monitoring the effectiveness of mitigation. On -Site vs. Off -Site Wetland Mitigation — the Evolution of the Science and Federal and State Policies When Tukwila first adopted its Sensitive Areas regulations, State and Federal regulations and best available science at the time favored on-site wetland mitigation, regardless of the appropriateness of the site. What resulted was generally a lot of unsuccessful small and fragmented wetland mitigation projects that were installed without the right conditions (soils, hydrology, compatible adjacent land uses). The Corps of Engineers and the EPA adopted new compensatory mitigation rules in 2006 that specified the types of compensatory mitigation and the "sources: of this mitigation: mitigation banks, in -lieu fee programs, and "permitee-responsible" mitigation (on and off-site mitigation carried out by the permitee). Mitigation banks and in -lieu fee programs are the preferred options. These preferred options are believed to improve the success of mitigation because they consolidate technical and financial resources and involve more scientific expertise, in addition to providing for improved wetland and watercourse functions in a larger area rather than carrying out mitigation at smaller, isolated sites. The mitigation rule does not eliminate the option of on-site or off site mitigation carried out by the permitee. As mentioned above, establishing a City -operated wetland mitigation bank in Tukwila was briefly considered when developing the "Off -Site Wetland Mitigation Program and was discarded as an option. An in -lieu fee program was also briefly considered at the time. Since then, the Corps, EPA and Ecology have developed rules for these kind of programs to help ensure their success. Even though the rules are complicated and stringent, since SW 4 03/23/2015 11:08 AM W:\\Long Range Projects\2014 Comp PlanUpdate\CITYCOUNCIL\NE Element -Off-site wetland mitigation analysis memo.doc September 11, 2013 Mayor Haggerton and Members of Tukwila City Council Natural Environment Element Memo Regarding Off -Site Wetland Mitigation Policies in -lieu fee mitigation it is one of the preferred options, it may behoove the City to consider the potential of developing a program, or collaborating with another entity on a program. Discussion and Recommendations Proposed Policy 4.6.5. Off-site wetland mitigation. Staff recommends that the possibility for off-site wetland mitigation be preserved, and that hydrologic functions of the on-site wetland being impacted be an important factor in the decision-making process (as per proposed Policy 4.8.2 requiring identification of hydrologic conditions and prevention of adverse impacts). Flexibility should be maintained to allow for off-site mitigation, when the criteria already in the SAO are met. Also, allowing mitigation outside the sub -basin or basin is important, because not all of Tukwila's sub -basins or basins have suitable locations for mitigation. For the proposed change to proposed Policy 4.6.5, staff agrees with the language adding "drainage sub -basin" as proposed by Councilmember Robertson. Wetland mitigation outside of Tukwila. Staff recommends maintaining some flexibility for allowing wetland mitigation immediately outside of Tukwila, when it is in the best interests of the watershed. This could allow some contribution to WRIA 9 projects that involve wetlands adjacent to the Green/Duwamish River. Staff recommends that mitigation outside of Tukwila only be allowed when there are no other suitable options, as current regulations allow. Therefore staff suggests eliminating the last sentence of the policy altogether. Proposed Policy 4.6.5 would then read: "Allow off-site wetland mitigation only when there is greater functional benefit, no significant adverse impact to the drainage sub -basin erty, and no signficant adverse impact to existing wetlands or watercourses. Preference shall be given first to mitigation watershed. Proposed Policy 4.6.6 and Implementation Strategy 6. Staff agrees that this policy can be deleted, but recommends that the implementation strategy related to evaluating the possibility of establishing an in -lieu fee program be maintained (Item 21, sixth Implementation Strategy) but changed to read " Evaluate establishing an in -lieu fee wetland mitigation program in the City and present recommendations to decision -makers. SW 5 03/23/2015 11:08 AM W:\\Long Range Projects\2014 Comp PlanUpdate\CITYCOUNCIL\NE Element -Off-site wetland mitigation analysis memo.doc l") City of Tukwila Department of Community Development SECTION 5.9 SURFACE WATER MAPS 5.9.1 Drainage 6aslns and Flow Control Standards Mersey !s land Seattle, r WItn County Piverron Cre ash) Southgate Craak- Basin .,o SIN 'r`• Basi Sea Yat i thrust Basler Tukwi So rCant Lower UM Creek Basin '1 ±1 ®us.. E. 1 Neighboring Junedic. ions --- - Water Etedy.Wetiand Basin Boundary Tukwila L Pump Staton Level 2 - Conserveiien to Existing Level 2 - Conservation to Forested • Baso - Peek Rate _._ 1 to Existing Per Tukwila Souih Development Agreement Jrnn-Tcaus F and 7 o Chet! 4 Stir, 1r old a r r asnr arr:m Jim Haggerton, Mayor Jack Pace, Director CL/SW. W.\\Long Range Projects\2014 Comp Plan Update\CITYCOUNCIL\NE Element -Council memo.docx 6300 South.center Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax 206-431-3665 Carol Lumb From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: jeffisjones@comcast.net Thursday, December 18, 2014 3:20 PM Carol Lumb Jihad Keirouz; Allen, Chad Re: Keirouz Reasonable Use and Lot Size Variance Carol, The civil engineer is working on the project and emailed us yesterday that he will be done on Friday of this week. The civil engineer is addressing the drainage, culvert extension and hydrology issues. I am addressing the comments for SEPA, the sensitive area study, reasonable use criteria and mitigation plan. I anticipate submitting the information Wednesday next week. Mr. Keirouz can mail the check for $95, to the city at the address shown on the March 27, 2014 letter. Thanks, Jeff Jones 1 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development File Number EH -0005 3jZ( W LAND USE PERMIT ROUTING FORM qinckilnom. Z TO: Building i Planning Public Works 0 Fire Dept. Ci Police Dept. n Parks/Rec Project: v'e&h'. (a+c.k / k✓v e-5 Comments Update date: /S Address: l3 lxu 3Z(-) &Lk 5 Date transmitted: k — L.8 — 1 Response requested by: T.e.,16 1,./ awn 1 S 20 l 5- Staff , coordinator: L Date response received: REVIEWERS: Please specify how the attached plans conflict with your ADOPTED development regulations, including citations. Be specific in describing the types of changes you want made to the plans. When referencing codes, please identify the actual requirement and plan change needed. The Planning Division review does not supplant each department's ability to administer its own regulations and permits. However, project consistency at the Planning review stage is important to minimize significant later design changes. More than minimal design changes require further Planning Commission review, even if alteration is required to satisfy a City requirement. This further review is typically a minimum 60 -day process. Requirements based on SEPA (e.g., not required by an adopted development regulation) MUST identify the impact being mitigated, the policy basis for requiring mitigation, and the method used to calculate the mitigation required. Calculations of project impacts and the mitigation required (e.g., water capacity, road level of service analyses, or turning analyses) may be required of the applicant. COMMENTS (Attach additional comment sheets and/or support materials as needed.) 4531: e_4�� A Plan check date: Comments Update date: /S byir--47) prepared TO: IDI City of Tukwila Department of Community Development (:) RECEIVFn FEline6-2015 TURN ILA PUBLIC WORKS File Number ILI- Doo5 L —000 P� )i-0002 LAND USE PERMIT ROUTING FORM liAotilat,_ ZvuA Building Planning Public Works n Fire Dept. 0 Police Dept. l❑1 Parks/Rec Project: -beak,w. (+M' t -TV v1'\ e -S Update date: prepared byy,./3 9-ctil .1 °21�0( C Address: l3IXu 3g(-ef skto& 5 Date transmitted: 1— 19 — I t5 Response requested by: 'F-e,In ru cwL,\ I , 20 ( 5 Staff coordinator: C0 1 L • Date response received: REVIEWERS: Please specify how the attached plans conflict with your ADOPTED development regulations, including citations. Be specific in describing the types of changes you want made to the plans. When referencing codes, please identify the actual requirement and plan change needed. The Planning Division review does not supplant each department's ability to administer its own regulations and permits. However, project consistency at the Planning review stage is important to minimize significant later design changes. More than minimal design changes require further Planning Commission review, even if alteration is required to satisfy a City requirement. This further review is typically a minimum 60 -day process. Requirements based on SEPA (e.g., not required by an adopted development regulation) MUST identify the impact being mitigated, the policy basis for requiring mitigation, and the method used to calculate the mitigation required. Calculations of project impacts and the mitigation required (e.g., water capacity, road level of service analyses, or turning analyses) may be required of the applicant. COMMENTS (Attach additional comment sheets and/or support materials as needed.) haare Q tv� dJ2( `rTci � �✓ —bp i %.� are l� t o a ✓I� Ot- ce-direr eru-ed b ,,0 pe,,444 eyfiicte,gatuan, opt,vw /3-c 417'14- Ptio& Ifogfrktee4-2 f,reayt e/r 19.4.e.efrze44t- iee j/Qrh' Plan deck date: Comments Update date: prepared byy,./3 9-ctil .1 °21�0( C City of Tukwila Department of Community Development File Number DOoS 11-1 OU 0 2— LAND LAND USE PERMIT ROUTING FORM A„ ,nem z + TO: IX Building Planning Public Works n Fire Dept. U Police Dept. n Parks/Rec Project: -1j e ea iAi\. (4+c,41/ L-ovv1.e s Update date: prepared by: Address: 13 1 X\ 3 Z 'Gs( 5 Date transmitted: k — L48 — 1 '" Response requested by: "F -e to (,) cwt 1 _ _ , 20 ( 5 StaffDate coordinator: C 0 , L response received: REVIEWERS: Please specify how the attached plans conflict with your ADOPTED development regulations, including citations. Be specific in describing the types of changes you want made to the plans. When referencing codes, please identify the actual requirement and plan change needed. The Planning Division review does not supplant each department's ability to administer its own regulations and permits. However, project consistency at the Planning review stage is important to minimize significant later design changes. More than minimal design changes require further Planning Commission review, even if alteration is required to satisfy a City requirement. This further review is typically a minimum 60 -day process. Requirements based on SEPA (e.g., not required by an adopted development regulation) MUST identify the impact being mitigated, the policy basis for requiring mitigation, and the method used to calculate the mitigation required. Calculations of project impacts and the mitigation required (e.g., water capacity, road level of service analyses, or turning analyses) may be required of the applicant. COMMENTS (Attach additional comment sheets and/or support materials as needed.) Plan check date: Comments Update date: prepared by: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Phone: 206-431-3670 Web site: http://www.TukwilaWA.gov REVISION SUBMITTAL RscENE° JAN 16 2015 o00 - Revision submittals must be submitted in person at the Permit Center. Revisions will not be accepted through the mail, fax, etc. Date: Plan Check/Permit Number: / Z.-- ❑ Response to Incomplete Letter # ElResponse to Correction Letter # Revision # after Permit is Issued 0 Revision requested by a City Building Inspector or Plans Examiner Project Name:0(....e6),(4,...„ Project Address: Contact Person: Summary of Rev' Phone Numbe 73Ce e?),kz Sheet Number(s): "Cloud" or highlight all areas of revision including date of revision Received at the City of Tukwila Permit Center by: 0 Entered in TRAKiT on 41, J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. Single -Family Residence Reasonable Use Exception Wetland Impacts & Stream Buffer Impacts and Compliance with RUE Decision Criteria For 131 XX 33rd Ave. S. Tukwila, WA 98168 Tax Parcel No.: 735960-0473 Applicant: Jihad Kierouz Dreamcatcher Homes, LLC P.O. Box 2608 Lynnwood, Washington 98036 Dated: November 18, 2013 Revised December 30, 2014 (revisions in underline) Prepared by: Jeffery S. Jones, Professional Wetland Scientist & Wildlife Biologist RECEIVED JAN 05 2015 DF VE-LUI'MLN 1 PO BOX 1908 ISSAQUAH, WASHINGTON 98027 253-905-5736 jeff.jsjo nes@comcast.net Dreamcatcher Homes RUE Project Description The applicant, Dreamcatcher Homes, LLC, proposes to construct a single-family residence on the subject property. The property is a vacant parcel zoned residential. The surrounding area is existing homes. Almost the entire property is a Category III wetland. The wetland has saturated soil with a black sandy loam texture in the upper 12 inches. Below 12 inches, the soils are gleyed and prominently mottled. The source of hydrology is a seepage spring. The plant community is Himalayan blackberry, red alder, willow, and reed canarygrass. A few conifers are present near the southeast property corner. The buffer requirement is 80 feet. A Type 4 (Ns) watercourse is present on-site; see the site plan for the location. The stream channel is an eroded ditch. A few 3 -foot sections of the exposed 12 inch diameter concrete pipe are present (see photos). The channel has eroded down to a hardpan. The channel gradient varies from 1-5%. The stream buffer and channel are dominated by reed canarygrass and Himalayan blackberry. Habitat conditions are poor. No endangered, threatened, or sensitive species are present. The stream discharges into the city storm drainage system under 33rd Ave. S. The stream buffer requirement is 50 feet. A buffer reduction is necessary for any use of the site under the current zoning. The existing stream flows into a 8" concrete pipeline that discharges to a city storm drainage system in the street. The 8" concrete pipe will be removed and the stream will be reconstructed as an open channel to the road ditch. This will result in 29 additional lineal feet of stream. The existing 7 -foot long section of 18: cmp pipe, above the city storm drainage catch basin, will be replaced with a 30 -foot long 18" cmp for the driveway. Impacts to the wetland and stream are unavoidable. The applicant proposes to minimize impacts by constructing the residence the minimum setback from the road right-of-way and avoiding impacts to the stream with the exception of a culvert for the driveway. Impacts will be mitigated by restoring the remainder of the site to a native plant community and providing money for other city mitigation projects. The ratio of wetland enhancement to wetland fill is(12:1) The proposed area of wetland impact is 2,800 square feet and the proposed buffer impact is 53 square feet. The area of proposed on- site vegetative enhancement is 3,177 square feet. The required itigation at a 12:1 ratio for wetland impacts is 33, 00 square feet and buffer impacts at a 1:1 ratio i 53 square feet, which will be 3,483 square feet o site and 30,170 square feet off-site. An on-site itigation plan has been prepared. Off- site mitigatio may be either a fee -in -lieu of program or enha ement of a city owned property. ZZ,L-(Qp 2 Dreamcatcher Homes RUE Eroded Concrete Pipe in Stream Channel Under Himalayan Blackberries Overview of Property Looking Southwest from the Northeast Property Corner 3 Dreamcatcher Homes RUE Decision Criteria The decision criteria for granting a reasonable use exception must be met for approval. The decision criteria and discussion are as follows: 1. There is no feasible on-site alternative to the proposed activities, including reduction in size or density, modifications of setbacks, buffers or other land use restrictions or requirements, phasing of project implementation, change in timing of activities, revision of road and lot layout, and/or related site planning that would allow a reasonable economic use with fewer adverse impacts to the sensitive area. The applicant is proposing one single-family residence on the parcel. The site plan used the minimum street setback, reduced side setbacks and a 15 -foot rear bsbl. Clearing, grading, foundation and restoration enhancement work will be performed from May 1st to September 31St. Best Management Construction Practices will be required. 2. As a result of the proposed development there will be no unreasonable threat to the public health, safety or welfare on or off the development proposal site. There are no foreseeable threats to public health, safety, or welfare. The properties to the south and west are uphill from the site. The property to the north is a single-family residence, setback five feet off of the property line. The applicant proposed to install a drainage system around the perimeter of the building envelope and house footings that will intercept groundwater. This system will also provide drainage between the neighbor's house to the north and the proposed residence. The proposed use will not alter the upstream or downstream surface or shallow groundwater flows, because this water is already intercepted by the 33`d Ave. S. road ditch. Repairs and relocation of the lower stream channel will reduce sediment entering the public storm drainage system and redirect flows away from the neighbor to the north. 3. Alterations permitted shall be the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable use of the property. The applicant cannot reasonable use the property for any other use than residential. The proposal is the minimum usable area that will meet those needs. The proposed house is two stories high and 24 feet wide, to minimize the house footprint. 4. The proposed development is compatible in design, scale and use with other development with similar site constraints in the immediate vicinity of the subject property, if such similar sites exist. The community consists of older homes that were constructed prior to the sensitive area regulations, except for the house immediately adjacent to the north of the subject property. That house was in wetland buffer and therefore not similar in impact to this proposal. 5. Disturbance of sensitive areas has been minimized by locating any necessary alterations in the buffers to the greatest extent possible. Impacts to the wetland and stream are unavoidable because critical areas occupy almost the entire site. 6. The inability to derive reasonable use of the property is not the result of: 4 Dreamcatcher Homes RUE a. A segregation or division of a larger parcel on which a reasonable use was permittable after the effective date of the sensitive areas ordinance number 1599, June 10, 1991. b. Actions by the owner of the property (or the owner's agents, contractors or others under the owner's control) that occurred after the effective date of the sensitive areas ordinance provisions that prevents or interferes with the reasonable use of the property; or c. A violation of the sensitive areas ordinance The parcel has not been segregated or divided since the effective date of the sensitive areas ordinance. There have been no actions by individuals or parties that interfere with reasonable use of the property. There are no violations against the property owner for actions on the property. 7. The commission, when approving a reasonable use exception, may impose conditions, including but not limited to a requirement for submission and implementation of an approved mitigation plan designed to assure that the development: a. Complies with the standards and policies of the sensitive areas ordinance to the extent feasible; and b. Does not create a risk of damage to other property or to the public health, safety and welfare. The applicant will submit a mitigation plan for vegetative enhancement of the remainder of the property outside of the proposed building envelope. There is no risk to public health, safety and welfare that will be caused by proposed site plan and reasonable use exception. 8. Approval of a reasonable use exception shall not eliminate the need for any other permit or approval otherwise required for a project, including but not limited to design review. The applicant will obtain all required permits for the project. 5 WETLAND & STREAM ASSESSMENT of the Tax Parcel Nos. 7359600473 131XX 33rd Ave. S. Tukwila, Washington 98168 Prepared for: DREAMCATCHER HOMES, LLC. P. O. Box 2608 Lynnwood, WA 98036 Ph I 206-300-6874 email I keirouzia(@.qmail.com Dated: November 25, 2013 Revised December 31, 2014 (Revisions in Underline) Prepared by: Jeffery S. Jones, Professional Wetland Scientist PO Box 1908 Issaquah, Washington 98027 253-905-5736 jeff.jsjones@comcast.net RECE'!rT") JAN 05 2015 t. DEVbLuiiivis- Table of Contents 1.0 Project Description 1 2.0 Site Address, Identification, and Directions 1 3.0 Methodology 1 4.0 General Site Description 1 5.0 Vegetation 2 5.1 Vegetation Methodology 2 5.2 Vegetation Results 2 6.0 Hydrology 3 6.1 Hydrology Methodology 3 6.2 Hydrology Results 3 7.0 Soils 3 7.1 Soils Methodology 3 7.2 Soil Series 3 7.3 Soils Results 3 8.0 Wetland & Stream Determination and Functions 4 9.0 Wetland & Stream Ratings and Buffers 4 10.0 Probable Impacts 4 11.0 Hazard or Risk to Wetland and Stream from Redevelopment 6 13.0 Limitations 6 14.0 References 7 Tables 1.0 Plant Indicator Status 3 Attachments Vicinity NW Maps PDF Field Data Sheets Wetland Rating Form Site Photos Wetland Map/Site Plan November 2013 J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. C� 4 Dreamcatcher - 33rd Ave. S. 1.0 Project Description The applicant proposes to build one single-family residence on the property. The parcel is zoned LDR, single-family residence. The property is entirely wetland, stream and their associated buffers. Therefore, a reasonable use exception, from the City of Tukwila, will be necessary to develop the lot. 2.0 Site Address, Identification, and Directions The property is located at 131XX 33rd Ave. S., Tukwila, WA (see attached Vicinity Map). The tax parcel number is 735960-0473. The property is located in the northeast quarter of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, of the Willamette Meridian. Directions to the site from Tukwila City Hall are as follows: head west on Southcenter Blvd.; take the northbound I-5 on ramp; head north on 1-5 and take the first northbound exit onto Hwy. 599; take the next exit off Hwy. 599 to Interurban Ave.; turn west and take the first left under Hwy. 599 onto S. 133rd; turn left onto S. 130th; turn left onto Tukwila International Blvd.; turn right onto S. 132nd St.; turn right onto 33 Ave. S. The parcel is a vacant lot on the west side of the street. 3.0 Methodology The wetland assessment and delineation were performed using the 1997 Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (DOE, 1997) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers "Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coastal Region (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010). The Routine Small Area Methodology is "used when the project area is small, plant communities are homogeneous, plant community boundaries are abrupt, and the project is not controversial." The wetland determination was based on the presence of the three criteria for jurisdictional wetlands, hydric soils, wetland hydrology, and hydrophytic vegetation. All three criteria must be present in order to classify an area as wetland. Wetlands were rated with the Washington State Department of Ecology wetland rating methodology (Hruby, 2006). The assessment included a review of the City of Tukwila critical area inventory and the USDA Soil Conservation Service's Soil Survey of the King County Area, Washington (Snyder, 1973). The field delineation was performed on September 20, 2013, on a sunny day. The delineator was Jeffery S. Jones, SWS Professional Wetland, Scientist No. 1025. The wetland boundary was flagged with consecutive numbered orange survey flagging. The wetland flags are numbered A- 1 to A-4 and B-1 to B-5 (see attached Wetland Sketch). 4.0 General Site Description The lot is an undeveloped lot which is 50 feet wide by 117.72 feet deep. The lot has several trees and areas of dense Himalayan blackberry and reed canarygrass. There is a seasonal stream channel that flows to the east across the parcel. Within the channel, there is a short section of eroded concrete pipe. The adjoining parcels are single-family residences. There is an undeveloped 16 -foot wide alley on the west side of the parcel. October 2013 1 J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. Dreamcatcher - 33rd Ave. S. 5.0 Vegetation 5.1 Vegetation Methodology Hydrophytic vegetation has adaptations that allow these species to survive in saturated or inundated environments. These environments are classified according to the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin, 1979). The probability of plant species being found in wetland environments is provided by the National Wetland Plant List (COE, 2012). An indicator status was assigned to each species according to its probability of occurring in wetlands (see Table 1). Table 1.0 Plant Indicator Status Indicator Category Symbol Occurrence in Wetlands Obligate Wetland OBL > 99% Facultative Wetland FACW 67-99% Facultative FAC 34-67% Facultative Upland FACU 1-33% Upland UPL < 1% ote: FACW, FAC, and FACU have + and - values to represent species near the wetter end of the spectrum (+) add the drier end of the spectrum (-) (USFWS, 1996). Vegetation data was recorded at four sample locations. At each sample location, the dominant species were assessed by indicator status to determine if the plant community was predominantly hydrophytic. Rules for determining dominant species were established in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (DOE, 1997). Dominants were determined using the 50/20 rule. Using this rule, percent cover was added by order of descending cover until 50% cover was reached. These species were considered dominants. The next most common species was also included as a dominant if it had over 20% cover. 5.2 Vegetation Results At sample location SL -1, the plant community is dominated by Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra, FACW), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea, FACW), common horsetail (Equisetum arvense, FAC), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus, FACU), and morning glory (Convolvulus arvensis, not listed). The plant community is hydrophytic because 50% or more of the dominated by plant species have FAC or wetter indicator status. At sample location SL -2, the plant community is dominated by cherry (Prunus sp., not identified to species), ornamental laurel (Kalmia sp., not listed), Western red cedar (Thuja plicata, FAC), English ivy (Hedera helix, not listed), and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus, FACU). The plant community is hydrophytic because less than 50% of the dominant plant species have FAC or wetter indicator status. At sample location SL -3, the plant community is dominated by Western red cedar (Thuja plicata, FAC), common horsetail (Equisetum arvense, FAC), creeping buttercup (Ranaculus repens, FAC), unidentified grasses (NI) and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus, FACU). The plant community is hydrophytic because 50% or more of the dominated by plant species have FAC or wetter indicator status. October 2013 2 J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. Dreamcatcher - 33rd Ave. S. 6.0 Hydrology 6.1 Hydrology Methodology The Corps of Engineers Regional Supplement has a more stringent standard for hydrology than earlier methodologies. Hydrology indicator A3, observation of saturation at 12 inches or less from the soil surface is primary indicator (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2010). Hydrology must be present 5 out of 10 years or with a greater than 50% probability. The presence of primary and secondary wetland hydrological indicators was determined at each sample location by evaluating a variety of direct and indirect indicators. In addition to direct visual observations, secondary hydrologic indicators were used to infer wetland hydrology. Secondary indicators include oxidized channels (rhizospheres) associated with living roots and rhizomes, water marks on vegetation or fixed objects, drift lines, water -borne sediment deposits, water stained leaves, surface scoured areas, wetland drainage patterns, morphological plant adaptations, and hydric soil characteristics. 6.2 Hydrology Results SL -1 meets the criteria for wetland hydrology. The soils profile is saturated to the surface with a water table at 4 inches. SL -2 does not have wetland hydrology. The soil is not saturated with 12 inches from the soil surface. A water table is not present within the upper 18 inches of the soils profile. SL -3 meets the criteria for wetland hydrology. The soils profile is saturated to the surface with a water table at 16 inches. 7.0 Soils 7.1 Soils Methodology Hydric soils are soils that are "saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (DOE, 1997)". They are either organic soils (peats and mucks), or are mineral soils that are saturated long enough to produce soil properties associated with a reducing environment. Soils were assessed for organic content and hydric characteristics in 16 -18 -inch soil pits at each sample location. In Washington State, soil color is the main indicator used to determine if a soil is considered hydric. Soil color immediately below the "A" horizon or at a depth of 10 inches below ground surface was determined using Munsell Soil Color Charts (MacBeth, 2000). Soils that had a one-chroma matrix or a two-chroma matrix with mottles were determined to be hydric. 7.2 Soil Series At the time the USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS) mapped soils in King County, this area was urbanized and not included in the mapping area. A natural soils structure appears to be present. The on-site soils are gravelly sandy loam and silt loam. 7.3 Soils Results At SL -1, from 0-18 inches the soils profile is a black (10YR 2/1) silt loam. From 18 inches+, the soils profile is at gray (10YR 6/1) glacial till. The soil is hydric because it has a one chroma matrix immediately below the "A" horizon or at ten inches, whichever is shallower (DOE, 1997). October 2013 3 J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. Dreamcatcher - 33rd Ave. S. At SL -2, from 0-12 inches the soils profile is a dark brown (1 OYR 4/2) gravelly sandy loam. From 12-16 inches +, the soils profile is a brown (10YR 4/3) gravelly sandy loam. The soil is non -hydric because it has a two-chroma matrix without mottles, immediately below the "A" horizon or at ten inches, whichever is shallower (DOE, 1997). At SL -3, from 0-18 inches the soils profile is a black (1OYR 2/1) silt loam with a sulfidic odor. The soil is hydric because it has a one chroma matrix immediately below the "A" horizon or at ten inches, whichever is shallower (DOE, 1997). 8.0 Wetland & Stream Determination and Functions The wetland slopes down to 33`d Ave. S. The entire parcel is wetland except for two small areas of non -hydric soil and the stream. There are a few trees, but the wetland is primarily reed canarygrass and Himalayan blackberry. Buffers are developed. The stream is un -named. It appears to be a ditch and a section 12" concrete pipe that carries water from seepage springs located above the subject property. The stream has eroded down to the compacted glacial till. The stream enters the city storm drainage system at 33rd Ave. S. It flows year-round and is non -fish bearing. 9.0 Wetland & Stream Ratings and Buffers The wetland rates as a Category III, using the DOE wetland rating form for Western Washington. Wetland A is a "Slope" system because the stream does not flood and the wetland is on a slope. The Cowardin system would classify it as a Palustrine Forested (PFO) and Palustrine Shrub/Scrub (PSS) wetland (Cowardin, 1979). The wetland is permanently saturated. The source of hydrology is a seepage spring. The outlet is a culvert. According to the Tukwila Municipal Code, Title 18.45.080.D, the buffer requirement is 80 feet. The wetland buffers extend off-site beyond the property lines. According to TMC Title 18.45.100.A.4, the stream is a Type Ns. "Type 4 (Ns) Watercourse: Those watercourses that have intermittent flows (do not have surface flow during at least some portion of the year) and do not meet the physical criteria of a Type F watercourse." Photos of the stream have been taken during the summer when it was dry. Fish cannot access the stream from the city storm drainage system on 33rd Ave. S. and there are no upstream fish sources. Type Ns streams have a 50 -foot buffer requirement (TMC Title 18.45.100.C). The stream buffer extends off-site,beyond the property lines. 10.0 Probable Impacts Wetland and stream impacts are unavoidable. TMC Title 18.45.80, Exceptions, provides for a Reasonable Use Exception when certain conditions are met. A specific site plan must be proposed. Mitigation in the form of vegetative enhancement of the remaining wetland, stream and buffer will be required. The stream could be rerouted along the side of the proposed house or placed in a pipe. A narrow stream buffer will be required. The City of Tukwila code, Section 18.45.110, does not specify the amount of buffer width reduction allowed for vegetative enhancement; however the city's prior code allowed up to 50% reduction. Wetland impacts will be mitigated with on-site enhancement and off-site creation or enhancement, to the mitigation ratios and standards required in the city code. October 2013 4 J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. Dreamcatcher - 33rd Ave. S. A wetland mitigation plan has been prepared for on-site mitigation. The proposed square footage of impacts and mitigation are as follows: Proposed House Footprint Proposed Building Envelope Wetland Impact Wetland Buffer Impact Stream Impact 1,280 sf 2,853 sf 2,800 sf 53 sf 24 If Mitigation Ratios Wetland Fill to Enhancement Buffer Loss to Enhancment Stream Replacement 12:1 1:1. 52 if On-site Mitigation Enhancement Off-site Mitigation Enhancement 3,483 sf 30,170 sf ' 1 rl37— IZ The goal of mitigation is to restore a native plant community in the mitigation area. All non- native invasive shrubs and trees will be removed with an excavator to prepare the site for planting. The primary invasive plant species present are Himalayan blackberry and reed canarygrass. Himalayan blackberry can be removed prior to installation and maintained by hand. Reed canarygra°ss will reestablish from the seed reserve in the soil but is gradually eliminated by shading. The plant spacings are not less than 6 -foot on center for shrubs and 10 foot on center for trees. In addition the stream channel will be planted with emergent plants. The mitigation area will be maintained and monitored for a period of five years from installation. More information regarding mitigation is provided in the mitigation plan. Off-site mitigation will be at an approved city mitigation project on public property. The applicant may be required to design, install, maintain and monitor the off-site mitigation area. If a mitigation bank becomes available in the area, then payment to the bank may be an option. Hydrology to the wetland appears to be from seepage springs on the slope above and to the southwest of the property. These springs cannot be precisely located because they are associated with off-site wetlands and we do not have legal access to off-site properties. The stream will be restored to a much better condition that currently exists. The stream is a small excavated ditch that was probably constructed to attempt to drain the area. Rerouting the lower section of the stream will not affect the adjoining properties. The existing condition of the lower section of stream that will be rerouted is extremely poor. It is eroded where old concrete is exposed and fill with sediment at the inlet of the 8" culvert. The eroded channel will be replaced with a channel that has stable banks and a larger cross-sectional area than the upper existing channel. The channel will be vegetated with emergent plants which will slow the velocity of flows and protect it from erosion. The locations of the existing and proposed stream are shown on the civil engineers drainage plan and the mitigation plan. The proposed stream channel will discharge to the road ditch which flows to an 18" cmp, 8 feet to a catch basin. The proposed stream channel cross-section is shown on the civil engineers drainage plan. October 2013 5 J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. Dreamcatcher - 33rd Ave. S. Drainage around the perimeter of the building envelope will intercept water that is currently reaching the neighbor's side yard, to the north. The proposed drainage system will reduce drainage problems for the neighbor. The existing stream flows into a 8" concrete pipeline that discharges to a city storm drainage system in the street. The 8" concrete pipe will be removed and the stream will be reconstructed as an open channel to the road ditch. This will result in 29 additional lineal feet of stream. The existing 8 -foot long section of 18" cmp pipe, above the city storm drainage catch basin, will be replaced with a 30 -foot long 18" cmp pipe for the driveway. 11.0 Hazard or Risk to Wetland and Stream from Redevelopment The existing condition of the wetland is degraded by dominant invasive plant species. The stream is an eroding drainage ditch. As of the date of this report, a site plan has not been prepared. The property is nearly surrounded by existing streets and residences. Redevelopment is unlikely to affect these properties because the wetland and steam already discharge into the city storm drainage system and development will not affect the source of hydrology, which is above the subject property. The condition of critical area buffers, wetland and stream are poor. Himalayan blackberry and reed canarygrass dominant the site. Mowed lawn, residential structures and pavement border the wetland. Reestablishment of native plants in the buffer and removal of invasive plants should benefit the stream and will provide a larger habitat corridor. 12.0 Authority This wetland and stream determination is in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the objective of which is to "maintain and restore the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the United States" (DOE, 1997). Wetlands are "areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water 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" (EPA, 1980) (EPA, 1982). 13.0 Limitations Stream OHWM mark determinations and wetland determinations, delineations, ratings and buffer sizes are not final until approved by regulatory agencies and/or local jurisdictions. .1 S. Jones and Associates, Inc. does not guarantee acceptance or approval by regulatory agencies, or that any intended use will be achieved. October 2013 6 J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. Dreamcatcher - 33rd Ave. S. 14.0 References COE. 2012. National Wetland Plant List. http://wetland_plants.usace.army.mil/ Cowardin, Lewis M. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Jamestown, North Dakota. DOE. 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Publication # 96-94. EPA. 1980. Federal Register 40 CFR Part 230: Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material. Vol. 45, No. 249, 85352-85353. US Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. EPA. 1982. Federal Register Title 33: Navigation and Navigable Waters; Chapter II, Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers. Vol. 47, No. 138, p 31810. US Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. Hruby. 2006. Department of Ecology's Wetland Rating Form for Western Washington. MacBeth. 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts -Revised Washable Edition. 617 Little Britain Road, New Windsor, NY 12553. lop + 9 charts. Snyder, D.E. 1973. Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington. United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR -10-3. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. October 2013 7 J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. Dreamcatcher - 33rd Ave. S. Attachments October 2013 8 J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. r1 J DreamCatcher Homes Vicinity Map The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kin° County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall rot be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or cunsequentia damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. Date: 11/27/2013 Source: King County itulAP- Property Information (http:Nwww.metrokc.gov/GIS/iMAP) La King County WETLAND INVENTORY Disclaimer.' The eCityGov Alliance or its member agencies do not guarantee that the information on this map is accurate or complete. This map is provided for information purposes only. i eCityGov nlet NWMaps.net Nearby Search Area (.25mi) ❑ Search Result Location D City Limit — Stream ❑ Parcel Floodplain ® 100 Year • Other pg Water Body • Fish and Wildlife Habitat Area Q Wetland Li Wetland Buffer Stream Buffer • Landslide Area Floodway ❑ Steep Slope Shoreline Jurisdiction Area Printed on 10/6/2013 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region / 3 X v 3 2. ¥ 4 tl--c-. S�i ounty: Tri%-'" -- _ Project/Site: Y 4i e5 6 Lc Applicant/Owner: Investigator(s): Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Section, Township, Range: T f' n Sampling Date: / /V)/ State: w 4 Sampling Point: -54, NW /5/Z3 N/ 1A Local relief (concave, convex, none): �sn4 41‘f-1 Subregion (LRR): / w �O .r Q S71 Lat: — Long: Soil Map Unit Name: A.) O /' ktit A. NWI classification: Slope (%): Datum: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes V No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes L. No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes V No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes 1----- No Yes No Yes (---- No 4. Remarks: Percent of Dominant Species -7 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: / S (NB) ® / Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 3 0 = Total Cover VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. 3 t Tree Stfatum (PI t size: ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Indicator Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) (rjr'S 1. A C / ..4'Lk) 1� / / CSLA,J (i /4"(--(A) 2. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) 3. 4. Percent of Dominant Species -7 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: / S (NB) ® / Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 3 0 = Total Cover 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species x 1 = 3. FACW species x 2 = 4. FAC species x 3 = 5. FACU species x 4 = I Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 0 ) / = Total Cover ` , r UPL species x 5 = 3-a 1 r I /„ Column Totals: (A) (B) �,.11..t11..t./f 2. CJi�Q" 'l". -!3i GO , ri lO-r y Cyt�1. a_ 5 S 2- � / t At a) 7�/ Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. (J 7 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation V 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is 553.0' _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. J Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: �)/ = Total Cover 3 () cAt.'C4 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes v No 1. %-liWrtil Qva,v7 /6c k 3 a`/ 2. 44 o If ii /".n,- ex/W(1 (3ICTC- "� (% % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Jr0 = To al Cover Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 SOIL • Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm Depth Matrix Redox Features the absence of indicators.) Textu e Remarks (inches)Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 (,�-/ir j � /0y6122- 11 foo o /9 "4- / LDYg6/i 100 -� -k; iI Saturation Saturation Present? Yes (/ No Depth (inches): (} (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,'unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol (Al) _ Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) ✓Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if resent): Type: t/ /1 Soil Present? Yesy No Depth (inches): ye.-.7 Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (89) (except _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) ✓Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (82) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (B3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ Iron Deposits (B5) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ FAC -Neutral Test (D5) _ Surface Soil Cracks (86) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No V Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yesy No Water Table Present? Yes t/ No Depth (inches): ---V-1:/,---- Saturation Saturation Present? Yes (/ No Depth (inches): (} (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: itLGf, . i t C Investigator(s): WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA 13 /vy "",d Aire_ S, J, Jd-1-t4S Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): 5"-ANEV -e._ Subregion (LRR): AJ (v /tee S 715 FORM — Western Mountains, V / alleys, and Coast Region / ounty: / � G ' 6 tea_ Sampling Date:? /° O ,i S Lc_c_ eState: LA)� Sampling Point: 5�`'.Z /V Section, Township, Range: ' / sy 2- 3 A.) £ 077, Soil Map Unit Name: / Local relief (concave, convex, none): Le -Y1 Slope (%): Lat: Long: Datum: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes V No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? V No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No I✓ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ___— Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No l.� Remarks: VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: -3 c% ) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: / (A) 1. VA' N L /c-22) 2. r/ti4--S 1-14-4-1n /'�LAl. -f ZW y Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) 3. 4. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (NB) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3 1::1 t 0 = Total Cover 0 L 1. Or n I-14-19 r".a? �- 14- ( / �N /� )rU Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. 3. OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = I Herb Stratum (Plot size: ' l7 ) 3 a = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = 1. Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 5.- 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11 • / Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: (� ) = Total Cover r 6- y RR- Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 1. F `t S! p3 k ,/ N 2. _ice i L. _ i : / % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum L k e .60 v ,A4..6. ,t SS = Toial Cover Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm Depth Matrix Redox Features the absence of indicators.) TextureRemarks (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc' b—/2 i0Vi 1/ziar s — Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No 10''''...e Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: �/ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No /` Depth (inches): Remarks:/'// isC HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) _ Surface Water (A1) Water -Stained Leaves (89) (except _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, _ High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) _ Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (611) Drainage Patterns (810) _ Water Marks (61) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (613) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (B3) ' _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (84)' _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ FAC -Neutral Test (D5) _ Surface Soil Cracks (86) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?Yes No '� Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No t.' ® — Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No 10''''...e Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Project/Site: /6 / ' V 33 r ----a4 Ave- S, ' it ounty: Applicant/Owner: Dr <° caa i @ L C.G Investigator(s): ' J 0-fr1/4.e.5 Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): ./7) -Q Subregion (LRR): / v� $ 5"d' Lat: Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region L1.4.); 1 & Sampling Dats / 2-0 / 13 State: lit) A Sampling Point: 54, -3 Soil Map Unit Name: /1/ p -e- ._ . 4) IA, /S 2?N, '/E Local relief (concave, convex, none): / i ezw.ke Slope (%): ? Long: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes i"*..No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? NWI classification: Datum: (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes V No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes % No Hydric Soil Present? Yes is No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Q Tree Stratum (Plot size: t� ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Indicator Species? Statusn Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Spcies That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 1. Was` . 1-e-6. C e -C % / 0 / ' V 2. Total Number of Dominant il Species Across All Strata: (8) 3. 4. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: �� (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: - ) = Total Cover 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2 3. OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW specles x 2 = 5 FAC species x 3 = ( Herb Stratum (Plot size: C7 = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = 2.5— V �A( UPL species x 5 = 1. C.„0- ryi nn a?) A CrYY %e / Column Totals: (A) (8) 2 Gt�n.� /%7 / 0 YJ Prevalence Index = B/A = O 3. l,A..a., �`Ci( k rd ‘'Soo S / 0 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Test is >50% _ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 5.jellDominance 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. / Wood Vin Stratu (Plot sizer 3P�ryl� = Total Cover y FAG( / /v 0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 4. -'''No 1. il'3441G� jGcki i,/ �[ 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum = Total Cover Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 SOIL . 51.--3 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm Depth Matrix Redox Features the absence of indicators.) Te (inches)Color(moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc' Remarks r!,"/ if /0 y (' 'z�/ / L) % Water Table Present? Yes L" No Depth (inches): Ib Saturation Present? Yes t! No Depth (inches): 0 (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soli Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol (A1) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) \ Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: 1 Hydric Soil Present? Yes V No Depth (inches): Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (except _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, _ High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) _maturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Drainage Patterns (810) Water Marks (B1) A uatic Invertebrates (813) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) __Vqydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (B3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Algal Mat or Crust (84) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ FAC -Neutral Test (D5) _ Surface Soil Cracks (66) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 40" No Water Table Present? Yes L" No Depth (inches): Ib Saturation Present? Yes t! No Depth (inches): 0 (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 Wetland name or number A WETLAND RATING FORM — WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 - Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Updated Oct 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats Name of wetland (if known): Now e Rated by a J Date of site visit9/7-6)ll 3 Trained by Ecology? Yes t'"No Date of training � vE' SEC: / STWNSHP:�3 RNGE: �f Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes No Map of wetland unit: Figure ✓ Estimated size / ° 5774' SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland I II III IV Category I = Score >=70 Category II = Scpre 51-69 i.,—Category III = Score 30 -5 -In Category Category IV = Score <30 Score for Water Quality Functions Score for Hydrologic Functions Score for Habitat Functions TOTAL score for Functions Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland I_ II Does not Apply L� Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above) Summary of basic information about the wetland unit /1 /Z �2 (36 1 p pl �" G r ' etla ► Un h `n` f a � .�� Y ��.�ry rat�stic � ir_ ��� rte; etlan HG �,�� . �� 1YI Mass. <,5�� sed for Rating Estuarine t:>, Depressional Natural Heritage Wetland Riverine Bog Lake -fringe Mature Forest Slope Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal Lagoon Freshwater Tidal Interdunal None of the above Check if unit has multiple HGM classes present I ' Wetland Rating Form — western Washington version 2 To be used with Ecology Publication 04-06-025 August 2004 Wetland name or number k Does the wetland unit being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. 4y 4r-F'".s.�' *,,sr'ar H�c"w .,.x-•'^" £ "r'x'tY..��"'``3. tT,,,,. a e -. - r ,H � etlan i nal Pr OVAon -, f' ,'s°et awe,'-5u�' -- j...n.' f 4 I: �� tion to hc�prot ction� econ ended fo is''category . - ' , NO SP1. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (T/E species)? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state or federal database. SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Category I Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 19 of data form). L -- SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? l---- SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. i..--- To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated. The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. See p. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 2 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Wetland name or number Classification of Wetland Units in Western Washington 1. Are t e water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? (NO , o to 2 YES — the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES — Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO — Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were called estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed (see p. ). 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Gtr utlwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. o to -3 YES — The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet both of the following criteria? The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) at least 20 acres (8 ha) in size; At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)? go to 4 YES — The wetland class is Lake -fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? L. -The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), L -The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. V The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3ft diameter and less than 1 foot deep). NO - go to 5 YES — The wetland class is Slope Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 3 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Wetland name or number 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is (flooding. NO - o to 6 YES — The wetland class is Riverine 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year. This means that any outlet, ifpresent, is higher than the int.arire,Nof the wetland. l7.3go to 7 YES — The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding. The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural_ utlet. NO o to 8 YES — The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM clases. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. e)- SiMiWelanzlu tr It ~47: "'" it .21 ''Wl' iia4fng`: Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake -fringe Lake -fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Depressional + Lake -fringe Depressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 4 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Wetland name or number A- + - � �I t a i- ` & x g r �p� A - 4i�T raTa�. i"� F' "1 i' f iv t �, Points sonly l score .. vviJ T 'j��',� E ax.,a et, ps F {...Tvt : :: �, r � a� *II 011S r0 , Awl f{0 � °A%t� � „...,4, f Mi 2'. °l ['s `k. 2 .`If 4E .hc d 't- . w F u.-, S S S S S S 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.64) S 1.1 Characteristics of average slope of unit: Slope is I% or Tess (a 1% slope has a 1 foot vertical drop in elevation for every 100 ft horizontal distance) points = 3 Slope is 1%- 2% points = 2 Slope is 2% - 5% 1 S • = Slope is greater than 5% points = 0 6 S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS definitions) YES = 3 points '.-107D0 points Q S 1.3 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the vegetation in the wetland Dense vegetation means you have trouble seeing the soil surface (575% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher than 6 inches. Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 90% of the wetland area is = Figure _ Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/2 of area points = 3 Dense; woody, vegetation > '/2 of area points = 2 Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/4 of area points = 1 Does not meet any of the criteria above for vegetation points = 0 Aerial photo or map with vegetation polygons Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above S S 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? `(see67 (seep.67) multiplier Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualms as opportunity. --Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft — Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland — : Tilled fields, logging, or orchards within 150 feet of wetland Residential, urban areas, or golf courses are within 150 ft upslope of wetland — Ot r ES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 S .. TOTAL - Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from S1 by S2 ( Add score to table on p. 1 / mments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 11 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Wetland name or number s s s c o e y ddrAgt$�Ofq �tt tEi S 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion? S 3.1 Characteristics of vegetation that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms. Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fit conditions in the wetland. (stems of plants should be thick enough (usually > 1/8in), or dense enough, to remain erect during surface flows) Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation covers > 90% of the area of the wetland. 'oints = 6 Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation > 1/2 area of wetland points = 3 Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation > 1/4 area points = 1 More than 1/4 of area is grazed, mowed, tilled or vegetation is not rigid points = 0 S 3.2 Characteristics of slope wetland that holds back small amounts of flood flows: The slope wetland has small surface depressions that can retain water over at least 10% of its area. YES ____saints = 2 ( NO points = 0 Add the points in the boxes above see p.68) 1 D s s S 4. Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? Is the wetland in a landscape position where the reduction in water velocity it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows? Note which of the following conditions apply. -Le' etland has surface runoff that drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems — Other (Answer NO if the major source of water is controlled by a reservoir (e.g. wetland is a seep the n the downstream side of a dam) multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 (see p. 70) multiplier Z Comments TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from S 3 by S 4 I Add score to table on p. 1 I Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 12 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Wetland name or number H 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 Vegetation structure (see p. 72) Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin)- Size threshold for each class is '/a acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. Aquatic bed Emergent plants ko-I-Crub/shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover) L....Forested (areas where trees have >30% cover) If the unit has a forested class check if. The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon Add the number of vegetation structures that quali61. If you have: 4 structures or more points = 4 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes 3 structures 2 structures points = 1 1 structure points = 0 H 1.2. Hydroperiods (seep. 73) Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or ''/ acre to count. (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods) Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points = 3 Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types presentr"'point \/Saturated only 1 type present points = 0 . Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake fringe wetland = 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland = 2 points Map of hydroperiods H 1.3. Richness of Plant Species (seep. 75) Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2. (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian Thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 List species below if you want to: 5 - 19 speciesomts = < 5 species points = 0 'Oli1t3;: only score pe box).= Figure z_ Figure Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 13 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Total for page August 2004 Wetland name or number H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats (seep. 76) Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. None = 0 points Low = 1 point oderate = 2 poin [riparian braided channels] High = 3 points NOTE: If you have four or more classes or three vegetation classes and open water the rating is always "high". Use map of Cowardin vegetation classes H 1.5. Special Habitat Features: (seep. 77) Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the Lnumber of points you put into the next column. arge, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4in. diameter and 6 ft long). ✓standing snags (diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft (1m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft (10m) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (>30degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yetturned grey/brown) At least 'A acre of thin -stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated. (structures for egg -laying by amphibians) Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants NOTE: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. Figure z 111. 'TOTAL Score - potential for '---'— providing habitat Add the scores from H1.1, H1.2, H1.3, H1.4, H1.5 Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 14 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Wetland name or number 112. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers (see p. 80) Figure Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed. " — 100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer. (relatively undisturbed also means no -grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use) Points = 5 — 100 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference. Points = 4 — 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water>95% circumference. Points = 4 — 100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% circumference, . Points = 3 — 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50% circumference. Points = 3 If buffer docs not meet any of the criteria above — No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80ft) of wetland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 — No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 — Heavy grazing in buffer. Points =1 — Vegetated buffers are <2m wide (6.6ft) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland Points = 0. / — Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. c oints —1 Aerial photo showing buffers H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (see p. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.2 H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at Least 50ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake -fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question:above? YES=2 points (go toH2.3) NO=H2.2.3 H 2.2.3 Is the wetland: within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR within 3 mi of a large field or pasture (>40 acres) OR within 1 m f a Jake greater than 20 acres? S =1 point NO = 0 points Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 15 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Total for page 2' August 2004 Wetland name or number H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (see new and complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in the PHS report http://wdfw.wa.,iov/hab/phslist.htm) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (100m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha (1 acre). Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152). Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old-growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; crown cover may be Tess that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80 - 200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158). Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161). Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshorc habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report: pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendix A). Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.0 m (0.5 - 6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of> 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are > 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are > 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and > 6 m (20 ft) long. If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat —1 of No habitats = 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by inition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H2.4) Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 16 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Wetland name or number 1o, H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits) (seep. 84) There are at least 3 other wetlands within 'h mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development. points = 5 The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile points = 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed oints 3 The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetland within 1/2 mile points = 3 There is at least 1 wetland within 'h mile. points = 2 There are no wetlands within 1/2 mile. points = 0 H 2. TOTAL Score - opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores from H2.1,H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 I S (� TOTAL for H 1 from page 14 Total Score for Habitat Functions — add the points for H 1, H 2 and record the result on p. 1 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 17 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Wetland name or number CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the Category when the appropriate criteria are met. Category SC 1.0 Estuarine wetlands (see p. 86) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? — The dominant water regime is tidal, — Vegetated, and — With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES = Go to SC 1.1 NO 1. --- SC SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES = Category I NO to SC 1.2 Cat. I SC 1.2 Is the wetland unit at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category II — The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has Tess than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp. are the only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual rating (I/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category I. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. — At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un -grazed or un -mowed grassland. — The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Cat. I Cat. II Dual rating I/II Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 18 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Wetland name or number SC 2.0 Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 87) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland unit being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? (this question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHP/DNR) S/T/R information from Appendix D _ or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site YES — contact WNHP/DNR (sec p. 79) and go to SC 2.2 Nd SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category I NO —riot a Heritage Wetland SC 3.0 Bogs (seep. 87) Does the wetland unit (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to ident if the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. 1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the soil profile? (See Appendix 13„Teraf ield key to identify organic soils)? Yes - go to Q. 3 C` No>%go to Q. 2 2. Does the unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? Yes - go to Q. 3 No Is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? Yes — Is a bog for purpose of rating No - go to Q. 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is Tess than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 arc present, the wetland is a bog. 1. Is the unit forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann's spruce, or western white pine, WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover (> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)? 2. YES = Category 1 No Is not a bog for purpose of rating Cat. I Cat. I Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 19 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Wetland name or number Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 20 version 2 Updated with new W DFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (see p. 90) Does the wetland unit have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. — Old-growth forests: (west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm) or more. NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two -hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old-growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. — Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 — 200 years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53cm); crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally Less than that found in old-growth. YES = Category 1 NO t a forested wetland with special characteristics Cat. I SC 5.0 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (see p. 91) Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? — The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks — The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to he measured near the bottom) YES = Go to SC 5.1 NO \ . not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meets all of the following three conditions? — The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). — At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un -grazed or un -mowed grassland. Cat. I — The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square feet) YES = Category 1 NO = Category II Cat. II Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 20 version 2 Updated with new W DFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Wetland name or number Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 2l version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 SC 6.0 Interdunal Wetlands (see p. 93) Is the wetland unit west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? rr // YES - go to SC 6.1 NO not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: • Long Beach Peninsula- lands west of SR 103 • Grayland-Westport- lands west of SR 105 • Ocean Shores-Copalis- lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is once acre or larger? YES = Category II NO — go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2 Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES = Category III - ,�-,. Cat. II Cat. III , tom" ar 1eY o a edr%61, ec>a ,-•, ,4 c" ;t. 4' .,l ,,P� lain PC P -T4s`aS arm fe3nfay °-';ttJ '1ti-'r ' is ,,9 "04'.,'d ry .181,z"1\41- ® effa 11 s PI IS. er 5 �- , 'F rn ,a; '1.-- E Z y . �?� `�"fi�Apt��e�.�n �ma ;x� Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 2l version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 r � � Eroded Concrete Pipe in Stream Channel Under Himalayan Blackberries Overview of Property Looking Southwest from the Northeast Property Corner December 16, 2014 City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director Jeffrey Jones J.S. Jones and Associates P.O. Box 1908 Issaquah, WA 98027 RE: L14-002, L14-006 and E14-0005 Dear Jeff, I am writing to bring to your attention two issues. 1. There are fees outstanding on the Notice of Application sent out to properties within 500 feet of your project in the amount of $97.00. This is the third request for reimbursement and the fee must be paid immediately. 2. We met on March 19, 2014 to discuss the items that were needed in order to continue to review the reasonable use and SEPA applications for the project. Nine months have elapsed and I have not received the items identified in the letter to you dated March 4, 2014. TMC 18.104.070 E. provides the City may cancel an application if requested information is not provided in 90 days. The payment of the outstanding fees must be remitted immediately. You also must submit the items requested in the March 4, 2014 letter by March 17, 2015 otherwise the application will be cancelled. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Carol Lumb Senior Planner Enclosures: March 4, 2014 letter, with attachment 7/24/14 Second request for fee payment cc: Jay Keirouz, Dreamcatcher Homes CL H:\\L14-0002\Fee and Additional Info Ltr Page 1 of I 12/16/2014 4:41 PM City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor evelopment Jack Pace, Director March 27, 2014 JEFFEREY JO S Dreamcatcher • omes PO Box 1908 Issaquah WA 98 27 iA6(h RE: Notice of Appl ation,_n14-0002,_(L-14=0006) CO4lel r7l.ILOCA.14 Lot Size Variance 131XX — 33rd Ave S, Tukwila 'ren yl2 C. (0 6/0‘.&.1 u� /A A There is a fee due on your permit application in the amount of $97.00 to cover fees associated with Notice Se --R4-1 So ros Dear carrlesson: of Application mailing the attached public notice. The number of required notices sent for your application was 97 which included property owners and tenants within 500 feet of your project site as well as interested parties and agencies with jurisdiction. The cost is based on the land use fee schedule adopted by Resolution Number 1803 covering Public Notice mailings required for your application. This fee covers the attached notice only. Additional fees may be assessed for future mailings or other review tasks per the fee schedule. This amount needs to be paid before the city can continue processing your permit application. The payment may be paid by cash, check or credit card. The city will accept credit card payments by phone. If paying by check please send the check made out to: City of Tukwila Attn: Teri 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Ste 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at Teri.Svedahl@TukwilaWA.gov Sincerely, Teri Svedahl Administrative Support Technician Cc; Carol Lumb, Senior Planner MD Invoicing Public Mailings.doc Page 1 of 1 03/26/2014 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite #100 • Tukwila. Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 FOR M C (11/41•1J11:e/ OF FAX PHONE D MOBILE TIME-3_1\/1.4‘ AREA CODE NUMBER M ESSAGE &1,4k, /46-Vdrx YkaLloIL EXTENSION PHONED REI URNED YUP CALL PLEASE CALL. WILL CALL rPt"' AGAIN �.. ►u � n t JJ'M - %lA .— w{ 2S" Cir 4v O CAME TO SEE YOU 1.6)(41-k 9Vt.LA Qniq ► 1(61-- 40/... Int b FORM 74620 `SIGNED SECONDNATURET"" 0 RECYCL D WALITS EreY00 Carol Lumb From: Jihad Keirouz <keirouzja@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 2, 2014 6:21 AM To: 157@fastsigns.com Cc: Carol Lumb; jeff.jsjones@comcast.net Subject: Public Notice sign Hi Alicia, I spoke to you last Friday in regards to a public notice sign in the City of Tukwila. Please contact Carol Lumb, Senior Planner at the city of Tukwila to provide you with the information needed to make and install the sign, 206-431-3661 project for Jay Keirouz. You can bill me direct or call me for a credit card payment as needed. Please contact me with any questions. Thanks J A KEIROUZ DREAMCATCHER HOMES, LLC. P. O. Box 2608 Lynnwood, WA 98036 Ph 1 206-300-6874 email 1 keirouzia@qmail.com www.dreamcatcherhomes.us 1 Carol Lumb From: Carol Lumb Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 1:24 PM To: 'Jeff jsjones@comcast.net' Cc: Minnie Dhaliwal Subject: RE: Canceled: Reasonable Use and Lot Size Variance Hearings Jeff, We need to receive all of the information that was requested in the City's letter on March 4, 2014. Once that information is received, then it will be routed internally to make sure the materials provided responds to the March 4th request. At that point we will look at possible hearing dates that work for all of us — you, Mr. Keirouz, me and the hearing examiner. Our urban environmentalist, Sandra Whiting, is leaving at the end of June and if her replacement has not been hired by the time the information requested is received, then there may be delays in the review of the environmental information requested which would then delay the preparation of a staff report for the reasonable use application. Carol From: jeff.jsjones@comcast.net jmailto:jeff.jsjones@comcast.netj Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 12:30 PM To: Carol Lumb Subject: Re: Canceled: Reasonable Use and Lot Size Variance Hearings Is it cancelled until you received the geotech and engineers information? From: "Carol Lumb" <Carol.Lumb,TukwilaWA.gov> To: "Jihad Keirouz (keirouzia c(r7gmail.com)" <keirouzjaa,gmail.com>, "anne watanabe" <anne.watanabe(cr�seattle.gov>, "Jeffrey Jones (jeff.isiones@comcast.net)" <jeff.isiones(c�comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 11:50:02 AM Subject: Canceled: Reasonable Use and Lot Size Variance Hearings The hearing location has been moved to Conference Room #1, which is the conference room closest to the permit center counter. 1 Carol Lumb From: Carol Lumb Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 6:16 PM To: Jihad Keirouz (keirouzja@gmail.com) Cc: Jeffrey Jones (jeff.jsjones@comcast.net); Minnie Dhaliwal Subject: Reasonable Use application Attachments: Pu blic_Notice_Board_info.pdf Jay, I have not heard anything back since Jeffs May 1st email to you about the installation of the public notice sign for the reasonable use application . This sign needs to be installed as soon as possible as it is part of the public notice the City's regulations require for this type of land use application. All you need to do is contact the sign company and pay for the sign — I will provide the information that is put on the sign. The sign should have been installed months ago when we sent out the original public notice. The sign company which does many of the public notice boards in Tukwila is Fast Signs, 206-575-2110 but you are welcome to use any sign company you wish —just provide them with the template for the sign board, attached and give me information on to whom to provide the information that is put on the sign. Please give me an update of where things are with the project so that a new hearing date can be identified. Public notice will need to be mailed again once the new hearing date is established. If you have decided not to pursue this project, then please provide an email to that effect so we can close out the files. I need to hear back from you or Jeff by Wednesday, May 28th with a status report. I am out of the office tomorrow and Monday. Please call or send an email if you have questions. Thank you. Carol Carol Lumb, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 206-431-3661 Carol.Lumb@TukwilaWa.gov Tukwila, the City of opportunity, the community of choice. 1 Carol Lumb From: Carol Lumb Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 9:53 AM To: Yon LeMieux (yonflora@yahoo.com) Subject: Keirouz Hearing Hi Yon, I just wanted to let you know that the May 29`h public hearing on the reasonable use application and the lot size variance for the property on the north side of yours has been postponed — a new date has not been set yet, but you will be notified when the hearing is rescheduled. Let me know if you have any questions. Carol Carol Lumb, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 So u th cen ter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 206-431-3661 Carol.Lurb@a T nitwila Wa.gov Tukwila, the City of opportunity, the community of choice. 1 Carol Lumb From: Carol Lumb Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 11:45 AM To: 'Ray Coglas' Subject: RE: Keirouz Project Attachments: 1999_Keirouz_Geotech.pdf Ray, Here is what the old file included. Let me know if you have questions — I am out of the office this afternoon, but back in Monday morning. Carol From: Ray Coglas Jmailto: Ray.Coglas©earthsolutionsnw.comj Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 10:23 AM To: Carol Lumb Subject: RE: Keirouz Project Carol — do you have the 1999 geotechnical comments available (please see attached) could you forward? Thanks again, Ray Coglas, P.E. Principal Earth Solutions NW Phone (425) 449-4704 FAX (425) 449-4711 Cell (206) 793-7494 Radio ID 112143141'18 This e-mail is intended for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the receiver of this e-mail in not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. From: Carol Lumb Jmailto:Carol.LumbOTukwilaWA.dovl Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 4:04 PM To: Ray Coglas Subject: RE: Keirouz Project You're welcome. From: Ray Coglas[mailto:Ray.Coglas©earthsolutionsnw.com] Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 4:04 PM To: Carol Lumb Subject: RE: Keirouz Project Thanks Carol....much appreciated. Ray Coglas, P.E. Principal Earth Solutions NW Phone (425) 449-4704 FAX (425) 449-4711 Cell (206) 793-7494 Radio ID 112'14314118 1 This e-mail is intended for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the receiver of this e-mail in not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. From: Carol Lumb f mailto:CaroI.Lumb(aTukwilaWA.govj Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 3:39 PM To: Ray Coglas Subject: Keirouz Project Ray, I am attaching the information on what was requested from Mr. Keirouz and his wetland consultant Jeff Jones. Please let me know if you have questions. Carol Carol Lumb, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 206-431-3661 Carol L unh@T ukwila YYa. Dov Tukwila, the City of opportunity, the community of choice. 2 Carol Lumb From: Carol Lumb Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 11:56 AM To: Jeffrey Jones (jeffjsjones@comcast.net) Cc: Minnie Dhaliwal Subject: Keirouz Reasonable Use and Lot Size Variance Jeff, I have not received the additional information needed to continue review of the Reasonable Use applications, and as noted in my email to you on April 30, 2014, several weeks are needed once those materials are received to allow staff sufficient time to review and provide comments on the information provided, write the staff report and provide the information to the Hearing Examiner prior to the public hearing. As a result, the hearing scheduled for May 29th must be postponed. Please notify your client of this postponement. Once we receive the information requested in the March 4, 2014 letter and discussed with you and Mr. Keirouz at our meeting on March 13, 2014, we will identify a new hearing date in consultation with you and Mr. Keirouz. The notice board still needs to be installed as soon as possible so that information pertinent to the project, including the postponement of the hearing can be posted. I am out of the office this afternoon, but in next week if you have questions. Carol Carol Lummb, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 206-431-3661 Carol L umh@Tukwila YYV.gov. Tukwila, the City of opportunity, the community of choice. 1 Carol Lumb From: Carol Lumb Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 3:45 PM To: Jeffrey Jones (jeffjsjones@comcast.net) Subject: Notice Board Attachments: L14-0002 Keirouz RU -Incomplete signed.pdf; L14 -0002-L14-0006 complete Itr w attach.pdf Jeff, Did you make arrangements for the notice board to be installed on the Keirouz property? I was just reviewing some of the project correspondence and was reminded that I never provided information to the sign company or posted the site with the Notice of Application materials (see second paragraph of Incomplete Application Letter, first paragraph of Complete Application letter). If the sign hasn't been installed, it should be ASAP — it is part of the public notice process. Let me know if you have questions. Carol Carol Lumb, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 206-431-3661 Carol LurnhgTvkwila Wa. ffoar Tukwila, the City of opportunity, the community of choice. 1 Carol Lumb From: Carol Lumb Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 3:16 PM To: jeffjsjones@comcast.net' Subject: RE: Reasonable Use and Lot Size Variance Hearings Jeff, I will need a couple weeks just to route the information and get comments back from other City staff in order to be able to write a staff report. The hearing examiner gets the staff report 10-14 days in advance of the hearing in order to have time to review all the material, so if you won't have the information ready to submit in the next week, then the hearing date will need to be moved into June. If the hearing date is moved, we will need to re -notify the property owners within 500 feet to give them 14 days notice of the hearing date. Carol From: jeff.jsjones@ comcast.net f mailto:jeff.jsjones@comcast.neti Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 2:38 PM To: Carol Lumb Subject: Re: Reasonable Use and Lot Size Variance Hearings Sorry, I do not know when the additional information from the geotech and civil engineer will be available. From: "Carol Lumb" <Carol.Lumb@TukwilaWA.gov> To: "jeff.jsjones@comcast.net" <jeff.jsiones@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 2:35:22 PM Subject: RE: Reasonable Use and Lot Size Variance Hearings Sorry — I know that. The conference room where the hearing will be held has been changed to Conference Room #1, which is on the left just as you enter the door to our offices. No change in the date or time of the hearing. Do you have an ETA on when you will have the additional information we need to review? Carol From: jeff.jsjones©comcast.netjmailto:jeff.jsjones@comcast.neti Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 2:32 PM To: Carol Lumb Subject: Re: Reasonable Use and Lot Size Variance Hearings I'm very sorry but I don't use outlook for my calendar and cannot open the attached file. From: "Carol Lumb" <Carol.Lumb@TukwilaWA.gov> To: "Jihad Keirouz (keirouzja@gmail.com)" <keirouzja@gmail.com>, "anne watanabe" <anne.watanabe@seattle.gov>, "Jeffrey Jones (jeff.jsjones@comcast.net)" <jeff.Isiones @ comcast.net> 1 Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 1:23:00 PM Subject: Reasonable Use and Lot Size Variance Hearings The hearing location has been moved to Conference Room #1, which is the conference room closest to the permit center counter. 2 Carol Lumb From: Yon LeMieux <yonflora@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 8:23 AM To: Carol Lumb Subject: comments on application Department of Community Development City of Tukwila Carol Lumb I am writing regarding the permit to build on 130xx 33rd Ave S. I live adjacent to the property on the south side. There is considerable water flow in the stream beside and to the west of my house. I am concerned that any attempt to divert the water will result in damage to my property. The stream in question and its buffers absorb a good deal of water. Yet the surrounding area remains soggy year-round as it is. The following text is from the Washington State Department of Ecology's website: Almost any wetland can provide some measure of flood protection by holding the excess runoff after a storm, and then releasing it slowly. The size, shape, location, and soil type of a wetland determine its capacity to reduce local and downstream flooding. While wetlands cannot prevent flooding, they do lower flood peaks by temporarily holding water and by slowing the water's velocity. Wetland soil acts as a sponge, holding much more water than other soil types. Even isolated wetlands can reduce local flooding -- if the wetlands were not there to hold stormwater runoff, backyards and basements might end up under water. I understand the property in question is a level 3 wetland; a classification given to areas less than one acre in size and with some isolation from other wild areas. There is indeed very little space between the lot and the houses on either side of it, mine included. It is my hope that the stream and its buffers can remain in tact so that it can do its job of absorbing the water that comes through the area. Thank you, Yon Lemieux 206.849.3409 1 Carol Lumb From: Carol Lumb Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 11:33 AM To: 'Yon LeMieux' Subject: RE: Notice of Application Hi Yon, It was good talking to you just now. Here is the link to the City's Zoning Code: http://records.tukwilawa.gov/WebLink8/1/doc/56618/Electronic.aspx The environmental regulations are found in TMC 18.45 and the Reasonable Use section is TMC 18.45.180. The criteria that will be used to evaluate the reasonable use request are found here. You can also go to the City's web site http://www.tukwilawa.gov/ to access the City's municipal code - on the main page, under "Government" scroll down to the menu item "Tukwila Municipal Code." Please feel free to call me any time if you have questions or want to come down to review the information in the application. My contact information is below. I am generally in the office 8:30 - 6:00, Monday through Thursday, 8:30- 5:00 on Friday with every other Friday off. Thanks for your interest in the project. Carol Carol Lumb, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 206-431-3661 Carol.Lumb@TukwilaWa.gov Tukwila, the City of opportunity, the community of choice. Original Message From: Yon LeMieux jmailto:yonflora@yahoo.comj Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2014 9:42 PM To: Carol Lumb Subject: Notice of Application Hello there, My name is Yon Lemieux. I am a home owner at 13045 33rd Ave S. I received notice in the mail of an application to build on the property next to my home. I have some questions about this. Would you be able to tell me what the terms "category III wetland" and "Type 3 stream and its buffers" means? Do you know if an environmental impact study has been done on this proposal? I'm particularly concerned because there is a pool of water and significant flow from it that is right above my property. I'd like to know what assurances I have that my home will not be flooded by such a project. 1 Thank you! YL (206) 849-3409 File # L4-0006 2 Carol Lumb From: Yon LeMieux <yonflora@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2014 9:42 PM To: Carol Lumb Subject: Notice of Application Hello there, My name is Yon Lemieux. I am a home owner at 13045 33rd Ave S. I received notice in the mail of an application to build on the property next to my home. I have some questions about this. Would you be able to tell me what the terms "category III wetland" and "Type 3 stream and its buffers" means? Do you know if an environmental impact study has been done on this proposal? I'm particularly concerned because there is a pool of water and significant flow from it that is right above my property. I'd like to know what assurances I have that my home will not be flooded by such a project. Thank you! YL (206) 849-3409 File # L4-0006 1 Carol Lumb From: Carol Lumb Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 12:22 PM To: Jeffrey Jones (jeffjsjones@comcast.net) Subject: Dreamcatcher Homes Attachments: Keirouz complete L14-0002-L14-0006.pdf Jeff, We have determined that both applications submitted on behalf of Dreamcatcher Homes are complete and will be moving forward in preparing for the mailing and posting of the site. I am attaching the letter formally notifying you of our determination of completeness along with review comments for the reasonable use application. We would be happy to sit down with you to go over the comments, just let me know. I need some possible dates when you and Jay are available to attend the public hearings before the Hearing Examiner — I am anticipating that the hearings will be in early May, so if you could check calendars and get back to me as soon as possible, I would appreciate it. I need to include the tentative hearing date in the public notice materials. Let me know if you have questions or would like to meet. Thanks. Carol Carol Lumb, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 206-431-3661 Carol.Lumb@Tukwila 1/Va.fov Tukwila, the City of opportunity, the community of choice. 1 r!) City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATIONS March 4, 2014 Jeffery S. Jones J.S. Jones and Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 1908 Issaquah, WA 98027 RE: Dream Catcher Homes Reasonable Use Application, L14-0002 and Lot Size Variance L14-0006 Dear Jeff: Thank you for submitting the fee for the public notice mailing and making arrangements for the public notice sign board's installation. Your application for approval of a reasonable use, L14-0002, located on 33rd Avenue South (parcel number 7359600473) has been found to be complete on March 4, 2014 for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. The City has also reviewed your application for a lot size variance, L14-0006, and determined that this application is complete as well for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. This determination of complete application does not preclude the City from requesting additional plans or information for either application, 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. We have completed a preliminary review of the reasonable use project and determined that additional information is needed to continue review. These comments are attached. Please provide the information requested as soon as possible so review can continue on the reasonable use application. I would appreciate your identifying 3-4 dates when you and your client are available for a public hearing in early May. The hearings on both applications will be held before the City's hearing examiner during business hours. The tentative hearing date will be included in the information provided in the public notice that must be sent out (and posted on the site) in the next 14 days. This notice of complete application applies only to the permit identified above. It is your responsibility to apply for and obtain any other necessary permits issued by other agencies. There may be permits from other agencies required which we have not identified. CL Page 1 of 2 H:\\L14-002 Keirouz Reasonable Use\ L14-0002 & L14-0006 Complete 03/04/2014 11:09 AM 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax 206-431-3665 r`1 L14-0002 Dreamcatcher Homes Reasonable Use and Lot Size Variance March 4, 2014 If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 431-3661. Sincerely, Carol Lumb Senior Planner Enclosure — Review Comments CL Page 2 of 2 H:\\L14-002 Keirouz Reasonable Use\L14-0002 & L14-0006 Complete 03/04/2014 11:09 AM Additional Information Needed to Continue Project Review: Approval criteria #2 for reasonable use states: "As a result of the proposed development there will be no unreasonable threat to the public health, safety or welfare on or off the development proposal site." The following additional information is needed to analyze the impacts of developing the subject property: SEPA We have reviewed the SEPA checklist submitted in 1999. At that time a Determination of Nonsignficance was issued for the reasonable use project. In our review of the original Checklist, we have determined that a SEPA Addendum is needed for this project. There is no application to complete for the Addendum, however, there is an additional fee of $607.95. The original Checklist can be supplemented with the additional information requested below and any other more recent information you believe is relevant to the proposed project. Please review the answers provided in 1999 and update them, in particular provide additional or updated information for the following items — numbers in parentheses refer to the Checklist question: 1. Clarify the size of the building footprint for the proposed house (A. 11); 2. The Checklist provides conflicting information on whether fill will be used (B.1.e.) — clarify whether fill is needed to create a building pad and driveway and if so, how much fill is needed. Additionally, how much excavation will take place? 3. Has the percent of the site to be covered by impervious surfaces changed? If so, what is the correct percentage? (B 1.g.) 4. For question B. 3. a. 2) The stream cuts across the lower half of the site at an angle and discharges near the northeast edge of the site. This information needs to be incorporated into the checklist, as well as impacts to the stream from relocating part of it or otherwise keeping the flow away from the proposed house and driveway. 5. Information from the drainage/hydrology assessment (see below) and geotech review should be incorporated into the checklist. Drainage/Hydrology Assessment: DCD and the City's surface water engineer visited the site on February 5, 2014. Based on that visit, and a review of the documents submitted in 1999, the following comments must be addressed: 6. The primary concern with development of this site is that a house is proposed to be constructed within a wetland and the potential for drainage, safety, and health problems that may occur in the future both on-site as well as on adjacent down -stream properties as CL Page I of 4 03/04/2014 11:37 AM H:\\L14-0002 Keirouz Reasonable use\Attachment A 0 L14-0002, Keirouz Reasonable Use Project Review Comments a result of the displacement of the wetland functions. During the site visit, springs above and within the site were observed. The 1999 proposal included a retaining wall on the western portion of the site — it is not clear if that is what is proposed currently. Given the amount of water that is present, it does not appear that a proposal to install a retaining wall with a wall drain to intercept most of the ground water prior to it entering the yard portion of the site is adequate, nor will this approach keep water from coming to the surface below the house or on the driveway. Please provide the following: a. Submit a new drainage and hydrology assessment conforming to the 2009 KCSWDM and to an updated geotechnical engineer's recommendations. The drainage report should evaluate the impact of the proposed development on stream hydrology and wetland function and accurately reflect the location and direction of the current stream flow. The original drainage assessment acknowledges that other water sheet flows across the site — what will happen to this flow when it is interrupted by the construction of a house and driveway (and fill if fill is proposed for the site)? b. Have a geotechnical engineer review the site and the 1999 geotechnical comments, update and revise the comments based on the current development proposal if necessary and make recommendations concerning dewatering the property. c. In addition to the wall drain and drainage system beneath the house, it is recommended that a deep (6'-8') cutoff trench across the back yard beneath the "valley" to intercept ground water flows. The trench would use an 8" perforated pipe surrounded by drain rock and wrapped in an approved geotextile fabric. This should allow the back yard to be usable and keep most of the groundwater from coming to the surface beneath the house. A geotechnical engineer should assess this recommendation based on actual subsurface conditions and modify or propose other means to accomplish the same goal. d. Pipes from the neighboring property and a trench were observed on the northwest side of this site. Please discuss how this drainage will be addressed — will it need to be piped or dealt with in another way? e. Additional dewatering may be required beneath the driveway to keep groundwater from flowing up through cracks and freezing on the planned 12% grade. Please address this issue. 2014 Sensitive Areas Study: 7. Revise the sensitive areas study to: a. Include the wetland mitigation square footages information from the response to the Reasonable Use criteria on amount of wetland impact, the amount of on-site mitigation and the amount of additional off-site mitigation needed in the sensitive areas study. b. Reflect increased planting densities over what has been submitted, including installation of vegetation along the stream banks c. Discuss impacts on the wetland and the watercourse (as well as the adjacent property to the north) from the proposed construction. CL Page 2 of 4 03/04/2014 11:37 AM H:\\L14-0002 Keirouz Reasonable use\Attachment A L14-0002, Keirouz Reasonat„ise Project Review Comments d. Provide a discussion on the off-site mitigation proposed to compensate for the wetland fill — how much and where it will be implemented; e. Correctly map the course of the stream, the springs on-site (or the location where springs daylight or flow on to the property) and the actual discharge point of the stream. Also, the Sensitive Areas Study states that the stream is both seasonal (page 1) and year-round (page 4) — please correct one of these references. f. Identify proposed in -stream improvements and describe new bank configuration and conditions (include a cross section). Tukwila's code requires that for any work proposed in a stream (such as rerouting part of it), the stream be restored to a better condition than existing conditions. g. Revise the conceptual mitigation plan to indicate how stream flow will be managed and where and how it will discharge; h. Provide more detail on how invasive vegetation will be managed and which vegetation (both invasive and non-invasive) will be removed. Reasonable Use Criteria 8. Please address more completely the impacts to adjacent properties from the wetland fill/displacement, based on the updated information from the drainage study and any other pertinent information. Mitigation Plans The mitigation plan is reviewed and approved as part of the reasonable use application, therefore more details are needed on what is proposed: 9. Identify the significant trees to be removed from the site and provide tree replacement figures, per TMC 18.54. 10. What off-site mitigation is proposed to compensate for the remaining area that is needed to achieve 12:1 mitigation for enhancement? 11. Sheet 2/3 of the Mitigation Plan, indicate where the silt fencing is to be located. 12. Sheet 2/3 of the Mitigation Plan, correct the wetland sign detail, per TMC 18.45.060 6. 13. Sheet 2/3 of the Mitigation Plan, Tree and Shrub Planting and Staking Detail — the vegetation is to be placed at the same level as the native soil, not one inch above it. Remove the staking notes. 14. Sheet 3/3 of the Mitigation Plan, note 9.13 —the entire mitigation area is to be amended, not just the planting pit areas where plants are to be located. 15. Sheet 3/3 of the Mitigation Plan, remove note 9.18 — there is to be no staking of trees. 16. Sheet 3/3 of the Mitigation Plan, correct all notations of the monitoring time from 3 years to 5, as required by TMC 18.45. 17. Sheet 3/3 of the Mitigation Plan, note 11.0 — third bullet — add two species of herbaceous/emergent plants to the trees and shrubs to be established at the end of the monitoring period. CL Page 3 of 4 03/04/2014 11:54 AM H:\\L14-0002 Keirouz Reasonable use\Attachment A L14-0002, Keirouz Reasonable Use Project Review Comments 18. Please identify the mitigation proposed for the stream channel, particularly if additional piping or replacement piping will be used on the site. 19. Sheet 3/3 of the Mitigation Plan, note 12.1— include streambank/erosion monitoring in the transect and plot areas being monitored. 20. Sheet 3/3 of the Mitigation Plan, note 12.3 — add stream monitoring data criteria to the items being monitored. 21. Sheet 3/3 of the Mitigation Plan, change the heading of note 13.0 to "Financial Assurance/Developer Warranty" and revise the paragraph text to remove references to bonds. Other Permits Based on the site conditions and the proposed project, it appears that you will need the following other determinations or permits: a. Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Determination; b. Corps of Engineers individual 404 or Nationwide permit for filling wetland and altering a watercourse (if determined to be jurisdictional); and c. If watercourse relocation and working in a watercourse is proposed, then a HPA is required. Please provide a copy of these approvals/permits as soon as possible. It is important that any requirements of the COE or Washington State Dept. of Fish and Wildlife be reflected in the mitigation plan submitted to the City to avoid changes to the mitigation plan after the Hearing Examiner decision is issued. CL Page 4 of 4 H:\\L14-0002 Keirouz Reasonable use\Attachment A 03/04/2014 11:54 AM February 12, 2014 City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION Jeffery S. Jones J.S. Jones and Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 1908 Issaquah, WA 98027 RE: Dream Catcher Homes Reasonable Use Application Dear Mr. Jones: Your application for approval of a reasonable use application located on 33"1 Avenue South (parcel number 7359600473) has been found to be incomplete. In order to be a complete application, the following must be submitted to the permit center: a. The mailing labels required for the public notice process have not been submitted. If you want the City to generate the labels, a fee of $498.75 is required. Please also ensure you have made arrangements with a sign company for the installation of the public notice sign. The City works with Fast Signs (206-575-2110, Springbrook Business Park 7825 S.180th Street, Kent, WA) however, you may use any sign company you wish. Please let me know the name, telephone number and email address of the sign company, so that I can provide them with information needed for the sign board. Information about both the mailing labels and the notice board can be found on pages 1 and 2 of the Reasonable Use Application. Upon receipt of the item noted above, the City will re -review the application for completeness and mail you written notification of whether the application is complete or incomplete within 14 days. The reasonable use application 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). This notice of complete application applies only to the permit identified above. It is your responsibility to apply for and obtain any other necessary permits issued by other agencies. In our initial review it appears the project is subject to a Hydraulics Project Approval (HPA) from the State Department of Fish and Wildlife and possibly a COE individual 404 or Nationwide permit for filling wetland. Please contact these agencies directly to find out what their application requirements are. There may be permits from other agencies required which we have not identified. CL H:\\L14-0002 Keirouz Reasonable Use\Incomplete Page 1 of 2 02/12/2014 3:04 PM 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax 206-431-3665 Mr. Jeffrey S. Jones February 12, 2014 Dream Catcher Homes Reasonable Use We have undertaken a preliminary review of the materials that were submitted with the reasonable use application, as well as documents that were provided for the 1999 reasonable use application. These comments will be provided within the next few days for your review. As a point of information, construction of a single family house on the subject property requires a lot size variance, since it is below the minimum lot size of 6,500 sq. ft. The link to this application was provided on August 30, 2013 in an e-mail but this application was not submitted with the reasonable use application. It is not required for us to consider the reasonable use application, however, the lot size variance application is also reviewed by the Hearing Examiner. You have the option of including the application and consolidating the public hearing if you wish — or the application can be considered separately and two public hearings and two fees will be incurred for the use of the hearing examiner. Please let me know if your client wants to apply for the lot size variance at this time. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 431-3661. Sincerely, Carol Lumb Senior Planner cc: File CL H:\\L14-0002 Keirouz Reasonable Use\Incomplete Page 2 of 2 02/12/2014 3:04 PM Carol Lumb From: Ryan Larson Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 9:43 AM To: Carol Lumb Cc: Sandra Whiting Subject: RE: Keirouz Reasonable Use SEPA Carol, My primary concern with development of this site is that a house is proposed to be constructed within a wetland and the potential for drainage, safety, and health problems that may occur in the future. From our limited inspection of the site, we observed springs above and within the site. I do not believe that simply installing a retaining wall with a wall drain will intercept most of the ground water prior to it entering the yard portion of the site or keep it from coming to the surface below the house or on the driveway. Here are my recommendations for this proposal: 1— In addition to the wall drain and drainage system beneath the house, install a deep (6'-8') cutoff trench across the back yard beneath the "valley" to intercept ground water flows. The trench would use an 8" perferated pipe surrounded by drain rock and wrapped in an approved geotextile fabric. This should allow the back yard to be usable and keep most of the groundwater from coming to the surface beneath the house. 2 — Pipes from the neighboring property and a trench was observed on the north west side of this site. This drainage will need to piped or dealt with. 3 — Additional dewatering may be required beneath the driveway to keep groundwater from flowing up through cracks and freezing on the planned 12% grade. 4 - Have a geotechnical engineer review the site and make recommendations concerning dewatering it. 5 — Submit a new drainage assessment conforming to the 2009 KCSWDM and to the geotechnical engineers recommendations. Please let me know if you have any questions on this. Thanks - Ryan From: Sandra Whiting Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 12:21 PM To: Carol Lumb; Ryan Larson Subject: RE: Keirouz Reasonable Use SEPA I briefly looked at the drainage report and think it needs updating and expansion to evaluate impacts on stream hydrology from doing the project. It doesn't recognize any wetland function, calls the stream a ditch and does not accurately reflect current stream flow or the direction of flow (it mentions the ditch on the south side of the property and shows it discharging along that edge to the ditch in the street instead of showing the actual flow direction and discharge point. It also states that the other water sheet flows across the site, but doesn't address the impact of interrupting that flow with fill for the house and driveway. It needs to expand the intent and not just to the engineering issues of drainage, but also the impact issues to the wetland hydrology function and the stream function and how the stream will flow to the ditch in the future. That's my 2 cents worth for now. I'll try to look at the geotech too. Sandra From: Carol Lumb Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 2:46 PM 1 To: Ryan Larson Cc: Sandra Whiting Subject: FW: Keirouz Reasonable Use SEPA Ryan, Here is the drainage report — also some other documents you may or may not be interested in — we might ask to have information supplemented for the SEPA checklist, so if you have time to look over what they wrote under the water section that would be helpful as well. Thanks. Carol From: Carol Lumb Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 5:59 PM To: Minnie Dhaliwal; Sandra Whiting Subject: Keirouz Reasonable Use SEPA Sandra and Minnie: Well, I should have reviewed the previous files before we met today —SEPA was conducted on the first RU application — E99-0017. Jeffrey Jones prepared the SEPA checklist as well as the mitigation materials. There is also a drainage assessment & downstream analysis that was prepared by an engineer and a three page letter from GEOTECH Consultants. I will attach copies of these documents for your review Sandra. The geotech might need to be updated as I imagine the site is more wet than it was back in 1999. The checklist is a little thin and does not have consistent info on whether fill will be brought in for where the house will be constructed. I found my notes from an August 9, 2013 meeting with Jeffrey Jones and Mr. Keirouz — I had made a notation to see if they needed a new SEPA since it had been done in 1999 but I don't recall whether I talked to you about this Minnie or not. Carol Carol Lund), Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 So u th cen ter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 206-431-3661 Carol. L umb@Tuh wilaWa.go v Tukwila, the City of opportunity, the community of choice. 2 Carol Lumb From: Sent: To: Subject: Sandra Whiting Monday, February 10, 2014 2:47 PM Carol Lumb RE: Keirouz Reasonable Use SEPA I took a quick look at the geotech and the SEPA checklist. The checklist needs to be revised to reflect actual site conditions (watercourse and wetland) and the impacts. Also several responses are not clear (for example the section on dredging/filling). Other information to be submitted: 1. Copy of Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Determination (prior to building permit being issued but it would behoove the applicant to get this done ASAP) 2. Copy of Corps of Engineers individual 404 or Nationwide permit (prior to building permit issuance) for filling wetland and altering a watercourse (if determined to be jurisdictional). It would behoove the applicant to get this permit so that any additional Corps requirements are incorporated into the mitigation design before, we issue our Special Permission. 3. Copy of HPA for watercourse relocation (again, the sooner the better). 4. Amount of fill/excavation proposed to construct the house and driveway 5. Revision of sensitive areas study: a. that correctly maps the course of the stream, the springs on-site (or the location where springs daylight or flow on to the property) and the actual discharge point of the stream. b. that discusses impacts on the wetland and the watercourse (as well as the adjacent property to the north) from the proposed construction. c. Revised conceptual mitigation plan that indicates how streamflow will be managed and where and how it will discharge; d. in -stream improvements proposed; e. more detail on how invasive vegetation (and which) will be removed; f. increased planting densities over what has been submitted. I think that's it (in addition to what Ryan wrote). Sandra From: Carol Lumb Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 2:46 PM To: Ryan Larson Cc: Sandra Whiting Subject: FW: Keirouz Reasonable Use SEPA Ryan, Here is the drainage report — also some other documents you may or may not be interested in — we might ask to have information supplemented for the SEPA checklist, so if you have time to look over what they wrote under the water section that would be helpful as well. Thanks. 1 � 0 Carol From: Carol Lumb Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 5:59 PM To: Minnie Dhaliwal; Sandra Whiting Subject: Keirouz Reasonable Use SEPA Sandra and Minnie: Well, I should have reviewed the previous files before we met today —SEPA was conducted on the first RU application — E99-0017. Jeffrey Jones prepared the SEPA checklist as well as the mitigation materials. There is also a drainage assessment & downstream analysis that was prepared by an engineer and a three page letter from GEOTECH Consultants. I will attach copies of these documents for your review Sandra. The geotech might need to be updated as I imagine the site is more wet than it was back in 1999. The checklist is a little thin and does not have consistent info on whether fill will be brought in for where the house will be constructed. I found my notes from an August 9, 2013 meeting with Jeffrey Jones and Mr. Keirouz — I had made a notation to see if they needed a new SEPA since it had been done in 1999 but I don't recall whether I talked to you about this Minnie or not. Carol Carol Lumb, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 206-131-3661 Caro1.L umb§Tukwila Wa.gov Tukwila, the City of opportunity, the community of choice. 2 Carol Lumb From: Sandra Whiting Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2014 12:21 PM To: Carol Lumb; Ryan Larson Subject: RE: Keirouz Reasonable Use SEPA I briefly looked at the drainage report and think it needs updating and expansion to evaluate impacts on stream hydrology from doing the project. !t doesn't recognize any wetland function, calls the stream a ditch and does not accurately reflect current stream flow or the direction of flow (it mentions the ditch on the south side of the property and shows it discharging along that edge to the ditch in the street instead of showing the actual flow direction and discharge point. It also states that the other water sheet flows across the site, but doesn't address the impact of interrupting that flow with fill for the house and driveway. It needs to expand the intent and not just to the engineering issues of drainage, but also the impact issues to the wetland hydrology function and the stream function and how the stream will flow to the ditch in the future. That's my 2 cents worth for now. I'll try to look at the geotech too. Sandra From: Carol Lumb Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 2:46 PM To: Ryan Larson Cc: Sandra Whiting Subject: FW: Keirouz Reasonable Use SEPA Ryan, Here is the drainage report — also some other documents you may or may not be interested in — we might ask to have information supplemented for the SEPA checklist, so if you have time to look over what they wrote under the water section that would be helpful as well. Thanks. Carol From: Carol Lumb Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 5:59 PM To: Minnie Dhaliwal; Sandra Whiting Subject: Keirouz Reasonable Use SEPA Sandra and Minnie: Well, I should have reviewed the previous files before we met today —SEPA was conducted on the first RU application — E99-0017. Jeffrey Jones prepared the SEPA checklist as well as the mitigation materials. There is also a drainage assessment & downstream analysis that was prepared by an engineer and a three page letter from GEOTECH Consultants. I will attach copies of these documents for your review Sandra. The geotech might need to be updated as I imagine the site is more wet than it was back in 1999. The checklist is a little thin and does not have consistent info on whether fill will be brought in for where the house will be constructed. I found my notes from an August 9, 2013 meeting with Jeffrey Jones and Mr. Keirouz — I had made a notation to see if they needed a new SEPA since it had been done in 1999 but I don't recall whether I talked to you about this Minnie or not. Carol Carol Lumb, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southeenter Blvd.„ Suite 100 Tukwila, 14:1 98188 206-431-3661 ( rol. LumbgTukwila Wa,gov i/o. !Ire Lit! , dr(' 2 Carol Lumb From: Carol Lumb Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2013 5:22 PM To: Jihad Keirouz (keirouzja@gmail.com); Jeffrey Jones (jeffjsjones@comcast.net) Cc: Minnie Dhaliwal Subject: Remaiing Questions Dear Jay, I am following up on our meeting last week on a possible reasonable use application for property you own at 13031 33' Avenue South. There were two questions from that meeting that remained to be answered: 1) You asked to meet with the City Attorney to receive assurance that if you apply for reasonable use on this site a second time, the application would not be denied and 2) whether a new survey is required for the site. Our attorney does not meet with potential applicants for land use projects as that would compromise her ability to represent the City should there be a legal dispute about the project in the future. What I can say is that the City reviews all applications with an open mind, and that any application is reviewed fairly against the review and approval criteria set forth in the Zoning Code. No guarantee or legal representation can be made as to a particular outcome (approve, approve with conditions, deny) prior to reviewing the application materials, the proposed mitigation for the project and applying the standards set forth in the code. The other question you asked me to research is whether you can use the survey from the 1998 submittal for a new reasonable use application. As we discussed at the meeting, the wetland and stream need to be re -surveyed to confirm that there have been no changes in site conditions over the 14 years since the initial application. You will need a new site survey stamped by a currently licensed surveyor, to incorporate the wetland survey flags, however, if the former survey pins remain, there will be less work for the new surveyor to do to establish the property boundaries. I am out of the office September 5-24. In my absence, if you have questions, please contact Minnie Dhaliwal at Minnie.Dhaliwal@Tukwilawa.gov. If your questions can wait until my return, I will get back to you as soon as I can. Sincerely, Carol Carol Lumb, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 So u th cen ter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 206-431-3661 CarolLumb@TukwilaWa.gov Wa.gov Tukwila, the City of opportunity, the community of choice. 1 eat" at guitutita Department Of Community Development AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I, Teri Svedahl HEREBY DECLARE THAT: , x Notice of Application Mailing requested by: Caro L . ;f. Notice of Decision Mailer's signature: zt--K>t Notice of Public Hearing Notice of Public Meeting Determination of Non- Significance Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit Shoreline Mgmt Permit Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Official Notice Notice of Action Other: Was mailed to each of the addresses listed/attached on this _25 day of _March , _2014 Project Name: Dreamcatcher Homes Project Number: PL14-0002 Associated File Number (s): L14-0006 Mailing requested by: Caro L . ;f. Mailer's signature: zt--K>t __ W:\USERS\TERI\TEMPLATES-FORMSWFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION.DOC City of Tukwila Notice of Application Dreamcatcher Homes Reasonable Use and Lot Size Variance Applications Location: 131xx 33rd Ave. South Applicant: Jeffrey Jones for Dreamcatcher Homes File# L4-0002, L14-0006; SEPA Addendum E14-0005 (previous SEPA E99-017) Proiect Planner: Carol Lumb, 206-431.3661 or Car- ol.Lumb@tukwilawa.gov Proiect Description: Lot size variance to construct a home on a lot that is less than 6,500 sq. ft. and a Reasonable Use application to construct a home on a parcel constrained by a Category III wetland and Type 3 stream and their buffers. LD Project Site Comments & Appeals: The applications are available for review at the City of Tukwila, Dept of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100, Tukwila WA 98188. Your written com- ments on the project are requested and can be de ivered to DCD at the above email or postal addresses. Comments must be received by 5:00 PM on Thursday, April 10, 2014. A public hearing as been tenta- tively scheduled for 10:00 a.m. Thursday, May 29, 2014—please call to confirm the hearing date. You may request a copy of any decision, information on hearings, and your appeal rights by calling 206-431-3661. Your are receiving this notice because you are a property owner or tenant within 500 ft. of this project. City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Ste 100 Tukwila, WA. 98188 0 0 FirstName Malthy Stephanie L Thomas F Tuyen Salvador G Nola V & John Miguel & Ornelas Oliv Christine L James R Alfred E Rozine A Bonnie A Matthew C & Donohoe Sonya Grant Steven M Duc H & Van N David P David Elizabeth T John Wesley & Maria De L Kenneth C & Susan A James L & Judy Steven M Serena S Rose M & Wirth Kathleen Joseph F * Leonard & Opalchuk Y Gordon A Allan Jr & Lu Sharon Cynthia J Joseph Roy M Mr & Mrs LastName Tra n Marsh Humkey Le Lopez Dickover Maestas Martin Postel Patterson Cox Johnson Mccormick Slaughter Mullet Tra n Mullet Mullet Mullet Lunz Wittman Martin Mullet Quynn Floyd Roerick HCH SPECIALTY CENTER Gazhenko Nichols Thorne Chesak Zemo Wilder Donaldson Address 13201 32ND AVE S 126 SW 148TH ST # C-100 # 437 13213 32ND AVE S 13223 32ND AVE S 3130 S 133RD ST 13202 32ND AVE S 13208 32ND AVE S 13216 32ND AVE S 9231 24TH AVE SW 3206 S 133RD ST 3210 S 133RD ST 3306 S 132ND 3320 S 132ND ST 13055 33RD AVE S 3303 S 132ND PO BOX 23058 13221 34TH AVE S 13205 34TH AVE S 3309 S 132ND 13315 34TH AVE S 13301 34TH AVE S 10928 SE 164TH ST 3303 S 132ND ST 3214 S 132ND ST 3215 S 133RD ST 13059 33RD AVE S 12844 MILITARY RD S 3702 W VALLEY HWY STE 102 13206 31ST AVE S 13212 31ST AVE S 13218 31ST AVE S 3116 5 133RD ST 13206 34TH AVE S 13216 34TH AVE S CityState SEATTLE WA BURIEN WA SEATTLE WA SEATTLE WA TUKWILA WA TUKWILA WA SEATTLE WA SEATTLE WA SEATTLE WA TUKWILA WA TUKWILA WA SEATTLE WA TUKWILA WA TUKWILA WA SEATTLE WA SEATTLE WA SEATTLE WA TUKWILA WA TUKWILA WA SEATTLE WA SEATTLE WA RENTON WA SEATTLE WA SEATTLE WA TUKWILA WA SEATTLE WA TUKWILA WA AUBURN WA TUKWILA WA SEATTLE WA SEATTLE WA TUKWILA WA TUKWILA WA TUKWILA WA Zip 98168 98166 98168 98168 98168 98168 98168 98168 98106 98168 98168 98168 98168 98168 98168 98102 98168 98168 98168 98168 98168 98055 98168 98168 O 98188 98168 98168 98001 98168 98168 98168 98168 98168 98168 Norma L Lixia Yohanes & Shashe T Ye Wayne J & Mary Ann Thei Lem & Chroeng Noeum Yan Hua & Ren Zhixian Mark R Angela Robert & Julie M Nelson & Terrie D Stevens Douglas & Haydostian De Seizi M Hoang Thong & Le Sau Thi Tuan T & Yen Rodolfo S & Arceli R Yon F Paul O & Jo Ann Douglas G & Carmela S James W Vincenzo A Jusuf M & Nurbaiti Burt & Tammy Joseph & Thomas & Michael Ronald B Harold Erica L Robert P Joseph N Josh S Randal S Guntis Christopher Terrance Elizabeth S & Garza Ti Craig A Lewin Li Berhanu Dervin Lem Mao Ostby Burns Bruce Humiston Weese Yada Mai Nguyen Pascual Lemieux Curwick DREAM CATCHER HOMES LLC Brown Gochanour Pacecca Djuned Tauiliili Salle Munter Ross Mcadams Shirack Salle Byrum Walker Krenklis Yoshikawa Risser Lewis 12927 33RD PL S 14231 53RD AVE S 3226 S 130TH ST 3214 S 130TH 3208 S 130TH ST 3202 S 130TH ST 3207 S 130TH ST 13014 32ND AVE S PO BOX 69013 13022 32ND AVE S PO BOX 69255 13030 32ND AVE S 13032 32ND AVE S 13200 32ND AVE S 13049 33RD AVE S 13045 33RD AVE S 12630 DES MOINES MEMORIAL DR PO BOX 2608 13031 33RD AVE S 13029 33RD AVE S 3737 79TH AVE SE 13015 33RD AVE S 13011 33RD AVE S 725 9TH AVE # 305 13019 34TH AVE S 13027 34TH AVE S 13057 34TH AVE S 13050 33RD AVE S 10225 56TH AVE S 13032 33RD AVE S 826 W FULTON ST 13022 34TH AVE S 2416 32ND AVE W 13048 34TH AVE S 3404 S 132ND ST TUKWILA WA TUKWILA WA TUKWILA WA TUKWILA WA SEATTLE WA TUKWILA WA TUKWILA WA TUKWILA WA TUKWILA WA TUKWILA WA TUKWILA WA TUKWILA WA TUKWILA WA TUKWILLA WA SEATTLE WA TUKWILA WA SEATTLE WA LYNNWOOD WA TUKWILA WA TUKWILA WA MERCER ISLAND WA SEATTLE WA TUKWILA WA SEATTLE WA TUKWILA WA SEATTLE WA TUKWILA WA SEATTLE WA SEATTLE WA SEATTLE WA SEATTLE WA TUKWILA WA SEATTLE WA TUKWILA WA SEATTLE WA 98168 98168 98168 98168 98168 98168 98168 98168 98168 98168 98168 98168 98168 98168 98168 98168 98168 98036 98168 98168 98040 98165 98168 98104 98168 98168 98168 98168 98178 98168 98198 98168 98199 98168 98168 00 0003003000000300COCO030030300000003000000000000 0000000000000CO0000000030000CO0c0CO3COCO03000oo a a a a a a a a a a a¢ a a a a a a a a a a a a a a J J 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 J 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Q Q Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N v) H H H H H H H H H H I— H H I- I— H I- I- I— H H H H I- I-- I— 13044 34TH AVE S a 0) 47) a) 13024 34TH AVE S ANSEL LLOYD DUANE 13020 34TH AVE S MARTIN ROSEANNA D & BOYD A CO 3219 5 133RD ST 3309 S 132ND ST 13224 32ND AVE S 13065 33RD AVE 5 3233 S 133RD ST 13061 33RD AVE 5 13211 32ND AVE S 3306 S 132ND ST 13112 MILITARY RD 5 3412 S 132ND ST 13042 33RD AVE S 13047 34TH AVE S 13041 34TH AVE 5 13028 32ND AVE S 13028 33RD AVE 5 13033 34TH AVE 5 13025 33RD AVE S 13034 34TH LN S 13021 33RD AVE S 13018 32ND AVE 5 13004 33RD AVE S 13003 TUKWILA INTERNATIONAL BLVD 3214 S 130TH ST 12939 TUKWILA INTERNATIONAL BLVD 12927 33RD AVE S C= Cr CC C= C= CC CC Cr CC Cr CC Cr C= CC C= CC CC CC Cr CC CC CC CC CC UJ w w w w UJ w UJ w w w UJ w UJ w w w UJ w UJ w UJ w LU CO CO CO m 00 m m m o0 00 00 00 m m m m 00 m 00 m m m m 00 w • w w w w w w w • w • w • w • w w w • w • w • w w w w w w w w 22 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z m>>=>> D D= D>> D D D D D D D D>> D> '60• 0000000• 0• 0• 0• 000• 0• 0• 00000000 cl.uououuouuuuuuououuo X555555555555555555555555 L •= Y Y Y YYY Y GYYYYY Y YYYY Y YYYY * * o I— I— I— I— H H H H H H H H H I— H I— H I HH I HH H H H MOR MOR 0 City of Tukwila Notice of Application Dreamcatcher Homes Reasonable Use and Lot Size Variance Applications 31 Location: 131xx 33rd Ave. South Applicant: Jeffrey Jones for Dreamcatcher Homes File# L4-0002, L14-0006; SEPA previously con- \`''' + ducted under E99-017 Project Planner: Carol Lumb, 206-431.3661 or Carol.Lumb@tukwilawa.gov Project Description: Lot size variance to construct a home on a lot that is less than 6,500 sq. ft, and a Reasonable Use application to construct a home Z on a parcel almost completely constrained by a Category III wetland and Type 3 stream and their buffers. L LOR Comments & Appeals: The application is available for review at the City of Tukwila, Dept of Communi- ty Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100, Tukwila WA 98188. Your wri ten comments on the project are requested and can be delivered to DCD at the above address. Comments must be received by 5:00 PM on Monday, October 3, 2011. A pub- lic hearing as been tentatively scheduled for April , 2014—please call to confirm the hearing date. You may request a copy of any decision, information on hearings, and your appeal rights by calling 206-431-3661. Your are receiving this notice because you are a property owner or tenant within 500ft of this project. City of Tukwila Notice of Application Dreamcatcher Homes Reasonable Use and Lot Size Variance Applications n Location: 131xx 33rd Ave. South Applicant: Jeffrey Jones for Dreamcatcher Homes j►F� File# L4-0002, L14-0006; SEPA previously con- ducted under E99-017 Project Planner: Carol Lumb, 206-431.3661 or Carol.Lumb@tukwilawa.gov 108 Project Description: Lot size variance to construct a home on a lot that is less than 6,500 sq. ft. and a Reasonable Use application to construct a home • on a parcel almost completely constrained by a Category III wetland and Type 3 stream and their buffers. t.OR 1 Comments & Appeals: The application is available for review at the City of Tukwila, Dept of Communi- ty Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100, Tukwila WA 98188. Your wri ten comments on the project are requested and can be delivered to DCD at the above address. Comments must be received by 5:00 PM on Monday. October 3, 2011. A pub- lic hearing as been tentatively scheduled for April , 2014—please call to confirm the hearing date. You may request a copy of any decision, information on hearings, and your appeal rights by calling 206-431-3661. Your are receiving this notice because you are a property owner or tenant within 500ft of this project. City of Tukwila Notice of Application Dreamcatcher Homes Reasonable Use and Lot Size Variance Applications tnl Location: 131xx 33rd Ave. South 4 Applicant: Jeffrey Jones for Dreamcatcher Homes ha3 File# L4-0002, L14-0006; SEPA previously con- ducted under E99-017 Project Planner: Carol Lumb, 206-431.3661 or Carol.Lumb@tukwilawa.gov Project Description: Lot size variance to construct a home on a lot that is less than 6,500 sq. ft. and a Reasonable Use application to construct a home on a parcel almost completely constrained by a Category III wetland and Type 3 stream and their buffers. t Comments & Appeals: The application is available for review at the City of Tukwila, Dept of Communi- ty Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100, Tukwila WA 98188. Your wri ten comments on the project are requested and can be delivered to DCD at the above address. Comments mus be received by 5:00 PM on Monday, October 3, 2011. A pub- lic hearing as been tentatively scheduled for April , 2014—please call to confirm the hearing date. You may request a copy of any decision, information on hearings, and your appeal rights by calling 206-431-3661. Your are receiving this notice because you are a property owner or tenant within 500ft of this project. MOR City of Tukwila Notice of Application Dreamcatcher Homes Reasonable Use and Lot Size Variance Applications un't Location: 131xx 33rd Ave. South Applicant: Jeffrey Jones for Dreamcatcher Homes File# L4-0002, L14-0006; SEPA previously con- ducted under E99-017 con- ; ducted * Project Planner: Carol Lumb, 206-431.3661 or Carol.Lumb@tukwilawa.gov ti r t Project Description: Lot size variance to construct a home on a lot that is less than 6,500 sq. ft. and a Reasonable Use application to construct a home on a parcel almost completely constrained by a Category III wetland and Type 3 stream and their buffers. OR Comments & Appeals: The application is available for review at the City of Tukwila, Dept of Communi- ty Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100, Tukwila WA 98188. Your wri ten comments on the project are requested and can be delivered to DCD at the above address. Comments must be received by 5:00 PM on Monday, October 3, 2011. A pub- lic hearing as been tentatively scheduled for April , 2014—please call to confirm the hearing date. You may request a copy of any decision, information on hearings, and your appeal rights by calling 206-431-3661. Your are receiving this notice because you are a property owner or tenant within 500ft of this project. (;)TY OF TUKWILA (, NOTICE OF APPLICATION PROJECT INFORMATION Jeffer y S. Jones for Dreamcatcher Homes has filed a SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) Addendum, Reasonable Use and Lot Size Variance applications for property at 131XX 33rd Avenue South, Tukwila. Permits applied for include: L14-0002: Reasonable Use Application L14-0006: Lot Size Variance E14-0005: SEPA Addendum Other known required permits include: Building Permit, Public Works Clearing/Grading Permit. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (U.S. COE) Jurisdictional Determination, possibly U.S. COE 404 or Nationwide permit; possible Hydraulic Project Approval. Studies required with the applications include: Wetland and Stream Assessment, November 25, 2013, prepared by Jeffery S. Jones. The City of Tukwila has requested additional information related to site drainage and hydrology and geotechnical analysis. A Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) for a similar proposal to develop the site (E99-0017) was issued November 16, 1999. The applicant is updating environmental information through a SEPA Addendum for this project, file number E14-0005. FILES AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW The project files are available at the City of Tukwila. To view the files, you may request them at the counter at the Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard #100. Please call the number listed below to make arrangements to view the files. Project Files include: L14-0002: Reasonable Use Application, L14-0006: Lot Size Variance and E14-0005, SEPA Addendum. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT Your written comments on the project are requested. They must be delivered to DCD at the address below or postmarked no later than 5:00 P.M., June 20, 2014. Opportunity for additional oral and/or written public comments will be provided at a public hearing before the Tukwila Hearing Examiner at the DCD offices, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100, Tukwila, WA 98188. The public hearing, originally scheduled for Thursday, May 29, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. has been postponed. Public notice will be provided when a new hearing date is set. To confirm the hearing date call the Department of Community Development at (206) 431-3661. APPEALS You may request a copy of any decision, information on hearings, and your appeal rights by calling DCD at (206) 431-3670. Both the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and Shoreline Variance are appealable to the Washington State Shoreline Hearings Board. For further information on this proposal, contact Carol Lumb at (206) 431-3661 or visit our offices at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100, Tukwila, WA 98188, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Application Filed: Notice of Completeness Issued: Notice of Application Issued: Notice of Application Re -Issued: January 15, 2014 March 4, 2014 March 25, 2014 June 6, 2014 CL H:\\Dreamcatcher Homes NOA\L14-0002-L14-0006-E14-0005 NOA 06/05/2014 2:36 PM f 0101E* MOUS FIRE MOUNT 1 ASI+4KT DRIVE •�,• s. 'F, BINTERS WATER E TOP -240.04 / \ EI7 - 99v, 29 TIE /1 TOP PK NAL N A1P14K7. EIEVATON - 240.94 RET. DATUK NAV006 30' E r PVC OUTFALL -240.72 E tr CONCRETE OUTFALL -141.31 SURVEY NOTES: INERUYENTS AND PROCEDURES A 'SPECTRA FOCUS 30 r ROBOTIC TOTAL STATION WAS LIED FOR 110 F1ED TRAVORE 9E1E7 KIRK. M A11EL14 OPS MEM WAS LIED FOR 114E C011001 ROIL ACCURACY EXCEEDS MAC 332-130-000. 111E VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVE -!Q TIE 101101 NARK IS SURVEY CONTROL PONT N0. 3449 PER SURVEY CONTROL PONT DATA MEET MONIED AS A YON N CASE MTI A 1' X 1' READ N111 •+• LOCATED AT THE NTERECRON 0.F 0.125111 ST ANO 24111 AVE S. ELEVATOR - 710.0.3 FEET. TIE BOUNDEN LIES 940119 MERLON ME PER MEOOM OF SURVEY MENDED UNDER RECO DN0 N0. 9111179111 111E LOT UIE0 OF SAID 9NVEY NAVE BEE1 ROTATED TO MAD1111 BY MEA COUPLE OF FOUND LOT TE CORNER0. I NANO A3 TO 144E ACCURACY OF SAID 911R9Y. 019.Y 110 U1L111E5 TIAL ME MESE NAVE BEEN LOCATED. UNITES MAT ARE 1NDERCR011ND OR ME OBSCURED BY VEETATDN MAY NOT HAVE BEEN LOCATED. PRIOR TO DIMING, NVES110141111 FOR RESER MD0OI UNDERGROUND MIMES MOULD BE VERIFIED. 11E BASIS OF BEAIOK0 9 STATE PLANE (NADAS 1191) M ESTEEMED BY OPS. TIE CONTROL PONT SENO PONT N0. 3440 PER SURVEY CONTROL PONT DATA 91EET OESONED AS A BON N CASE 1914 /11' X 1' READ ETH •+• LOCATED AT TIE NhTECIO4 OF 0.1259 ST 119 2414 AVE S THE TREES 9400 1000011 NEE BEEN DENNED AND 91ED TO TE BEST OF MY ABILITY. 10EEVER, I NNE NO ■AR ERIY AS TO THE ACCURACY TEREOF. F 111E PROPER E1EII11FICA1DN OF TE SIZE RI10 SPECIES ME DEFIED TO OE CRITICAL, THEN A TRAINED ARBORIST MORD FE1D VERFY 1105 SURVEY MAS CONDUCTED /MOUT 111E RE EFIT OF A CURRENT 117LE REPORT AND 11EAEOE DOES NOT SHOW ALL EASEMENTS OR RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD — F ANY. NNI9R.1101W N5742'3rw (PER ROB 9911179012) \ \ \ UTUTY LEGEND . 023 IN SAOTMY ERR NANIOLE 1 CONCRETE 3*88 E16 ■CO CATCH BANN •PP POWER POE 0--0-0 wow FENCE 0 y MATER /NEIEIR CC= ROCKERY ® 0ERNE RAO OHM ORDINARY 1934 MAIM UNE —Y— REILA1D BOUNDARY SCALE 1•-10' 5 10 20 \ 117.71' E r PVC OWN). A E 4• ANENT -29x(16 \EO TREE LEGEND • 10• DIN OR EIDER TREE AS 9091 • Ir TO 1r ODI TREE AS MOO If INTR T01D'DEEAS910014 • • CEDAR 01 RID MERRY CM 0017010005 TBIE h: TDP 'AEN EAST SIE OF NEM POLE. ELEVATION - 240.11 FEET. DATE NEON& LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 12 MACK 5, R34EIIIS SPIMIl080OK AOM110N 70 1111011101, ACCONNO 1D TIE PLAT DERBY, IIECOR512 N MILNE 10 OF PUTS. PACE 07, RECORDS OF REG CONTY, WASHINGTON. • Stem Taa Patte% 4u1 Sdavesiop Semites 30 7434 1510 07 K MEIN M 10002 14. 435 997-1715 O0U wMY:99-NYrsw, SITE PLAN Drearncatcher Homes Inc. PA BOX 2608, LYNNWOOD, VA 98036 DATE: OCT 14, 2013 .108 NO. CNKD. BY: SCALE 1' - 10' SHEET 1 • J S. Jones and Associates, Inc. Single -Family Residence Reasonable Use Exception Wetland Impacts & Stream Buffer Impacts and Compliance with RUE Decision Criteria For 131 XX 33rd Ave. S. ��,�G �� Tukwila, WA 98168 'ck,5� Tax Parcel No.: 735960-0473 y .�,A;GNB Qv - Applicant: Jihad Kierouz Dreamcatcher Homes, LLC P.O. Box 2608 Lynnwood, Washington 98036 Dated: November 18, 2013 Prepared by: Jeffery S. Jones, Professional Wetland Scientist & Wildlife Biologist PO BOX 1908 ISSAQUAH, WASHINGTON 9 8 0 2 7 253-905-5736 jeff.jsjo nes@comcast.net Dreamcatcher Homes RUE Project Description The applicant, Dreamcatcher Homes, LLC, proposes to construct a single-family residence on the subject property. The property is a vacant parcel zoned residential. The surrounding area is existing homes. Almost the entire property is a Category III wetland. The wetland has saturated soil with a black sandy loam texture in the upper 12 inches. Below 12 inches, the soils are gleyed and prominently mottled. The source of hydrology is a seepage spring. The plant community is Himalayan blackberry, red alder, willow, and reed canarygrass. A few conifers are present near the southeast property corner. The buffer requirement is 80 feet. A Type 3 (Np) watercourse is present on-site; see the site plan for the location. The stream channel is and eroded ditch. A few 3 -foot sections of the eroded 12 inch diameter concrete pipe are present (see photos). The channel has eroded down to a hardpan. The channel gradient varies from 1-5%. The stream buffer and channel are dominated by reed canarygrass and Himalayan blackberry. Habitat conditions are poor. No endangered, threatened, or sensitive species are present. The stream discharges into the city storm drainage system under 33rd Ave. S. The stream buffer requirement is 80 feet. A buffer reduction is necessary for any use of the site under the current zoning. Impacts to the wetland and stream are unavoidable. The applicant proposes to minimize impacts by constructing the residence the minimum setback from the road right-of-way and avoiding impacts to the stream with the exception of a culvert for the driveway. Impacts will be mitigated by restoring the remainder of the site to a native plant community and providing money for other city mitigation projects. The ratio of wetland enhancement to wetland fill is 12:1. The proposed area of wetland impact is 3,045 square feet and the area of proposed on-site vegetative enhancement is 3,415 square feet. The required mitigation at a 12:1 ratio is 36,540 square feet, 3,045 square feet on-site and 33,495 square feet off-site. An on-site mitigation plan will be prepared as a condition of the reasonable use approval. 2 t Eroded Concrete Pipe in Stream Channel Under Himalayan Blackberries Overview of Property Looking Southwest from the Northeast Property Corner Dreamcatcher Homes RUE 3 Dreamcatcher Hones RUE Decision Criteria The decision criteria for granting a reasonable use exception must be met for approval. The decision criteria and discussion are as follows: 1. There is no feasible on-site alternative to the proposed activities, including reduction in size or density, modifications of setbacks, buffers or other land use restrictions or requirements, phasing of project implementation, change in timing of activities, revision of road and lot layout, and/or related site planning that would allow a reasonable economic use with fewer adverse impacts to the sensitive area. The applicant is proposing one single-family residence on the parcel. The site plan used the minimum street setback, reduced side setbacks and a 15 -foot rear bsbl. Clearing, grading, foundation and restoration enhancement work will be performed from May 1St to September 31St. Best Management Construction Practices will be required. 2. As a result of the proposed development there will be no unreasonable threat to the public health, safety or welfare on or off the development proposal site. There are no foreseeable threats to public health, safety, or welfare. 3. Alterations permitted shall be the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable use of the property. The applicant cannot reasonable use the property for any other use than residential. The proposal is the minimum usable area that will meet those needs. The proposed house is two stories high and 24 feet wide, to minimize the house footprint. 4. The proposed development is compatible in design, scale and use with other development with similar site constraints in the immediate vicinity of the subject property, if such similar sites exist. The community consists of older homes that were constructed prior to the sensitive area regulations, except for the house immediately adjacent to the north of the subject property. That house was in wetland buffer and therefore not similar in impact to this proposal. 5. Disturbance of sensitive areas has been minimized by locating any necessary alterations in the buffers to the greatest extent possible. Impacts to the wetland and stream are unavoidable because critical areas occupy almost the entire site. 6. The inability to derive reasonable use of the property is not the result of: a. A segregation or division of a larger parcel on which a reasonable use was permittable after the effective date of the sensitive areas ordinance number 1599, June 10, 1991. b. Actions by the owner of the property (or the owner's agents, contractors or others under the owner's control) that occurred after the effective date of the sensitive areas ordinance provisions that prevents or interferes with the reasonable use of the property; or c. A violation of the sensitive areas ordinance The parcel has not been segregated or divided since the effective date of the sensitive areas ordinance. 4 Dreamcatcher Homes RUE There have been no actions by individuals or parties that interfere with reasonable use of the property. There are no violations against the property owner for actions on the property. 7. The commission, when approving a reasonable use exception, may impose conditions, including but not limited to a requirement for submission and implementation of an approved mitigation plan designed to assure that the development: a. Complies with the standards and policies of the sensitive areas ordinance to the extent feasible; and b. Does not create a risk of damage to other property or to the public health, safety and welfare. The applicant will submit a mitigation plan for vegetative enhancement of the remainder of the property outside of the proposed building envelope. There is no risk to public health, safety and welfare that will be caused by proposed site plan and reasonable use exception. 8. Approval of a reasonable use exception shall not eliminate the need for any other permit or approval otherwise required for a project, including but not limited to design review. The applicant will obtain all required permits for the project. 5 13031 33rd Ave South REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION L99-0049, E99-0017 Drainage Assessment Downstream Analysis October 13, 1999 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA OCT 201999 PERMIT CENTER 13031 33rd Ave South REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION L99-0049, E99-0017 Drainage Assessment Downstream Analysis EXPIRES 12/31/C c Prepared by Tye K. Simpson, PE For JAK Inc. > Introduction This report is being submitted in response to the City of Tukwila Public Works Department review comments for the Reasonable Use Exception at 13031 — 33" Ave South (L99-0049, E99-0017). The review comments as detailed in a letter date September 22, 1999 asked for additional information in regards to addressing Core Requirements 2, 3, 4 and 6 for Targeted Drainage Review Category 2. In particular the Public Works comments asked that the Small Site Review include an offsite flow analysis and supporting calculations, an offsite analysis including a Level One downstream analysis, indications of how water will be controlled during construction, and how the proposed system will be maintained after construction. The project is located in Tukwila on 0.17 acres. The project will construct a single family home on the property. The project address is 13031 33` Ave South. ➢ Onsite Flow Analysis and Supporting Calculations The property occupies 0.17 acres and is currently covered with primarily bushes and grass with some trees. A portion of the site has been classified as a wetland. Approximately 0.15 acres will be cleared for construction. The developed condition will have 0.06 acres of impervious area and 0.11 acres of pervious area. The driveway will be approximately 53' x 20' and will account for approximately 0.02 acres of the new impervious surface. This 0.02 acres will be the only pollution generating impervious surface on the property. Small Site infiltration flow control Best Management Practices (BMP's) as outlined in Section C.2 of the King County Surface Water Design Manual are not feasible (see the attached geotechnical report). Dispersion BMP's will be used in lieu of infiltration BMP's. The roof drainage will be dispersed to the rock -lined ditch near the southeast corner of the house to allow some dispersion of runoff. Also, the driveway will have a cross slope and 6" asphalt berm that will direct runoff to vegetated surfaces and allow for some additional dispersion of runoff. A comparison of pre -developed and post -developed runoff rates for the 2 and 10 -year storm events was made (see the attached calculations). The 2 and 10 -year events were chosen based on applying a Level 1 flow control. The pre -developed peak runoff rates for the 2 and 10 -year storm events were calculated to be 0.002 cfs, and 0.024 cfs, respectively. The developed peak runoff rates for the 2 and 10 -year storm events were calculated to be 0.02 cfs, and 0.025 cfs, respectively. Based on a conversation with Ryan Larsen of the City of Tukwila, the City has no storm drainage maps in this area. In lieu of storm drainage mapping in the area, a conservative basin area was taken from a 7.5' USGS map (see Figure 1). The drainage basin is probably much larger than that which has been assumed. Flow rates for the 2 and 10 - year storm events for this total drainage basin, which this project lies in, were calculated at 7.25 cfs and 8.63 cfs for the 2 and 10 -year storm events, respectively. Based on the above calculations the development of this site will add approximately 0.018 cfs and 0.01 cfs to the total basin for the 2 and 10 year storm events. This is an increase in peak runoff for the entire basin of approximately 0.25% and 0.3% for the 2 and 10 year storm events. This increase in runoff will have no discernable impact on the conveyance system downstream of the site. Existing Site Drainage The site generally drains from the west to the northeast to a grassy rock Tined ditch on the east edge of the property. Refer to the downstream analysis portion of this report for a description of the storm drainage system downstream of the site. The majority of flow in this ditch is composed of flows coming from offsite upstream areas. Three to four inches of water was visible was visible in this ditch during a period of no rainfall. This indicates that there is a significant amount of groundwater in the area (see attached geotechnical report). The site also has an open ditch on the south edge of the property that conveys surface and subsurface flows through the property from upstream sources. This open ditch conveys only a small portion of on-site flows. The majority of on-site runoff sheet flows across the property to the ditch running along the eastern edge of the property. Proposed Site Drainage See figure 2 for the proposed drainage features. Approximately 75 feet of the southern ditch will be replaced with 12" storm drainpipe to prevent the water flowing in the ditch to erode the foundation of the house. The 12" pipe was sized to provide greater conveyance capacity than the existing ditch conveyance capacity (see attached calculations). A catch basin will be placed upstream of the rockery wall to collect runoff in the ditch and will pipe the runoff in the 12" pipe to a point just downstream of the house where it will enter a constructed rock lined ditch. The runoff from this ditch will discharge the site at its existing point of discharge. The four -foot rockery wall will be constructed to the east and to the south of the site. The rockery will be constructed per the City of Tukwila's standard detail. This rockery will allow any drainage on the upstream side of the wall to enter a perforated pipe at the base of the wall. Runoff entering the perforated pipe will be piped around the southern rockery wall and will discharge to the constructed ditch at the southeast corner of the house. A two -layer subsurface drainage system will be installed to handle any groundwater that may reach the house under the rockery wall. A footing drain will run the perimeter of the house as the first layer of handling subsurface drainage. The secondary system will operate only in extreme conditions and may never convey ground water due to the rockery wall drainage and the footing drains. This secondary system consists of placing a crawl space below the finished floor of the house and placing 6" of pea gravel in the crawl space. Any groundwater entering the crawlspace will flow along the pea gravel to the east side of the house where it will tie into the perimeter footing drain system. A series of 4" pvc pipes will convey the water in the crawl space through the internal footings. A similar crawl space conveyance system is in place at the property to the north. During heavy rainfall events no water was observed in the pea gravel below the finished floor of the house. The house constructed with this crawl space drainage system will preclude the possibility of flooding of the house. D Groundwater and Erosion Control During Construction Erosion control BMP's will be constructed as part of this project to protect against erosion during construction. The erosion control BMP's are designed to meet the requirements of Section C.3 of the King County Surface Water Manual. The manual requires that the following BMP's be applied to the project; a rock construction entrance, mulching, minimized clearing, silt fencing and winter stabilization. All five of the above BMP's will be implemented for this project as shown on the Erosion Control Plan. The issue of groundwater during construction will be handled as it was on the property to north. When excavating below the groundwater table, a ditch directing the groundwater away from the excavation to a small sediment pond will be constructed. The ditch will have a straw bale barrier placed across the direction of flow to remove sediment. From this small sediment pond, groundwater will be conveyed via flex -pipe to a point just upstream of the silt fence where it will sheet flow through the silt fencing to the ditch on the east edge of the property. D Level One Downstream Analysis A site visit was taken on October 1, 1999 to conduct a Level 1 downstream analysis as outlined in Section 1.2.2.1 of the 1998 King County Surface Water manual. Drainage from the site discharges to a ditch running along the eastern edge of the property along 33rd Ave South. The ditch is lined with rocks and is lightly vegetated. The ditch is approximately 1 foot in depth and has a slope of a slope of approximately 10%. The ditch exhibits no signs of erosion or overtopping. The ditch discharges to an 18" CMP culvert at the northeast corner of the property. From this point the storm drainage is conveyed approximately 400 feet east in a series of catch basins and 18" concrete pipe to the west edge of 30 Avenue. The system crosses a series of private residences to reach 34th Avenue. - At the west edge of 34th Avenue, the storm drain pipe daylights into a concrete basin. The concrete basin encloses the end of the pipe and is approximately 12 inches high. Runoff enters the concrete basin and is directed to a 12" ADS culvert entering on the south side of the basin. The 12" ADS runs approximately 100 feet to the south and discharges to a ditch along the west edge of 34th Avenue. The ditch is highly vegetated and exhibits no signs of overtopping or erosion. The ditch runs for approximately 125 feet to the south where it enters a 12" RCP culvert. The culvert enters a catch basin on the west edge of the road. From this catch basin discharges to a 24" concrete pipe that runs a Targe manhole in the intersection of 34th Avenue and S 130th Street. From this point runoff is conveyed by buried storm sewer pipe to a trunk line running along Highway 99. c The storm drainage system downstream of the site was walked for approximately 900 feet before the system entered the main trunk line along Highway 99. From this point it was all a closed drainage system and a visual downstream analysis without a map of the storm drainage system was not feasible. The storm drainage system that was inspected downstream of the site showed no signs of capacity or erosion problems. > Groundwater and Erosion Control During Construction Erosion control- BMP's will be constructed as part of this project to protect against erosion during construction. The erosion control BMP's are designed to meet the requirements of Section C.3 of the King County Surface Water Manual. The manual requires that the following BMP's be applied to the project; a rock construction entrance, mulching, minimized clearing, silt fencing and winter stabilization. All five of the above BMP's will be implemented for this project as shown on the Erosion Control Plan. The issue of groundwater during construction will be handled as it was on the property to north. When excavating below the groundwater table, a ditch directing the groundwater away from the excavation to a small sediment pond will be constructed. The ditch will have a straw bale barrier placed across the direction of flow to remove sediment. From this small sediment pond, groundwater will be conveyed via flex -pipe to a point just upstream of the silt fence where it will sheet flow through the silt fencing to the ditch on the east edge of the property. ➢ Maintenance of the Proposed Drainage System After Construction As part of the sales agreement for the house, a copy of the King County Surface Water Design Manual Maintenance Standards for Privately Maintained Drainage Facilities will be attached. The sales agreement will state that the standards for catch basins (No. 5), and ditches and pipes (No. 10) be followed. FIGURES Z000 c 552 —iRJ..AL H! 4iargelAti Par ,kins 1 640 000 FEET CTto,K,6 .. WASHINGTON -KING CO. 7.5 -MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC-BATHYMETRI 554 555 556 122 oat Duwa 9 ■ ,'5991 10 Foo 'dae iv CZ lle own 400 1 <ni V N vatatita\. um" O dio T.g 0/o r o Earlingtorl Park Nom 7 • to J I ii u a 0 • \ (R verto_ri, tires •1, C N. .131 Park ' r� IIWP- 7,7 /n. \Ao AAL�G A.kEA, = S 6,A&RES '4. • b � to � • .:I ke� _t :.i i1�'Middk9c N ! l\k"4k'vii:tee: IU_ �1,` ;WftL' �. 1 � . 7.. 1111 : BDY r ,g iverton .� �tf AIQR? owekx • WWI1It A1111‘ ,,:II1LWiWW9 /z, .41•.-,, 1 s / ( � 1 Footbrid ,L!Jg; 7 ravel Pit lJ f / 61, •Cre- .arks 4TH /, all \\ Tukwila Par i a Southcenter • Mall —` JI 326 I/ Radio To 27 170TH eu ieights - sTI 16 I or •. WT SEaTTLE-?4COMa = 4 = t i I km: •4oc r n 1 ess IN3rv3AVd „wig,30 3�Q3 • ao HJn 31 NLA V IEE Mel 30 NMO.D 11q6 -SV Sig O 61 Oo K o 3.91, 60. M-30-1HO18 30, ,L 6'66 3� V D !1i_; < 5----...\ Vlb r i•: .. `dl 6 cni —. VM3AI210 a O W :: si oD •DV d1 �Fo0 :•4��,n • 1.6 41t4. D1a D .Q4 O Q oI eS 0I' • : IA 0..q.;* 7e� :. i?f 'Ori • V7 v I:�11a o piD *01 Lti 6 )4P .. Z4 fI Ji ..'��I� �: 4, c)/17.0iffdr c i s: 5I Ir illI 1 I 1 I 1 I I1 I1 �r [ \-' f/ I i 11'rh I I f I 1 I ev1 — i ( e— — /Z� a �^ s_ 1 Y W� tL'....Tor.ti VALLEY _ EL 107.6 f f f 0 f III 1 f1; 'I 1, l I 1 / 1 1 1, sr sr�� O� jj JJ 1Y co 11 1 UQ a' 0 e.. 0 H ,L6'6' 3„b1,60 -MN i N01S30 `Ob YVTA d 17VNdSV/30 3003 CO a APPENDIX 01\‘ i► E, F L-o',l S Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:tukwilapre.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates --- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.024 0.003 0.025 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.011 0.028 Computed Peaks Flow Frequency Analysis 3 2/09/01 5 1/05/02 2 2/27/03 8 3/24/04 6 1/27/05 7 2/15/06 4 2/01/07 1 1/09/08 3:00 16:00 8:00 19:00 9:00 1:00 0:00 9:00 EX I ST r Y\ Ci - Flow Frequency Analysis Peaks - - Rank Return Period 1 100.00 2 25.00 3 1.0.00 4 5.00 5 3.00 6 2.00 7 1.30 8 1.10 50.00 (CFS) 0.028 0.025 0.024 0.011 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.027 Time Series File:tukwilapost.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates --- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.023 5 2/09/01 2:00 0.017 7 1/05/02 16:00 0.028 2 2/27/03 7:00 0.017 8 8/26/04 2:00 0.020 6 10/28/04 16:00 0'.025 3 1/18/06 16:00 0.024 4 10/26/06 0:00 0.049 1 1/09/08 6:00 Computed Peaks OEQGL-OPGM Flow Frequency Analysis - - Peaks - - Rank Return (CFS) 0.049 0.028 0.025 0.024 0.023 0.020 0.017 0.017 0.042 Period 1 100.00 2 25.00 3 10.00 4 5.00 5 3.00 6 2.00 7 1.30 8 1.10 50.00 Prob 0.990 0.960 0.800 0.667 0.500-7-- 0.231 .5000.231 0.091 0.980 Prob 0.990 0.960 0.900 -.�-- 0.800 0.667 0.500 0.231 0.091 0.980 OFFS\i E rt-0WS Time Series File:tukwilatotal.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates --- Flow Rate (CFS) 7.92 5.99 9.53 5.95 7.25 8.39 8.63 16.32 Computed Rank Time of Peak 5 7 2 8 6 4 3 1 Peaks 2/09/01 1/05/02 2/27/03 8/26/04 10/28/04 1/18/06 10/26/06 1/09/08 Flow Frequency Analysis - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 2:00 16.32 1 100.00 16:00 9.53 2 25.00 7:00 8.63 3 10.00 2:00 8.39 4 5.00 16:00 7.92 5 3.00 16:00 7.25 6 2.00 0:00 5.99 7 1.30 6:00 5.95 8 1.10 14.06 50.00 0.990 0.960 0.900- 0.800 0.667 0.500- 0.231 0.091 0.980 Southern Ditch - Full Worksheet for Triangular Channel Project Description Project File Worksheet Flow Element Method Solve For s:\ryes\tukwila\ditchflo.fm2 Southern Ditch - Tukwila Triangular Channel Manning's Formula Discharge Input Data Mannings Coefficient Channel Slope Depth Left Side Slope Right Side Slope 0.045 0.025000 ft/ft 0.80 ft 3.000000 H : V 3.000000 H : V Results Discharge Flow Area Wetted Perimeter Top Width Critical Depth Critical Slope Velocity Velocity Head Specific Energy Froude Number Flow is subcritical. 5.25 1.92 5.06 ft 4.80 ft 0.72 ft 0.044540 ft/ft 2.74 ft/s 0.12 ft 0.92 ft 0.76 cfs •--- L o r v CNA- L_ � ; 11 fs Fp 2 1 Z iZ L P ft2 10/13/99 06:50:28 PM FlowMaster v5.15 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 12" RCP Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Project File Worksheet Flow Element Method Solve For s: \ryes\tu kwila\ditchflo.fm2 12" RCP Circular Channel Manning's Formula Discharge Input Data Mannings Coefficient Channel Slope Depth Diameter 0.013 0.040000 ft/ft 1.00 ft 12.00 in Results Discharge Flow Area Wetted Perimeter Top Width Critical Depth Percent Full Critical Slope Velocity Velocity Head Specific Energy Froude Number Maximum Discharge Full Flow Capacity Full Flow Slope Flow is subcritical. 7.13 • cfs--- 0.79 ft2 3.14 ft 0.3e-7 ft 0.98 ft 100.00 0.035592 ft/ft 9.07 ft/s 1.28 ft 2.28 ft 0.31e-3 7.66 cfs 7.13 cfs 0.040000 ft/ft 10/13/99 06:50:00 PM FlowMaster v5.15 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury. CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Southern Ditch Worksheet for Triangular Channel f1 o 2A'N At_ t.0 \ Q T 0 -vs Project Description Project File Worksheet Flow Element Method Solve For s:\tyes\tukwila\ditchflo.fm2 Southern Ditch - Tukwila Triangular Channel Manning's Formula Discharge Input Data Mannings Coefficient Channel Slope Depth Left Side Slope Right Side Slope 0.045 0.030000 ft/ft 0.25 ft 3.000000 H : V 3.000000 H : V Results Discharge Flow Area Wetted Perimeter Top VVidth Critical Depth Critical Slope Velocity Velocity Head Specific Energy Froude Number Flow is subcritical. 0.26 cfs 0.19 ft2 1.58 ft 1.50 ft 0.22 ft 0.066530 ft/ft 1.38 ft/s 0.03 ft 0.28 ft 0.69 10/11/99 09:49:47 PM FlowMaster v5 15 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Eastern Ditch Worksheet for Trapezoidal Channel Project Description Project File Worksheet Flow Element Method Solve For s: \tyes\tukwila\ditchflo.fm2 Eastern Ditch Trapezoidal Channel Manning's Formula Discharge Input Data Mannings Coefficient Channel Slope Depth Left Side Slope Right Side Slope Bottom Width 0.045 0.040000 ft/ft 0.50 ft 10.000000 H : V 3.000000 H : V 2.00 ft Results Discharge Flow Area Wetted Perimeter Top Width Critical Depth Critical Slope Velocity Velocity Head Specific Energy Froude Number • Flow is subcritical. 7.86 cfs 2.63 ft2 8.61 ft 8.50 ft 0.49 ft 0.044701 ft/ft 2.99 ft/s 0.14 ft 0.64 ft 0.95 10/13/99 06:53:34 PM A-Ss:,,,r-N:. n� V\.,2 c4.`-.SerV4.A.,vc.� FlowMaster v5.15 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 .4 F:14c 1 99 11:52a JIM FINLEY GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC /325, NI: 701h Sirect......ii:::A at:IN.:Nue, WA 9flt){ (425) 747..56:I °751747-8581 August 31, 199g JN 8128-1 J.A. K Inc. 13520 Linden Avenue North Seattle, Washington 98133 Attention: Jihad Keirouz Subject: Geotechnical Considerations Proposed Residence 130XX — 33' Avenue South/ Tukwila, Washington Dear Mr. Keirouz- In September of 1998. the undersigned Associate of Geotech Tukwila that had just been excavated for proposed residences. We Tukwila construct another residence adjacexcavated o the pr posed reside Consultants Inc. visited proposelots in understand that you tof this letter is to discuss the likely near -surface soil and groundwater conditions, lots. The purpose „f earameters, on the proposed residence lot based on the conditions seen in excavations. tons, ash wella li , foundation the earlier, adjacent Hoed on the Grading and Drainage P� proposed residence wilt be located nn earothe middle of Y 1, Ma 11999we understand that the northeastern side of the property. Cuts of up to approximately 4 feet are proposed side of the residence and garage, qi, approximate property with a driveway along the residence; a 4 -foot rockery is proposed west and south of the Cut will be made to install this rocks constructed to control surface water that enters the southwestern side of theproperty. ultimatelyri t discharge the surface water to an exis � ryA catch basin and tightline pipe will be project subsurface drainage system will include t c ditch on the eastern side o he prohere tte will typical footing drains. p Y The The subject property is located on the upslope, western side of 33 upward above the street with a topographic relief of about 15 feet. The propertyis un arta heavily overgrown with vegetation. Some surf � Avenue South. It slopes gently the northeastern side of the property to the existing diittch_ water is currently channeled dingo a�y to Excavations in the range of 3 to 5 feet observed that the upper.were made for the two residences to the north. We silty sand, silt, and sand. Groundwater was obsery d perched e fe.er of soil was loose. It was underlain by competent firm. on these competent soils. CCo nclusions-and`ommendations The competent soils that we observed in the adjacent excavation are very 111 to support the building }cads. Therefore we believe suitable e ,� revealed on the subject site at relatively shallow depths`"Ompetent soil should be continuous and individual P We recommend that spread footings have minimum widths of 16 and 24 inches. respectively. They should be bottomed at least 18 inches below the leve st p. 1 • Aug .31 99 11:52a J.A.K. August 31, 1999 JIM RINLEY (425)747-9561 JN 8128-1 Page 2 adjacent finish ground surface. The local building codes should be reviewed to determine if different footing widths or embedment depths are required. An allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) is appropriate for footings supported on the competent, native soil. Because the native soil is somewhat sensitive to moisture, we recommend that any loose surficial soil in the footing areas we removed pnor to pouring the foundation. Another option would be to cover footing areas with a mat of imported, granular fill at the time the initial excavation is done. A one-third increase in this design bearing pressure may be used when considering short-term wind or seismic loads. • Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundation and the bearing soil. or by passive earth pressure acting on the vertical, embedded portions of the foundation. For the latter condition, the foundation must be either poured directly against relatively level, undisturbed soil or be surrounded by level structural fill. We recommend using the following design values for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading: Parameter Design. Value i Coefficient of Friction f 0.40 Passive Earth Pressure ! 300 pcf Where: (i) pcf is pounds par cubic foot, and (ii) passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density. If the ground in front of a foundation is loose or sloping, the passive earth pressure given above will not be appropriate. We recommend a safety factor of at least t5 for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading, when using the above design values. We observed groundwater perched at or near the level of the competent native soil on the adjacent sites, We believe that a similar groundwater conditions will be found on the subject property. The amount of groundwater seen on the adjacent sites, as well as the density of the competent soil, indicate that the soil has a very low permeability (not suitable for percolation). We expect that groundwater will be encountered in the excavation of the proposed residence. It is our professional opinion that the amount of groundwater flow will be readily handled by the project's subsurface drainage system. We agree with the system that is shown on the Grading and Drainage Plan, but recommend that another footing drain, be added behind the western and southern garage walls. The drainage system shown on the pian, and recommended around the garage, is very similar to the system we recommended earlier for the adjacent residences. AU footing drains should consist of a perforated pipe that is surrounded with washed rock and filter fabric. p.2 Rug .31 99 11:52a J.A.K. Inc. August 31, 1999 JIh�rINl_EY (461747-9561 p.3 JN 8128-1 Page 3 We trust that this report meets your immediate needs for the propose contact us if we can be of further service. d development. Please Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. S`rmpsor:ilia FaXto.•206 622-8130) D. Robert Ward, P.E. Associate Control No. ellisoori Epic File No. Fee $325 Receipt No. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: JAK Single-family Residence, 33rd Ave S. Tukwilla, Lot 12, Block 5, "Robbins Springbrook Addition to Riverton", Vol 16 of Plats, Page 67, Records of King County 2. Name of applicant: Jihad Kierouz, J.A.K. Inc. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Phone: (206) 300-6874 Address: 13407 51st Avenue West Edmonds, Washington 98062; 4. Date checklist prepared: June 29, 1999 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The applicant wants to construct as soon as possible, while the intermittent stream is dry. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. A wetland investigation was performed by J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc., dated June 9, 1999. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. Yes, Single -Family Permit No. D98-0215 jut 0 6 1999 COE© OPS ENT 2 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. Single -Family Residence Permit and Reasonable Use Exception •.v 1. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be summarized here. The applicant proposes to construct a 1,300 square foot house on a 5,733 square foot lot. The proposal includes enhancement of the stream channel and remaining wetlands. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The site is located immediately south of 13031 33`d Avenue South in Tukwila, Washington. The site is Lot 12 of Robbins Block 5, "Robbins Springbrook Addition to Riverton", According to the Plat Thereof Recorded in Volume 16 of Plats, Page 67, Records of King County, Washington. The site is further described as located in the NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, of the Willamette Meridian. 2. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Map as environmentally sensitive? No 3 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Evaluation for Agency Use Only B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly steep slopes, mountainous, other East -facing hillside b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Approximately 20% c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The soil on site is Norma gravelly sandy loam, described in the Soil Survey of King County Area Washington (Snyder, 1973). d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. A seepage spring originates southwest of the site. There are no indications of unstable soils e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. The fill is for the construction of a single-family residence. Fill is not proposed. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Erosion as a result of clearing and construction is a potential problem. A seasonal stream flows along the south property line. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 2,250 square feet 2014 13"341/ i S 2H 2'4 r,In/ttic.A•i 7 h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Filter fencing will prevent the movement of suspended solids off-site. 4 0 J 2. Air Evaluation for Agency Use Only a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e. dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. There will be the normal dust, equipment and automobile odors associated with the construction of a single-family residence. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: None proposed 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flow into. Yes, an unnamed seasonal stream flows along the south property line. 2) Will the project require any work over, in or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes, an existing pipeline will be replaced and the stream will and remaining stream buffer will be reconstructed and enhanced with native vegetation. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. 11.1 cu. yds of stream substrate and rock. 5 4 Evaluation for Agency Use Only 4.) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals ...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of housed to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. None c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if know). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. The source of runoff will be roof drains and the driveway. Runoff will flow into the road ditch that the stream'flows into. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Yes, pollutants from the street and driveway may enter surface waters. 6 Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Vegetative enhancement of the stream buffer, substrate and rock in channel to prevent erosion. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other 7shrubs grass pasture _ crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Reed canarygrass, Himalayan blackberry, red alder, western red cedar, and willow. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to presence or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: See Mitigation Plan, J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc., June 30, 1999 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are know to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, on birther: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None 7 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Yes, Pacific Flyway d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Vegetative enhancement of wetland, stream, and buffers. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity for heating b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impact, if any: No 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No 1) Describe especial emergency services that might be required. Fire and emergency medical 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None 8 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Aircraft 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated, with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Construction noise between the hours of 7 am and 5 pm on weekdays 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is currently a vacant lot. Adjacent properties are single-family residences. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No c. Describe any structures on the site. None d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? LDR f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? LDR 9 o EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not Applicable h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? Is so, specify. Yes, the entire site is wetland with a stream present. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Between one and five j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Not applicable 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: None 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. One b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Twenty-five feet b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None 10 J TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None A. - b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? None c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? None b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on the site plans, if any. The site is located between Military Road and Hwy. 99, accessed from S.132"d St. and 33rd Ave. S. 11 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The nearest bus stop is at Highline Riverton Community Hospital c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The project will have two parking spaces outside the garage and will not displace any parking spaces. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. 2-6 g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: No 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. No 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Seattle City Light, U. S. West, Seattle Public Utilities C. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: A Date Submitted: 7/1 %9% 12 J J JUNG HNL HJJUI.. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 1 G10b f G�Jb1pb Evaluation for Agency Use Only E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental information provided and the submitted plans, documents, supportive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal? The objective of the proposal is to obtain a sin:le-famil residence •ermit and com•l with the sensitive area regulations to the greatest extent possible. 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? There are no alternatives because the a. • licant has r- .uested the reasonable use of the property with the minimum impact possible to wetland. Compensation for impacts is limited to vegetative enhancement of existing wetlands and restoration of the stream channel. Since the entire site is wetland, there is no area that wetlands can be created in. Existing wetlands are dominated by invasive non-native plants in the understory and would benefit from enhancement. The stream channel is an eroded ditch. Restoration of the stream will provide an esthetically pleasing and stable channel. 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action,_ Denying the applicant a single-family residence based on the resence of wetlands would constitute a taking of property and may legally require compensation. The minimum reasonable use of the site is for one single- family residence, with minimum setbacks to the street and side of lot and minimum yard area adjacent to the proposed house. Although mitigation in the form of creating wetland for wetland impacts is not possible, the site will benefit from vegetative enhancement of remaining wetlands and stream restoration. These measures are the only possible mitigation. The preferred course of action is minimal impact by selecting the least impact location for the residence, and stream restoration and vegetative enhancement of remaining wetlands. t3 J 5 JUNtS HNL L.) L. 4. Does the ro osal conflict with Use Polic the Tiikwil with zoning • 1 GYOb f GJJbiOb Evaluation for Agency Use Only olicies of the T kwila ,o •rehensive L. d Ian? There is no conflict with osal is -consistent Plan? If so what •olicies of the Tukwila Com rehcnsive Land Use Polic Plan. The and in character with the nei hborhood. ro Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflicts) are: None 14 CITY OF TUKWILA REASONABLE Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 USi bK jTION Telephone: (206) 431-3670 FAX: (206) 431-3665 E-mail.: planning@TukwilaWA.gov JAN 15 2014 APPLICATION FOR STAFF USE ONLY Permits Plus Type: P -SP Planner: File Number: t L!. — Ds, Application Complete Date: Project File Number: op L .1 L _ D 0D2 - Application Incomplete Date: Other File Numbers: NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Dreamcatcher Homes, 33rd Ave. S. LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS (this information may be found on your tax statement): 735960-0473 PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY: Vacant Lot SENSITIVE AREAS REQUIREMENT FROM WHICH RELIEF IS SOUGHT: Wetland Regulations and Stream Buffer Regulations DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR: The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: Jeffery S. Jones/J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. Address: P.O. Box 1908, Issaquah, WA 98027 Phone: (253) 905-5736 FAX: E-mail: jeffjsjones@comcast.net Signature: ��� j�//�1, Date: H:\Iand Use Applications in PDFUteasonable Use Exception-Jan20l I.doc STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 FAX: (206) 431-3665 E-mail: _planning(a)TukwilaWA.gov AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND HOLD HARMLESS PERMISSION TO ENTER PROPERTY ss COUNTY OF KING The undersigned being duly sworn and upon oath states as follows: I am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. 2. All statements contained in the applications have been prepared by me or my agents and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 3. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent. 4. Owner grants the City, its employees, agents, engineers, cor act rrs or other re resentatives the right to enter upon Owner's real property, located at±3,„,_A 1 's/ � , t' 1J 1. ( L..-.- for the purpose of application review, for the limited time necessary to complete that purpose. • 5. Owner agrees to hold the City harmless for any Toss or damage to persons or property occurring on the private property during the City's entry upon the property, unless the loss or damage is the result of the sole negligence of the City. 6. Non -responsiveness to a City information request for ninety (90) or more days, shall be cause to cancel the application(s) without refund of fees. EXECUTED at L -d -AA vl(dtS cI J -o ?,C1°\ 15 2p14 Ie t' QQ��itlYday personally appeared before me �1 A0k.Ci ' �.46i r0(,l to me known to be the individual O�tv'ho executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he/she signed the same as his/her voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein. �7 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME ON THIS / l9' DAY �OFFj/jj/�am but 1� , 20 14' .`�Ig111Nfyh 1/l�t� ' l Y l .VC{ / `,t 41"." , f/a�/ I�, NOT Y BLOC in and for tl State of Washington prif••p��Icsiding at ��y l / '>fTy Commission expires on:r N ,, r (city), 1 (state), on \.J _ 1,ucl. �� ,20 ) LL ,cs/ (3> c : (Print Name) 1 3if67 51 4'- s�.�Ic= vac , t s� s (Address) 206-3c c871.t (Phone Number) (Signature) H:\land Use Applications in POIARcasonnble �rQ`rftruo- �/tttllflt'tt iMAP at Ya y S 13iTH ST (C Y00>!1(C5 COMMENTS: Keirouz Property ;a The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. Date: 1/23/2014 Source: King County iMAP - Property Information(htlp://www.metrokc.gov/GISfiMAP) King County Q Page 1 of 1 http://trakapp/trakit9/mapTemplate.aspx?maxx=1280544.6141113 87&minx=127959... 01/23/2014 aCity`°k"Ila Overview Map Print Out Keirouz Property Seattle • • f •• • ♦ } •, •'0 •�„N t * r • • • # N > • ♦ Q 19 ek • M • • • N + • '0' • el i 0 / % ♦ , • -,t VI. ♦ • tN I71 «.. • 1 '1 f • •. 4 • • /} • 4�' 11-,- f s- $,..- i +' t Address • Fire Hydrant Project Area Street Centerline —Road —Freeway Building Stream Tukwila City Limits Li Parcel ❑ Waterbudy Park '1 Zoning _1CLI •HDR Hl MUIR UMCR H •MIC/L lMUG ®NCC 710 •RCC I j H 100 200f1 fit The mapped data is derived from the City of Tukwila GIS Program. which Is developed and operated coley for the convenience si n the ng risk of The maps jury or economiate for c loss should boses e made inrcreliance therodoes not n�nt the accuracy of (hese maps Map Created on 1232014 Page 1 of 1 http://trakapp/trakit9/mapTemplate.aspx?maxx=1280544.6141113 87&minx=127959... 01/23/2014 COMPLETE APPLICATION CHECKLIST The materials listed below must be submitted with your application unless specifically waived in writing by the Public Works Department and the Department of Community Development. Please contact each Department if you feel that certain items are not applicable to your project and should be waived, or should be submitted at a later date for use at the public hearing (e.g. colored renderings). Application review will not begin until it is determined to be complete. ADDITIONAL MATERIALS MAY BE REQUIRED. The initial application materials allow project review to begin and vest the applicant's rights. However, the City may require additional information as needed to establish consistency with development standards. City Staff are available to answer questions about application materials at 206-431-3670 (Department of Community Development) and 206-433-0179 (Department of Public Works). * Please note that the application fee listed in the Land Use Fee Schedule covers up to a specified number of review hours and is due at the time an application is received by the City. Review hours over the retainer fee will be charged at $92.00 per hour and the applicant will receive a monthly bill when those fees become due. Check items submitted with application Information Required. May be waived in unusual cases, upon approval of both Public Work. and Planning ECE1V r 15 201L tt jAN APPLICATION MATERIALS: 1` l cOmmuiV11 t 1. Application Checklist (1 copy) indicating items submitted with application. DF VbLuPMLM1 2. Completed Application Form and drawings (5 copies). 3. One set of all plans reduced to 8 1/2" x 11" or 11" x 17". 4. Application Fee: See Land Use Fee Schedule for standard application fee. *Additional fees array be incurred. (5) SEPA Environmental Checklist and fee (see SEPA Application Packet). 6. Application(s) and fee(s) for all other applicable land use permits. PUBLIC NOTICE MATERIALS: 7. Payment of a $365 notice board fee to FastSigns Tukwila OR provide a 4' x 4' public notice board on site within 14 days of the Department determining that a complete application has been received (see Public Notice Sign Specifications Handout). 8. Pay the fee as established by the Land Use Fee Schedule for generating mailing labels; OR provide an excel spreadsheet of mailing labels for all property owners and tenants (residents and businesses) within 500 feet of the subject property. Each unit in multiple family buildings e.g. apartments, condos, trailer parks --must be included. Once your project is assigned to a planner, you will be required to provide an electronic copy of the mailing label spreadsheet in the following format: Name, Street Address, City St Zip, with each of these fields as an individual column: Name Street Address City, St, Zip Mr. Smith 1234 Park Ave S Tukwila WA 98188 PLEASE NOTE: Regardless of whether you pay the City to generate the mailing labels or you provide them, there is an additional fee for postage and material as listed under Public Notice Mailing Fee on the Land Use Fee Schedule. Payment of this fee is due prior to issuance of the decision and you will receive a separate bill for this fee. H:\Land Use Applications in PDF\Reasonable Use Exception-Jan201 I.doc Check items submitted with application Information Required. May be waived in unusual cases, upon approval of both Public Works and Planning 9. If providing own labels, include King County Assessor's map(s) which shows the location of each property within 500 ft. of the subject lot. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS: ✓ 10. A written discussion of project consistency with decision criteria, see Application. This is your opportunity to argue the merits of your proposal. 11. Other documentation, photos or graphics in support of the proposal may be included as appropriate, such as color renderings, perspective drawings, photographs or models. Color drawings or photos may be submitted as 8 ''/2" x 11" color photocopies. V 12. Provide two copies of sensitive area studies such as wetland or geotechnical reports if needed per Tukwila's Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.45). See Geotechnical Report Guidelines and Sensitive Area Special Study Guidelines for additional information. Include the surveyed location and professional evaluation of sensitive areas and their buffers. Provide a list of existing environmental documents that evaluate any aspect of the proposed project. IV A--13. Luminaire plan including location and type of street and site lighting. Include proposed fixture cut sheets, site light levels (foot-candles), and measures to shield adjacent properties from glare. IN tom- 14. All proposed signage with sign designs and locations. V 15. Title Report: Clearly establish status as legal lot(s) of record, ownership, all known easements and encumbrances, must be dated within 45 days of application filing. ✓ 16. Sewer and water availability letters are required from the provider district if additional plumbing fixtures are proposed and the area is not serviced by the City of Tukwila. Forms available in the DCD Office. SITE PLAN: 17. (a) An existing and proposed boundary and topographic survey (2 ft. contours including a minimum 20 ft. beyond the property line) with all structures, easements, encumbrances and right-of-way width. Vertical datum NAVD 1988 and horizontal datum NAD 83/91. Conversion calculations to NGVD 1929, if in a flood zone or flood -prone area. (b) Property lines and dimensions, total lot or parcel sizes. (c) Dash in required setback distances from all parcel lot lines. (d) Location and actual setbacks of all existing and proposed structures with gross floor area. (e) Location and design of all garbage, recycling and other service areas with proposed screening and other exterior improvements. (f) Fire access lanes and turn-arounds per Fire Department standards. (g) Vicinity Map with site location, does not have to be to scale. SENSITIVE AREA/LANDSCAPE PLAN: 18. (a) Landscape planting plan by a Washington State licensed landscape architect. One set of all plans and analyses shall have an original Washington State registered Landscape Architect stamp and signature. Plans must include the type, quantity, spacing and location of all plantings. Maximum sheet size 24" x 36". (b) Show all significant trees (4" or more in diameter measured 4.5 feet above grade), indicating those to be retained and those to be removed and any tree protection measures required (for example fencing at drip line). A tree permit will be required for removal of any significant trees within a sensitive area or its buffer. H:\Land Use Applications in PDF\Reasonable Use Exception-Jan2011.doc Check items submitted with application Information Required. May be waived in unusual cases, upon approval of both Public Works and Planning (c) Location of all sensitive areas (e.g. streams, wetlands, slopes over 15%, coal mine areas and important geological and archaeological sites). For stream frontage provide existing and proposed top of stream bank, stream bank toe, stream mean high water mark, and base flood elevation (i.e., 100 yr. flood). Maximum sheet size 24" x 36". (d) Location of all required sensitive area buffers, setbacks, tracts and protection measures. (e) Show all proposed mitigation measures or sensitive areas enhancement. CIVIL PLANS: 19. (a) One set of all civil plans and analyses shall be stamped, signed and dated by a licensed professional engineer. Include a graphic scale and north arrow. Maximum sheet size 24" x 36". (b) Vertical datum NAVD 1988 and horizontal datum NAD 83/91. Conversion calculations to NGVD 1929, if in a flood zone or flood -prone area. (c) Existing (dashed) and proposed (solid) topography at 2' intervals. (d) Total expected cut and fill. (e) Existing and proposed utility easements and improvements, on site and in street (water, sewer, power, natural gas, telephone, cable). Schematic designs to be provided regardless of purveyor (e.g. site line size, location, and size of public main). No capacity calcs, invert depth, valve locations or the like are needed. (f) Storm drainage design at least 90% complete, which meets the King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). Include a Technical Information Report (TIR) including feasibility analysis if required by the Manual. Call out total existing and proposed impervious surface in square feet. Include all storm drainage conveyance systems, water quality features, detention structures, maintenance access and safety features. For additional guidance contact Public Works or go to http://www.tukwilawa.gov/pubwks/pwpermit.html. (g) Locate the nearest existing hydrant and all proposed hydrants. (h) Show the 100 yr. flood plain boundary and elevation as shown on FEMA maps. See ham://www.tukwilawa.gov/pubwks/pwpermit.html for further information (i) Plan, profile and cross-section for any right-of-way improvements. (j) Show planned access to lots, driveways, fire access lanes and turn -grounds. H:\Land Use Applications in PDF\Reasonable Use Exception-Jan2011.doc CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 FAX: (206) 431-3665 E-mail: planning@TukwilaWA.gov AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND HOLD HARMLESS PERMISSION TO ENTER PROPERTY STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING The undersigned being duly sworn and upon oath states as follows: 1. I am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. 2. All statements contained in the applications have been prepared by me or my agents and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 3. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent. 4. Owner grants the City, its employees, agents, engineers, contrac or other rep_re entatives the right to enter upon Owner's real property, located at p 1 J3�F E �) 1 v '' y,l LAN. for the purpose ss of application review, for the limited time necessary to complete that purpose. 5. Owner agrees to hold the City harmless for any Loss or damage to persons or property occurring on the private property during the City's entry upon the property, unless the loss or damage is the result of the sole negligence of the City. 6. Non -responsiveness to a City information request for ninety (90) or more days, shall be cause to cancel the application(s) without refund of fees. EXECUTED at ALN y lU ACIS (city), Or (state), on TOW, l.( 1 , 20 ) Lf On this day personally appeared before me who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he/she signed the same as his/her voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein. J (Print Name) 1 *3 If 67 51 4r AUl~ &s rd,:7c1S (Address) Zo6— Soo871.r (Phone Number) (Signature) i rou to me known to be the individual SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME ON THIS 7 �ost11/6,,41 40 • itstreo � NOTA. 1% C We, ��jesiding 3 11y Com S Vulalka r c 0 43 . o doo H:\Land Use Applications in PDF \Reasonabtfli�crifa\ •k80c elitttMilll� DAY OF 'V Q,(/l tat l2/ ciorVL4 a Bug in and fort State of Washington at 11 Y1.eJ ,20 %T mission expires on -1-1S z ri gX1106111 "!ig id ;14 dim 4a! :ill mill ell : 0 4 ;R: 111 v�> "ill IN Pi ill ti s c NV1d 31IS MMI il! solo — Oar- _— 449? or" gg g —/k t EDGE OF ASPHALT `� EA „ / Km44T OF WAY Wag El 4 g•A7 5 is 33RD AVE. S. 1 ig oogQ g Jo! 11i 1 4 FP I 1;514 !ii 'ill e 111 Pg Rz rig ZIP 911 111 liO1 fie id g/al Sig € Y u 111 e 141 '11 51 1 El lb pro qqS Q tgl qp PP 111 Bar--- ani N17a'p!'[ 44.01 \ • age" ag 5 _ /�� f —i gggg LI Y „�,�. 1 ' 4i 1 pg I is 33RD AVE. S. 1Y2 RI R. :- f 1/13/2014 XFINITY Connect XFINITY Connect jeff.jsjones@comcast.net + Font Size - Fwd: FW: 40126547-XXXX 33RD AVE S. -Dream Catcher Homes LLC - Title for Tukwila lot From : Jihad Keirouz <keirouzja@grrail.com> Subject : Fwd: FW: 40126547-)000( 33RD AVE S. -Dream Catcher Homes LLC - Title for Tukwila lot To : jeff jsjones <jeff.jsjones@corrcast.net> Hi Jeff, Below is the Title Report. J Forwarded message From: Mark & Thelma Stefnik <rrtstefnik@windermere.com> Date: Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:38 AM Subject: FW: 40126547-)000( 33RD AVE S. -Dream Catcher Homes LLC - Title for Tukwila lot To: "(keirouzja@qn-il.com)" <keirouzia@gnail.com> Mon, Jan 13, 2014 07:37 AM RECEIVED JAN 15 2014 (',OMMUNI I Y (Th VEWPMENT Jihad - Here's the title report for Tukwila. You should be able to either click a link to view or just print the rnsg body from CW Title. Any problems..let me know From: Thelma & Mark Stefnik Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 8:28 AM To: Mark&Thelma Stefnik Subject: FW: 40126547-X00X 33RD AVE S. -Dream Catcher Homes LLC From: CW Title jcwtitlechris@cwtitle. net] Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 6:11 AM To: Thelma & Mark Stefnik; asirron@cwtitle. net; cwsnaoshotchris@cwtitle. net Subject: 40126547-XXXX 33RD AVE S. -Dream Catcher Homes LLC Please find below your Title Snapshot for preview purposes only. For the actual Title Commitment, please click on the blue hyperlink below. Also, your Title Snapshot contains active hyperlinks to the recorded documents, property map, and other documents in the title commitment. To view these hyperlinks, please left -click on the iters with underlined blue text within the body of the Title Snapshot. For questions regarding this Title Snapshot, please reply to this email or call 1.800.441.7701 Thank you for choosing CW Title, our Customers are the difference! CWTITLE NET or itle naps o_ Our File No. 40126547 Effective Date: December 3 2013 Click here for your complete Title Commitment Click here for a copy of the Vesting Deed http://web mail.comcastnet/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=239674&tz=America/Los_Angeles&xim=1 1/5 1/13/2014 XFIN ITY Connect LICK Here ror a copy or me reap Legal description LOT 12 IN BLOCK 5 OF ROBBINS SPRING BROOK ADDITION TO RIVERTON, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 16 OF PLATS, PAGE 57, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY AUDITOR; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF TUKWILA, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. Sellers Jihad Keirouz and David Beninger, as their respective separate estate Buyers To Be Determined Lender To Be Determined Policy or Policies to be issued ALTA Owner's Policy 6-17-2006 - STANDARD COVERAGE General Schedule Rate with 5% Electronic discount Proposed Insured: To Be Determined Amount: $ 0.00 Premum: $ 0.00 Agent Portion of Premum: Tax: $ 0.00 Underwriter Portion of Premium Total: $ 0.00 ALTA Loan Policy 6-17-06- Simultaneous Issue Proposed Insured: To Be Determined Amount: $ 0.00 Premium: $ 0.00 Agent Portion of Premum: Tax: $ 0.00 Underwriter Portion of Premium: Total: $ 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Exceptions 1. REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF RCW CHAPTER 82.45 AND SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS THERETO. AS OF THE DATE HEREIN, THE TAX RATE FOR SAID PROPERTY IS 1.78% . FOR ALL TRANSACTIONS RECORDED ON OR AFTER JULY 1, 2005: A FEE OF $10.00 WILL BE CHARGED ON ALL EXEMPT TRANSACTIONS; • A FEE OF $5.00 WILL BE CHARGED ON ALL TAXABLE TRANSACTIONS IN ADDITION TO THE EXCISE TAX DUE; 2. GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES AND SERVICE CHARGES, AS FOLLOWS, TOGETHER WITH INTEREST, PENALTY AND STATUTORY FORECLOSURE COSTS, IF ANY, AFTER DELINQUENCY: (1ST HALF DELINQUENT ON MAY 1; 2ND HALF DELINQUENT ON NOVEMBER 1) TAX ACCOUNT NO.: 735960 0473 YEAR BILLED PAID BALANCE 2013 $ 914.36 $914.36 $0.00 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE, NOT INCLUDING INTEREST AND PENALTY: $0.00. LEVY CODE: 2413 ASSESSED VALUE LAND: $64,000.00 http://web mai I .comcast.net/zi mbra/h/pri ntmessag e?i d=239674&tz=Ameri ca/Los_Ang el es&d m= 1 215 1/13/2014 XFINITY Connect ASSESSED VALUE IM1OEMENTS: 00 TOTAL ASSESSED VALb� $64, .00 3. LIABILITY FOR SUPPLEMENTAL TAXES FOR IMPROVEMENTS WHICH HAVE RECENTLY BEEN CONSTRUCTED ON THE LAND. LAND IMPROVEMENTS ARE NOT PRESENTLY ASSESSED, BUT MAY APPEAR ON FUTURE ROLLS. 4. MATTERS SET FORTH BY SURVEY: RECORDED: NOVEMBER 17, 1998 RECORDING NO.: 9811179012 5. SIDE SEWER EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: 5 FEET IN WIDTH, LOCATED ALONG THE LINE OF THE LAND, AS CONSTRUCTED: RECORDED: MARCH 09, 1999 RECORDING NO.: 9903090113 6. RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST OF DREAMCATCHER HOMES, LLC, AS DISCLOSED BY THE APPLICATION FOR TITLE INSURANCE. WE FIND NO CONVEYANCES OF RECORD INTO SAID PARTY. Notes NOTE 1: THE COMPANY HAS BEEN ASKED TO ISSUE SIMULTANEOUS POLICIES WITHOUT DISCLOSURE OF THE LIABILITY AMOUNTS. THIS COMMITMENT SHALL BE EFFECTIVE ONLY WHEN THE AMOUNTS OF THE OWNER'S AND LENDER'S POLICIES COMMITTED FOR HAS BEEN INSERTED IN SCHEDULE A HEREOF. THE FORTHCOMING OWNER'S POLICY MUST BE ISSUED IN AN AMOUNT AT LEAST EQUAL TO THE FULL VALUE OF THE ESTATE INSURED IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR RATING SCHEDULE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE WASHINGTON STATE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER. THE COMPANY MAY HAVE FURTHER REQUIREMENTS IF THE UNDISCLOSED AMOUNT TO BE INSURED EXCEEDS THE CURRENT ASSESSED VALUATION. NOTE 2: IN THE PAST 24 MONTHS, THERE HAVE BEEN NO CONVEYANCES OF RECORD FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN SCHEDULE A HEREIN. TITLE WAS ACQUIRED BY DEED RECORDED ON MAY 01, 1998, UNDER RECORDING NO. 9805011358 AND 9805011361. NOTE 3: TITLE WILL BE VESTED IN PARTIES YET TO BE DISCLOSED. WHEN TITLE IS VESTED, THEIR TITLE WILL BE SUBJECT TO MATTERS OF RECORD AGAINST THEIR NAMES. NOTE 4: BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED TO THE COMPANY, ON THE DATE OF THIS COMMITMENT IT APPEARS THAT THERE IS LOCATED ON THE LAND: http://web mail.comcast.net/zimbra/h/printmessag a?id=239674&tz= Amer ica/Los Angeles&dm=1 3/5 1/13/2014 XFINITY Connect AN UNIMPROVED LC KNOWN AS: XXXX 33RD AVE S. TUKWILA, WA 98178 MAP NOTE 5: IF YOU WOULD LIKE THE COMPANY TO ACT AS TRUSTEE IN THE PROPOSED DEED OF TRUST, PLEASE NOTE THAT CW TITLE MAY ACT AS TRUSTEE OF A DEED OF TRUST UNDER RCW 61.24.010(1). NOTE 6: THE COMPANY REQUIRES THE PROPOSED INSURED TO VERIFY THAT THE LAND COVERED BY THIS COMMITMENT IS THE LAND INTENDED TO BE CONVEYED IN THIS TRANSACTION. THE DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND MAY BE INCORRECT, IF THE APPLICATION FOR TITLE INSURANCE CONTAINED INCOMPLETE OR INACCURATE INFORMATION. NOTIFY THE COMPANY WELL BEFORE CLOSING IF CHANGES ARE NECESSARY. CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS MUST INDICATE THAT THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY ALL PARTIES. NOTE 7: THE FOLLOWING MAY BE USED AS AN ABBREVIATED LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON THE DOCUMENTS TO BE RECORDED, PER AMENDED RCW 65.04. SAID ABBREVIATED LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR A COMPLETE LEGAL DESCRIPTION WITHIN THE BODY OF THE DOCUMENT. LOT 12 BLK 5 ROBBINS SPRIN BROOK ADD TO RIVERTON KING COUNTY NOTE 8: IN THE EVENT THAT THE COMMITMENT JACKET IS NOT ATTACHED HERETO, ALL OF THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SAID JACKET ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN. THE COMMITMENT JACKET IS AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT ANY COMPANY OFFICE. NOTE 9: THE POLICY(S) OF INSURANCE MAY CONTAIN A CLAUSE PERMITTING ARBITRATION OF CLAIMS AT THE REQUEST OF EITHER THE INSURED OR THE COMPANY. UPON REQUEST, THE COMPANY WILL PROVIDE A COPY OF THIS CLAUSE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ARBITRATION RULES PRIOR TO THE CLOSING OF THE TRANSACTION. NOTE 10: PURSUANT TO MODIFIED PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER B65 OF THE FHLMC SINGLE FAMILY SELLER/SERVICER GUIDE AND THE FNMA SERVICING GUIDE, SHORT SALE LETTERS FROM FHLMC AND FNMA MAY PROHIBIT SUBSEQUENT RESALE FOR UP TO 90 DAYS. PLEASE NOTIFY THE COMPANY IMMEDIATELY IF YOU RECEIVE A SHORT SALE APPROVAL LETTER PROHIBITING SUBSEQUENT RESALE FOR UP TO 90 DAYS NOTE 11: WHEN SENDING DOCUMENTS FOR RECORDING, VIA U.S. MAIL OR SPECIAL COURIER SERVICE, PLEASE SEND TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS, UNLESS SPECIFIC ARRANGEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE WITH YOUR TITLE UNIT: CW TITLE COLUMBIA CENTER 701 5TH AVE, 42ND FLOOR SEATTLE, WA 98104 ATTN: RECORDING DEPT. CW TITLE PRE -ADDRESSED ENVELOPES MAY STILL BE USED WHEN SENDING DOCUMENTS VIA TDS (TITLE DELIVERY SERVICE) TO THE ADDRESS ON THE FACE OF THE COMMITMENT COVER PAGE OR TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. http://web.mai I.comcast. net/zi mbra/h/pri ntmessag e?i d=239674&tz=Ameri ca/LosAng el es8od m=1 4/5 1/13/2014 3 A KQROUZ XFINITY Connect DISCLAIMER/DISCLOSURES/EXPLANATIONS OF COVE® The information provided in the Title Snapshot is for preview purposes only. Any conflict with the information displayed herein and the contents of the official Title Con-rnitment issued in connection with this order will be controlled by said official Title Commitment. Questions regarding any discovered conflict should be directed to the Contact Persons shown herein DREAMCATCHER HOMES, LLC. P. 0. Box 2608 Lynnwood, WA 98036 Ph 1 206-300-6874 email 1 keirouziaomail.com www. dreamcatcherhomes. us http://web. mai I .comcast.net/zi mbra/h/pri ntmessag e?i d=239674&tz=Ameri ca/Los_Ang el es&A m= 1 5/5 CITY OF TUKWILA Permit Center 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100, Tukwila, W4 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 RECEIVED JAN 15 2014 H-11 17-6 Certificate of Water. Availability PROJECT #: (Required only if outside City of Tukwila water utility district) .' 'PART A: (To be completed byapplicantj. > ... . Site Address (Attach reap and Legal showing hydrant location and of main): tD�e�vsAlcription Re p� /30XX-33c 4j � / J tv 4, IAA. 1„..41.4,, LAT l./ / e,aa/N_J S,4Q/ i YC,e0 1 3, loTj s<i rik. TQ AWER a Owner infonmationr' Agent/Contact Person: - Name: .Z.A . K, , 1-1JC Name: Address: 1 ac - S. W . t 56 -, ave/e...). Address: /c;201- 511,U. /SG, Si, gaeiE J Phone: . 300 - 47837'4 Phone: 30 o - CDR 74 oR --24/ - 3 5/5. This certificate is for the purposes of: 0 Residential Building Permit ❑ Preliminary Plat 0 Short Subdivision ❑ Commercial/Industrial Building.Permit 0 Rezone ❑ Other Estimated number of service connections and meter size(s): / r&AI tfEc%/v ti) . -���C /1 ft1E7 Vehicular distance from nearest hydrant to the closest point of structure ft. Area is served by (Water utility district): (Z!j Owner/Agent Signature 4,a &c:::cfi., Date: PART B: (To be completed by water utility district) The proposed project is located within (Jay -4_, kkt The improvements required to upgrade the water system to bring it into compliance with the utilities' comprehensive plan or to meet the minimum flow requirements of the project before connection: (City/County) (Use separate sheet if more room is needed) Based upon the improvements listed above, water can be provided and will be available at the site with a flow of 0 ZS- gpm at 20 psi residual for a duration of 2 hours at a velocity of / Li fps as documented by the attached calculations. 1 hereby certify that the above information is true and correct. king Cc z2 l4-ric. O S••T 12-S 3 - Z —Fs V Agency/Phone 2 f2-•gStf-j By Date PART C: (To be completed by governing jurisdiction) Water Availability: ❑ Acceptable service can be provided to this project ❑ Acceptable service cannot be provided to this project unless the improvements in item C2 are met. ❑ System isn't capable of providing service to this project. Minimum water system improvements: (At least equal to B2 above) (Use separate sheet if more room is needed) Agency/Phone Co��►-e % f 6eS OAI I< s'7&; 024/‘-3 f6 By WORKING TOWARD A BETTER ENVIRONMENT SEWER DISTRICT 14816 Military Road South P.O. Box 69550 Tukwila, WA 98168 Phone: (206) 242-3236 Fax: (206) 242-1527 CERTIFICATE OF SEWER AVAILABILITY/NON-AVAILABILITY Certificate of Sewer Availability OR 0 Certificate of Sewer Non -Availability Part A: (To Be Completed by Applicant) Purpose of Certificate: Building Permit ❑ Preliminary Plat or PUD ❑ Other 0 Short Subdivision 0 Rezone Proposed Use: IT -Residential Single Family 0 Residential Multi -Family ' ❑ Commercial 0 Other Applicants Name: J4 K , • L CAI /1Ap_< Phone: z4( — 3S/5 Property Address or Approximate Location: /80.< x = 33rd 411. 5. Legal Description(Attach Map and Legal Description if necessary): La± /2 bIL S Zohbin. s . -iny brco,� 77-7359&C, — 0473 — 07 Part_ B: (To Be Completed by Sewer Agency) • pr 1. E a. Sewer, Service will be provided by side sewer connection only to an existing (P size sewer 6A1 faet,f9i;, the site and the sewer system has the capacity to serve the proposed use. OR 0 b. Sewer service will require an improvement to the sewer system of: 0 (1) feet of sewer trunk or lateral to reach the site; and/or 0 (2) the construction of a collection system on the site; and/or ❑ (3) other (describe): • 2. (Must be completed if 1.b above is checked) 0 a. The sewer system improvement is in conformance with a County approved sewer comprehensive plan, OR 0 b. The sewer system improvement will require a sewer comprehensive plan amendment. 3. Era. The proposed project is within the corporate limits of the District, or has been granted Boundary Review Board approval for extension of service outside the District of city, OR 0 b. Annexation or BRB approval will be necessary to provide service. 4. Service is subject to the following: a. District Connection Charges due prior to connection: 27 50. OD GFC: $ 85-0.°° .SFC: $ UNIT: $ /9 0 0 TOTAL: $ (Subject to Change on January 1st) 0 King County/METRO Capacity Charge: Approximately $1090/residential equivalent will be billed directly by King County after connection to the sewer system. .0 b. Easements: 0 Required l'7 May be Required L. c. Other. I hereby certify that the above sewer agency information is true. This certification shall be valid for one year from the date of signature. BY ()Sp. Title 3 —17--95 Date 1' MN 11-6 �_nnora S. 131ND ST. .A00221.2 127N0TH 5011000 STATION 38' 10' 0+7.7 - 32• i0 I+34 MH U3-1-2 - N 1/2 NW 15-23-4 5700 10CAT1045 3240 AVE806 SOUTH AUORESS LENGIN am 5(ATION Lot 34 13.0 5.0 0.83.5 Lot 35 13.0 7.0 1.44 Lot 36 13.0 6.0 1.97 Lot 37 13.0 6.0 2X9 Lot.30 13.0 5.0 0.10 Lot 39 13.0 5,0 0.61 4 .\ 1240 ct.P fut US• 4 1.a Er 1.[1(5411 Ir H7NHN) I1 4060 23.0 7.0 0+92 4041 22.0 8.0 0+70 4044 100.0 6.0 0+83 Lot 23 27.0 5.0 0H0 - 1 4049 18.0 8.0 0+07 4054 19.0 8.0 2.67 4055 2.0 8.0 2+81 ( I 4058 20.0 5.0 2+04 4061 24.5 8.0 2+00 -I ( MH-! __ L-- 2 MH- 8 35 )- t>D 6.0 =s" B9=5 .0 13003 e 1076 23 225•-0^ 3. o.o0 • 111111 h 6007 WISEIn 17017 I3CL1 3027 1011,. - 94 - / �. 79209 „. Agg WNW I�I 15030 A1/1-7 292'-51 1 7-7 STUB LOCATIONS 33+0. AVENUE SOUTH ADDRESS 1(5014 0(776 STATION 13011 13.0 4.0 1+60 13021 20.0 6.0 0+23 13028 13.0 4.0 0+11 13050 6467 --. 2+33 2.36 END Lot 27 16.0 4:0 1+19 Lot 28 6062 4.0 2.00 Lot 29 13.0 4.0 1+06 Lot 30 13.0 4.0 1+60 Lot 31 18.0 7.0 1+17 Lot 32 13.0 5.0 0+61 Lot 33 18.0 4.0 0+04 1 -L 1 j1 �l ,moi , H MH U3-! STUD LOCATIONS 347X. AVENUE SOUTH ADDRESS LENGTH DEPTH STATION 12939 41.0 : 4.0 0.04 13003 21.0 40.0 0+13 :13019 27.0 4.0 2.45 '33020 33.0 11.0 2.08 13024 40.0 12.0 2.95 13027 27.0 4.0 2.83 13044 31.0 6.5 0+64 13047 846 1+91 13048 28.0 4.0 1+83, 13057 28.0 4.0 1H Lot 24 27.0 4.0 1+47 Lot 25 31.0 8.5 0.68 Lot 26 22.0 6.0 1+72 STUD LOCATIONS 35th Ave. 5. • ADDRESS [045200 DEPTH .STATION 13015 10.01 3.0 1+36 6.85 13016 9.2 13020 8.5 13042 11.6 VAC 107 9.0 Lot 11 31,9 5.0 2+00 6.0 2.08.5 4.0 3.20 6.0 . 2+54 7.5. 1+30 38th Ave. 5. 'ADDRESS IDT -3 IAC -2 4102-3 [07.4 107-5 IDC -6 IAC -7 IDC -8 102-9 GOT -10 IDT -11 L00-12 57118 LC ATIas 100631H. DEPTH STATION 1.16 2.15 2.73 3.28 • 0420.. 1.50 143 • .0+79 1.21 0.36 3+83 3.51 . 2.70 /MH -.y • M 4011-A ,au 3902 ,70411 225•-0^ 3. o.o0 • 111111 h 6007 WISEIn 17017 I3CL1 3027 1011,. - 94 - / �. 79209 „. Agg WNW I�I 15030 A1/1-7 292'-51 1 7-7 STUB LOCATIONS 33+0. AVENUE SOUTH ADDRESS 1(5014 0(776 STATION 13011 13.0 4.0 1+60 13021 20.0 6.0 0+23 13028 13.0 4.0 0+11 13050 6467 --. 2+33 2.36 END Lot 27 16.0 4:0 1+19 Lot 28 6062 4.0 2.00 Lot 29 13.0 4.0 1+06 Lot 30 13.0 4.0 1+60 Lot 31 18.0 7.0 1+17 Lot 32 13.0 5.0 0+61 Lot 33 18.0 4.0 0+04 1 -L 1 j1 �l ,moi , H MH U3-! STUD LOCATIONS 347X. AVENUE SOUTH ADDRESS LENGTH DEPTH STATION 12939 41.0 : 4.0 0.04 13003 21.0 40.0 0+13 :13019 27.0 4.0 2.45 '33020 33.0 11.0 2.08 13024 40.0 12.0 2.95 13027 27.0 4.0 2.83 13044 31.0 6.5 0+64 13047 846 1+91 13048 28.0 4.0 1+83, 13057 28.0 4.0 1H Lot 24 27.0 4.0 1+47 Lot 25 31.0 8.5 0.68 Lot 26 22.0 6.0 1+72 STUD LOCATIONS 35th Ave. 5. • ADDRESS [045200 DEPTH .STATION 13015 10.01 3.0 1+36 6.85 13016 9.2 13020 8.5 13042 11.6 VAC 107 9.0 Lot 11 31,9 5.0 2+00 6.0 2.08.5 4.0 3.20 6.0 . 2+54 7.5. 1+30 38th Ave. 5. 'ADDRESS IDT -3 IAC -2 4102-3 [07.4 107-5 IDC -6 IAC -7 IDC -8 102-9 GOT -10 IDT -11 L00-12 57118 LC ATIas 100631H. DEPTH STATION 1.16 2.15 2.73 3.28 • 0420.. 1.50 143 • .0+79 1.21 0.36 3+83 3.51 . 2.70 / / / / / / , / / / / / i Q n • EXISTING HOUSE • CONCRETE DRIVE FIRE HYDRANT) ASPHALT DRIVE 48 MATER MS 80005.3 / / • 23' ▪ TO mo P ▪ TOP PK NAIL N ASPHALT. ELEVATION - 248.94 FEET. DATUM: NAVD883 I.E r CONCRETE INLET. ELEV.-248.99 f 2% MIN SLOPE (RO 8•CW. SURVEY NOTES: INSTRUMENTS AND PROCEDURES: A SPECTRA FOCUS 30 r ROBOTIC TOTAL STATION WAS USED FOR THE FIELD TRAVERSE SURVEY WORK. AN ASHTECH GPS SYSTEM WAS USED FOR THE CONTROL WORK. ACCURACY EXCEEDS WAC 332-130-090. THE VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD-88. THE BENCH MARK IS SURVEY CONTROL POINT N0. 3448 PER SURVEY CONTROL POINT DATA SHEET DESCRIBED AS A MON IN CASE MATH A 1' X 1• LEAD WITH •+' LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF 5.128111 ST AND 241H AVE 5. ELEVATION - 395.63 FEET. THE BOUNDARY UNES SHOWN HEREON ARE PER RECORD OF SURVEY RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 9811179012. THE LOT UNES OF SAID SURVEY HAVE BEEN ROTATED TO NAD 83(1991) BY TYING A COUPLE OF FOUND LOT CORNERS 1 MAKE NO WARRENTY AS TO THE ACCURACY OF SAID SURVEY. ONLY THE MITES THAT ARE VISIBLE HAW BEEN LOCATED. UTIUTES THAT ARE UNDERGROUND OR ARE OBSCURED BY VEGETATION MAY NOT HAVE BEEN LOCATED. PRIOR TO DOGWG. INVESTIGATION FOR POSSIBLE HIDDEN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOULD BE VERIFIED. THE BASS OF BEARING IS STATE PLANE (NAD83 1991) AS ESTABLISHED BY GPS. THE CONTROL POINT BEING POINT N0. 3448 PER SURVEY CONTROL PONT DATA SHEET DESCRIBED AS A MOW IN CASE WITH A 1' X 1' LEAD WITH +' LOCATED AT THE 941Le tt.RON CF 5.128TH ST AND 24TH AVE S. THE TREES SHOWN HEREON HAVE BEE/4 IDENTIMED AND SIZED TO THE BEST OF MY ABIUTY. HOWEVER,I MAKE NO WARRENTY AS TO THE ACCURACY THEREOF. IF THE PROPER CERTIFICATION OF THE S2E AND SPECIES ARE DEEMED TO BE CRITICAL, THEN A TRAINED ARBORIST SHOULD FIELD VERIFY. THIS SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A CURRENT TITLE REPORT AND THEREFORE DOES NOT SHOW ALL EASEMENTS OR RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD -- IF ANY. \8823'20'W NC 12'3rw (PER ROS 9811179012) UTIUTY LEGEND QSS MH SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE CONCRETE WALK Elio. • CB CATCH BASIN OPP POWER POLE D 0 ❑ WOOD FENCE WN WATER METER CCOa ROCKERY < A-41 WETLAND FLAG 010W1A ORDINARY HIGH WATER UNE —W— WETLAND BOUNDARY SCALE 1' - 10' 0 5 10 20 • 117.71' IE r PVC OUTFALL -252.85 \ EDGE OF ASPHALT TREE LEGEND • 20' 0911 CR BIGGER TREE AS SHOWN • 12' TO 18' DBH TREE AS SHOWN • 8' 70 10' OEM 1REE AS SHOWN G CEDAR CH WILD CHERRY CW COTTONWOOD \ 30' \& 30' 12 r PVC OUTFALL -249.72 IE 12' CONCRETE OUTFALL -247.31 seIBM 1: TOP SPIKE iN EAST SIDE OF POWER pOIL ELEVATION - 249.51 FEET. DATUM: NAVD' LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 12 BLOCK 5, ROBBINS SPRINGBRO3K ADDITION TO RIVERTON, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN VOLUME 18 OF PLATS PAGE 87. RECORDS OF KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON. 30' L /y' Govt Steve Tao pate. Pzo6uatoaal .da«d Swwev:4, Servat 7431 1533RD CT NE REDDEND. WA 98052 Phone 425 887-1715 Emalt wapatnOfronUraam SITE PLAN :Dreamcatcher Homes Inc. P3D. BOX 2608, LYNNWOOD, VA 98036 DATE: OCT 14, 2013 JOB NO. CHKD. BY: SCALE: 1' = 10' SHEET 1 1 Dreamcatcher Homes LLC - RUE Wetland/Stream Mitigation Plan 33rd Ave. S., Tukwila, WA 98168 Tax Parcel No.: 7359600473 MINS HOME coma owe ....::L-ii...",::..: 6 1 •. , 6' "k „ / •.. -T......-...-_-.);•• tit•• ___ . •'S . • •ii. . • t\ • L tf a .1:1,- . i .t1: _'b 0 _ a a * .. 1*... -... SI OPFIRi ORAINY--� + + + + Building Envelope ++ + t, 0+ se \d- Nt HWM. O 1r tic/ tarAtt6urt 1 r caP of ML £ U. OUN.ti°1en° E PLIat I+3.20.6 wens. Ont o 66nn661'� +i 6 1.3 Z GA.L DESCR P TION LOT 12 BLOCK 5, ROBBINS SPRINGBROOK ADDITION TO RIVERTON, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN VOLUME 16 OF PLATS, PAGE 67, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. 33RD AVE. S. a11 TOP $71.e? va[ s^x tr PC •••.a. ...,',air . auras •71. ier corm. WOE V A•1MLT r 1:4 Y=.C.1D' n CC'.C, ET WALK e: TC, :I C9 CATCH RA.SIN PCV ER PC..E. 0 WCs)L+ FENCE WATER METER aCCQ ROCKERY <2,---741 WETLAND FLAG GHWM ORDINARY H1GH WATER UNE V-- i EV Arndt 11OUNDAR" TRE Lir, • 20" DBH OR BIGGER TREE AS SHOWN • 12" TO 16" DBH TREE AS SHOWN • 6" TO 10" DBH TREE AS SHOWN C CEDAR CH WILD CHERRY CW COTTONWOOD L/V C002. 0 0 o 0 .1 ▪ n 6 mora =aa2 zg• oix .200 4 a d 1 O 0 0 N E L HO. C 0 3 '� W2 m N o m 3 Jeff Jones CHECKED BY: l rc a t- cn 11, ,w1 " 1 4 • C RECEIVED MAR 1 A 2014 Dreamcatcher Homes LLC - RUE Wetland/Stream Mitigation Plan 33rd Ave. S., Tukwila, WA 98168 Tax Parcel No.: 735960-0473 X MIK? NM O 0 00j 0 94. 0 O ` O O 0 ; 9 O O iland Sign O '"e Filter Fence 0 O rA,0 0 09 o Q • 9OO 03 ®9 O OQDO O m..: rIe ®fir af s✓' Spllil"R�v> all Fence Itror•g 9 00 O/� ,. _.0 O O, \O 0 0 Ara. 0 O.: .0i:7 00 0 �'-• • • • • lara ce cc 0 o r 0 0"9 ,4PitRailFence r0 \ l0 00 \0 o R90 9 GO see r !Ie -MAIL SISAL /Wall 33RD AVE. S. Inas a, aaa WM .7 Wit . tg.tsa+= ENt.LT sTac IF/ NORTH SCALE: 1" = 1 O' PLANT SCHEDULE inr 1 02 /O.Ftel A2254 Almon. SUM spam PCan W, roma iJ 29+1 /NO. ��•�V/ P. 22 w�eu. s�..u<le. w.w�a. 12 c.wno. 0 Heave«Dog.00d Com. IMAM. se C45.1. 0 Hoover Rom nOara 25 2 25 O saknonbmy RWu. apee.bxe E 2 gal O Ladyfern /am/ se>m:a SI +yv ® Skupn sNq Cans oeixnme 25 PNy. TWO RAIL FENCE DETAIL FENCENOTi3e FENCE MAYBE CONSTRUCTED OF SPLIT RA, PRESSURE TREATED RAIL, OF 20422 COATED PLASTIC. THE ONLY REQUIREMENT 15 THAT THE FENCE NOT BE SOLID ANO MUST ALLOW WILDLIFE TO BE ABLE TO PASS THROUGH. C O Jeff Jonee DRAWN BY: ., w, i U O g W O 0 n 1,11/ -P000t 1.0 Project Description The applicant proposes to construct a single-family residence an the subject property, Almost the entire parcel is a Category 111 Wetland with an 80 -foot buffer. A Type 3 (Np) watercourse is on-site. Impacts to the wetland and stream are unavoidable. The proposed wetland impact is 3,045 sf. A section of the stream must be piped under the proposed driveway. Ona -site mitigation will be 3,415 of of wetland enhancement and 33,495 sf of off-site mitigation. The off-site mitigation may be a fee program with the city. 1.1 Gooks and Objectives The goal of mitigation is to increase the functions and values of buffer. Installation of native plant species will 'increase plant diversity, and improve wildlife habitat and water quality. The objectives necessary to meet the above stated goal are as follows: • Record the sensitive arca in a "Notice on Title" • Install erosion control filter fencing set the 18 -foot contour of the the. stream • Demolish and remove existing structures in the buff • Remove invasive plant species from the buffer • Remove exposed concrete pipe • Install plant materials • Install split rail fencing and critical area signs at the edge of the development arra • Maintain and monitor the enhancement area for a period of three years or until the site meets the specified performance standards • Implement contingency measures as ncedcd during the maintenance and monitoring period 2.0 Project Location The properly is located at 131X%33rd Ave, S., Tukwila, Washington 98168. 3.0 Responsible Parties Property Owners DreamCatcher homes, LLC P.0. Box 2608 Lynnwood, Washington 98036 206-300-6874 keiro jafajgmail.com Environmental Consultant J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. Attn: Jeffery S. Jones, Professional Wetland Scientist, SWS No. 1025 P.O. Box 1908 Issaquah, Washington 98027 253-905-5736 jeffjsiones®comcastnet 4.0 Standards All work and materials shall conform to landscape industry standards and specifications, and to the specifications and details shown on these plana. 5.0 City of Tukwila Contact Certain actions within this mitigation plan require inspection or approval by local agency staff Requests for inspectionapproval shall be coordinated through the City of Tukwila Planning Department. 6.0 Contractor Information When itis available, contact information shall be provided to local jurisdiction that includes names, addresses and phone numbers of persons/firms that will be responsible for site preparation, installation and maintenance and monitoring. 7.0 Contractor's Qualifications Conn-atm/Landscape Installer must be experienced in mitigation work. The Permittee shall provide that there is one person on the site ar all times during work and installation who is thoroughly familiar with the type of materials being installed and the best methods for their installation, and who shall direct all work being performed under these specifications. Tho person shall be experienced installing native plant materials for wetland mitigation or restoration projects, unless otherwise allowed by the Landscape Designer, Wetland Scientist and'or 0=10ca1 jurisdiction staff. 8.0 Site Conditl0ns The Contractor shall immediately notify the Landscape Designer and/or Wetland Scientist of drainage or soil conditions likely to be deterimental to the growth or survival of plants. The Landscape Designer and/or Wetland Scientist may adjust the locations of plantings shown on plans based on held conditions. Planting operations shall not be conducted under the following conditions: freezing weather, when the ground is frozen. excessively wet wrnther, excessively windy weather, or in excessive heat. Site conditions must be documented on as -built drawings submitted to the local jurisdiction. 9.0 Rants 9.1 Origin: Plant materials shall be Northwest native plants, nursery grown in the Puget Sound region of Washington.. 9.2 Rant Names: Plant names shall comply with those generally accepted in the native plant nursery trade. Any questions regarding plant species or variety shall be referred to the Landscape Designer or Wetland Scientist. All plant materials shall be true to species and variety. 9.3 Plant Substitutions: Same species substitutions of larger sire do not require special permission. All plant substitutions shall be approved by Landscape Designer, Weiland Scientist and/or local jurisdiction staff, 9,4 Quality and Condition: Plants shall be normal in pattern of growth, healthy, well -branched, vigorous, with well-developed root systems, and free of pests and diseases. Damaged diseased pest -infested, scraped, bruised, dried -our. burned, broker., or defective plants will be rejected. 9.5 Intermediate Inspections: All plants .shall be inspected and approved by the landscape Designer and/or Wetland Scientist prim to installation. Condition of plants will be inspected upon delivery and prior to planting. Plant materials may be rejected at the discretion of the landscape Designer a ' r. '.� Dreamcatcher - RUE Wetland/Stream Mitigation Plan 33rd Ave. S., Tukwila, WA 98 Tax Parcel No.: 735960-0473 and/or Weiland Scientist 9.6 Handling: Plants shall be handled so as to avoid all damage. including breaking, bruising, root damage, sunburn, drying, freezing or other injury. Plants must be covered dutiog•lransport. Plants shall not be bound with wire or mpe in a manner that could damage branches. Protect plant roots with shade and wet soil in the time period between delivery and 'installation. Do not lift container stock by trunks, stems, or tops. Do not remove from containers until ready to plant. Water all plants as necessary to keep moisture levels appropriate to the species horticultural requirements. Plants shall not be allowed to dry out All plants shall be watered thoroughly immediately upon installation. Soak all containerized plants thoroughly prior to installation. Bare root plants are subject to the following special requirements, and shall not be used unless planted between December 15th and March 13511, and only with the permission of the Landscape Designer, Welland Scientist, and/or local jurisdiction staff. Baeroot plants must have enough fibrous root to insure plant survival. Roots must be coveted at all times with mud and/or wet straw, moss, or other suitable packing material until time of installation. Plants whose roots have dried out from exposure will not be accepted at installation inspection. 9.7 Damaged Rants: Damaged, dried out, or otherwise mishandled plants will be rejected at installation inspection. All rejected plants shall be immediately removed from the site. 9.8 Roots: All plants shall be balled and burlapped, containerized, or baroroot as appropriate for their size and condition, unless expliciry authorized by the Landscape Designer and/or Wetland Scientist. Root bound plants or B&13 plants with damaged, cracked or loose rootbalis (major damage) will be rejected. Immediately before installation, plants with minor root damage (some broken and/or twisted) must be root -pruned. Matted or circling roots of containerized plantings must be pruned or straightened and the sides of the root ball must be roughened from top to bottom to a depth of approximately half and inch in two to four places. 9.9 Sias: Plant sizes shall be the site indicated in the plant schedule. Larger stock are acceptable provided they are not motbound or damaged and that the mot ball is proportionate to the size of the plant. Smaller stock may be acceptable, and under some circumstances porfemblr, based on site-specific conditions. Plant size measurements, if any used, shall conform to the American Standard of Nursery Stock by the American Assoiciation of Nurserymen (latest edition). 9.10 Form: Evergreen utas, if used shall have single -trunks and symmetrical, well-developed form. Dooiduoas trees shall be single -waked unless specified as multi -stem in the plant schedule. Shrubs shall have multiple stems and be well -brunched. 9.11 Planting: Planting shall be done in accordonce with illustrated details in the mitigation plan set and accepted industry standards. Plant locations shall also be inspected and approved prior to planting. 9.12 Timing of Planting: Unless otherwise approved by the local jurisdiction, all planting shall occur between September 1st and May 31. IC temporary irrigation is installed, planting may orcur at any time of year. 9.13 Planting in Pits: Planting pits shall be circular or square with vertical sides, and shall be 6" larger in diameter than the rootball of the plant Break up the sides of the pit in compacted soils. Set plants upright in pits, as illustrated in planting detail. Burlap shall be removed from the planting pit. Backfill shall be worked back into holes so that air pockets are removed, itlxmt adverooly compacting soils. 9.14 Sall Amendments: Cedar Grove compost may be used to amend soil in planting pits, as needed. 9.15 Mulch: The soil surface surrounding all planting pit arras shall receive no less than 2"-3" of hog fuet landscaper chip, or medium bark mulch alter planting. Mulch shall be kept well away (at least 2") from the trunks and stems of woody plants. 9.16 Fertilizer: Slow release fertilizer may be used. Fertilizers shall be applied only at the base of plantings underneath the required coveting of mulch (that does not make contact with stems of the plants). No fertilizers will be placed in planting holes. 9.17 Water: Plants shall he watered at planing. Plants shall be watered a second time within 24-48 hours after installation. A temporary irrigation system must installed for summer irrigation of the buffer plantings. 9.18 Staking: Most shrubs and many trees do not require any staking. If the plant can stand alone without staking in a moderate wind, do not use a stake. If the plans needs support, then landscaper tape, strapping or webbing should be used as low as possible on the trunk to loosely brace the nee with one stake (see Planting Detail). Do not brace the tree tightly or too high on the trunk. if the tree is unable to sway, it will further lose the ability to support itself. As soon as supporting the plant becomes unnecessary, remove the stakes. All stakes must be removed within three (3) years of installation. 9.19 Weeding: Existing and exotic vegetation in the mitigation and buffer areas will be hand -weeded from the planting areas and on a routine basis throughout the monitoring period No chemical control of vegetation on any portion of the site is allowed without the written permission of the local jurisdiction staff. 9.20 Wildlife Control: As determined by the Laodvvape Designer andior Wetland Scientist, fencing or deer repellents may be needed to ft deer brouw and rodent girdling. 10.0 Maintenance Maintenance shall be required in accordance with management racommendations of the consulting wetland scientist and the local jurisdiction gaff. 10.1 Duration and Extent: In order to achieve performance standards, the Permittce shall have the mitigation area maintained for the duration of the monitoring period, 3 years. All nmintenance shall be directed by the Landscape Designer and'or Wetland Scientist Maintenance will include: • watering (see 11.7 for details) • weeding • replacement (see 12.5 for details) • restaking • removal of all classes of noxious weeds (see Washington State Noxious Weeds List, WAC 16-7150-005) as well as Himalayan blackberry • any other measures needed to insure plant survival (see 11,6 for details) • general maintenance activities which include the replacement of any vandalized or damaged signs, habitat features, fences, signage or other structural component of the mitigation site. 10.2 Survival: The Pennine shall be responsible for the health of 100% of all newly installed plants for one growing season, after installation has been accepted by the local jurisdiction (see Performance Standards). A growing season for these purposes is defined as occurring from March l to October 31. For fall installation (often required), the growing season will begin the following spring. The Permittee shall replace any plants that are failing, weak, defective in a manner of growth, or dead during this growing season, as directed by the Landscape Designer, Wetland Scientist, and/or local jurisdiction 10.3 Installation Timing for Replacement Plants: Replacement plans shall be installed between September 1st and May 31st, unless otherwise allowed by the landscape Designer, Wetland Scientist, and/or local jurisdiction staff. 10.4 Standards for Replacement Plants: Replacement plants shall meet the same standards for size and type as those specified Inc original installation unless otherwise directed by the landscape Designer, Wetland Scientist, and/or local jurisdiction staff. Replacement plants shall he inspected as described above for the original installation. 10.5 Replanting: Plants that have settled in their planting pits too deep, too shallow, loose, or crooked shall be replanted as directed by the Landscape Designer, Wetland Scientist, and/or local jurisdiction staff. 10.6 Herbicides/Pesticides: Chemical controls shall not be used in the mitigation area, sensitive areas or their buffers. However, limited use of herbicides may be approved depending on site specific conditions, only if approved by the local jurisdiction staff. 10.7 Irrigation/Watering: Water shall he provided during the summer and fall seasons (June 1st - October 15th) at least for the first two years after installation to ensure plant survival and establishment. Water should be provided by a temporary above ground irrigation system. Water should be applied ata ram of 1" of water one to two times a week for Year ! and 1" of water once a week during Year 2. 11.0 Performance Standards - Plant Cover and Survival • Plant survival and cover standards are established to measure mitigation success as follows: Year 1 Plant Vegetative Cover" >10"/c. Plant Survival 100% "Includes native volunteer plants Year 2 >15% >85% Year 3 200/0 >75% • Less than 10% invasive vegetation during any monitoring event. • The establishment of 2 species of native trees and gi species of native shrubs at the end the the monitoring period. 12.0 Monitoring Monitoring shall be conducted annually for 3 years in accordant with the approved mitigation monitoring plan. 12.1 Vegetation Monitoring: Beit L-anse050 and pieta will be established. for vegetation monitoring. Linea belt transects are the preferred method for vegetation monitoring for this site. No less than one (1) 100 -foo: transect 3 feet wide per 10,000 square feet of area will be established in restoration and mitigation areas. Permanent 0ansect location(s) must be identified on mitigation site plans in the first monitoring repot (they may be drawn on approved mitigation plans by hand). Plots located at one end of endo transect shall detail herb, shrub, and tree aerial cover at radii of lm, Sm, and 10m respectively. Monitoring of vegetation transects shall occur annually between August 1st and September 30th (prior to leaf drop), unless otherwise specified. 12.2 Photopoints: No less than four (4) permanent overview photo points and one (1) photo point along each transect, will be taken. Photographs will be taken to visually record the condition of the mitigation area Photos shall be taken annually between August 1st end September 30th (prior m leaf drop), unless otherwise specified. 12,3 Reports: Monitioring reports shall be submitted by December 31st of earth year during the monitoring period As applicable, monitoring reports mot include description/data for • Site plan and location map • Historic description of project, including date of installation, carton year of monitoring, reamtement of mitigation goals, and performance standards • Plant survival, vigor, and aerial coverage from every plant community (transect data), and explanation of monitoring methodology in the context of assessing performance standards • Site hydrology, including extent of inundation, saturation, depth to groundwater, function of any hydrologic structures, pieartneter or staff gunge if available, inputs, cadets, etc. • Slope condition, site stability, any structures or special features • Buffer conditions, e.g. surrounding land use, use by humans, wild and domestic creatures • Observed wildlife, including amphibians, animus and others • Awessmont of nuisanceiexotic biota and recommendations for management • Soils, including texture, Munsell colon, rooting and oxidized rhlzoshperes • Colin photographs taken from permanent photo points as shown in the first as -built plan or the first monitoring report • Summary of maintenance and contingency measures proposed for nen season and completed for past season 12.4 De0ctences: Any deficiency discovered during any monitoring or inspection visit must be corrected within 60 days of approval hythe local jurisdiction. 12.5 Contingency Plan: Should any monitoring report reveal the mitigation has failed in whole or in pan, and should that failure be beyond the scope of routine maintenance, a Contingency Plan will be submitted. The Contingency Plan may range in complexity from a list of plants substituted, to dzoss-sections of proposed engineered structures. Once approved, it may be installed, and will replace the approved mitigation plan. If the failure is substantial, the local jurisdiction may extend the monitoring period for that mitigation. 13.0 Bond Prior to beginning any work, the Permittee must provide a mitigation bond or assignment of funds to the local jurisdiction. A bond quantity worksheet has been completed based on all elements of the mitigation plan. The total cost, plus contingency fres has been determined to be which will be the amount of the bond or financial guarantee the Pcnoinee is required to provide. Bonds are eligible for 'eduction to the maintenance nod monitoring potion upon approval of installation by the local jurisdiction. 1.41ti-'0002, 1 1 i ray i -t 4••r O U a) 0 • r?w� i -M W 0 E J q J W O • too • O') Opo► Ia42 Zm'0 !L .C C E �O m M LI 0O 0 0 5 C a 0 0 (oz Dreamcatcher Homes LLC - RUE Wetland/Stream Mitigation Plan 33rd Ave. S., Tukwila, WA 98168 Tax Parcel No.: 7359600473 LOT 12 BLOCK 5, ROBBINS SPRINGBROOK ADDITION TO RIVERTON, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN VOLUME 16 OF PLATS, PAGE 67, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. 0 0..-❑ ' • 20" DBH OR BIGGER TREE AS SHOWN • 12" TO 18" DBH TREE AS SHOWN • 6" TO 10" DBH TREE AS SHOWN C CEDAR CH WILD CHERRY CW COTTONWOOD /q0002 172. 2 0 7-3 s" -0 2 v 3 JD 777, 3 z o o Jo • I E (1 °) t0010 voOrR =N" 0 ryx swig • o • 6 C m 0 0 0 E c H a co 0 ▪ CD 3 '" W� z tc DESIGNED BY: f Jen Jones DRAWN BY: Jeff Jones CHECKED BY: APPROVED BY: a DECEIVED JAN I ; 2Z14 Dreamcatcher Homes LLC - RUE Wetland/Stream Mitigation Plan 33rd Ave. S., Tukwila, WA 98168 Tax Parcel No.: 735960-0473 X ?SPOILT 0/0 o 0 0 . o Q 0 0 , 0 0 0 00 tla nd Sign 0 o 0 F ilter Fp nce G • 0 e o 00 0 0 000 0 ° 0 00 brirdew 0 O 041.4/ °o 97st. 0 ° 0 401?. 0 arrarara6 ° au °mums%) .• 21011115_OPP fRODEDRA,Urip. DRIVEWAY . . _ ar r P MEWL tr 011001 00011 ,100 OF *MIMI ar 33RD AVE. NORTH SCALE: 1 = 1 PLANT SCHEDULE a'rk" SP/Pol °Smug. 'pus 00 0 0 Rad MB! Sao Soros Asa, WIN°, REd-osor flouwoud Noe.. Roso Saloon., Loa 'Awn Slough S.A. I go Cuttings Collings 102 002 100 Plugs TWO RAIL FENCE DETAIL , — 1111111111.1■031111111.7.110111M 1 FIETICZ NOTT-4: INCE MAYBE CONSTRUCTED OF SPOT RAIL PRESSURE MEP! ED RAIL OF VINYL 300100 P.ASI.C. I HE ONLY REQUIREMENT IS THAT THE FENCE NOT BE S000 010 MUST ADJOIN WILELIEE 10 BE ABLE IC PASS THROUGH. WETLAND SIGN DETAIL / TREE AND SHRUB PLANTING AND STAKING DETAIL lopk, t o 0 0 0 0 .J .J 111 • m E° to o 00 .,• I co 3 N 4 3 3 4) 0 • m O 0s, O cw E!.1 (5 0 O 0? L O 0 (1 0 'ECEIVED JAN 15 214 1.0 Project Description 'I he applicant proposes to construct a singlo-famiiy residence on the subject property. Almost the entire parcel is a Category 111 Wetland with an 60-000: buffer. A Type 3 (Np) watercourse is on-site. Impacts m the wetland and stream are unavoidable. The proposed wetland impact is 3.04` sf A .section of the stream mast be piped under the proposed driveway. On-site mingaticn will be 3.415 sf of:wetland enhancernent and 33,495 .sfofoff-site mitigation. The off -sits mitigation may be a fee program with the city. 1.1 Goals and Objectives 'Ile goal of m1:ga0imn is to increase the functions and values of buffer. Insnaliatrm ofnative plant species will increase plant diversity, and improve wildlife habitat and water quality. The objectives necessary to mast the above sled E941are as fellows: • Record the sensitive arc= in a "Notice on Title" • „stall erosion canon] filter fencing at the 18 -foot canton: of the the • Demolish and seinen existing 5vuctures in the butler • Remove icvasive plant species from the buffer • Rernove exposed concrete pipe • Install plant materials • Install split rail fencing and critical arca signs at the edge oldie developmect arca • Maintain and monitor the enhancement area for a period of three years or until the site meets the specified perfbrmrmce standards • Irtplernen: contingency measures as needed during the maintenance and monitoring period 2.0 Project Location Tl:e property is located at 131 XX 33rd Ave. 5., Tukwila. Washington 98168. 3.0 Responsible Yarlits Property Owners DreamCntcher Hones. LLC P.O. Box 2608 Lynnwood, Washington 98036 206-300-6874 k ei ro u zj c9d g ma i I. c u m r-nviron rental Consultant 1. S. Jones and Associates. Inc. Arm: JetTery S. Jones. Professional Wetland Scientist SWS Nu. 1025 P.O. Box 1908 Issaquah. Washington 98027 2.9-905-5"(36 jetlijsjonesftacomeissna 4.0 Standards Ail work and materials shall conform m landscape industry standards and specifications. and to the .specifications and details shown cn these pians 5.0 City of Tukwila Contact Cenuin actions v.ithln this mitigation plan 0090:10 inspection or approval by local agency staff. Requests for inspection/approval shall be coordinated Brough the City of Tukwila Planning Department. 6.0 Contractor Information When it is available, contact information strati be provided Is, local jurisdiction that includes names, addresses and phone numbers of persons/firms that will he responsible for site preparation, installation and m.rrmen.n.ce and monitoring. 7.0 Contractor's Qualifications Contmetor!Landscape Installer must be experienced in mitigation work. The Permittee shall provide that there is one person on the site at all limes during work and installation who is thoroughly familiar with the lupe of materials being installed and the best methods for their installation, and who shall direct' all work being perlonnrd under hose specifications. This person shall be experienced installing native pima materials for wetland mitigation or restoration projects, unless otherwise allowed by the Landscape Designer, Wetland Scientist andior the local jurisdiction staff. 8.0 Site Conditions The Contractor shall immediately notify the Landscape Designer and/or Wetland Scientist of drainage or soil conditions likely to be deterimennd to the growth or survival of plants. The Landscape Designer and'or Wetland Scientist may adjust the locations ot'plantings shown tel plans based on field condhiors. Planting operations shall not be conducted under the following cordinars: fieeeing weather, when the ground is froze:, escessively wet sveaher, excessively windy weather, or in excessive heat. Site conditions mist be drn:umented on as -built drawings submitted to the local jurisdiction. 9.0 Plans 9.1 Origin: Plant materials shall be Northwest native plants, nursery grown in the Puget Sound region of Washington. 9.2 Plant Names: Plant names shall campy with those generally .accepted Inc native plant nursery trade. Any questimu regarding plant spec:00 or variety shall be referred to the landscape Designer or Wetland SeternSt All p:mn, rnmerials shall be true to species and variety 9.3 Plant Substitutions: Same species substitutions of larger size do not require special permission. Ali plant substitutions shall be approved by Landscape Designer, Wetland Scientist and/or local jurisdiction staff. 9.4 Quality and Condition: Plants shall be normal in pattern of growth. healthy, well -branched. vigorous. with well-developed root systems, and lice of pests and discnes. Damaged. dismnodest-infested, scraped, bruised, d. dried -oat. burned. broken. or dcfesive plums will be rejected. 9,5 Intermediate Inspections: .All plans shall be inspected and approved by the Landscape Designer nnd'or Wetland Scientist prior to iromllatio n. Condition, of plants will be inspe:cd upon delivery and prior to planting. Plant materials may be rejected at the discretion of he landscape Designer Dreamcatcher - RUE Wetland/Stream Mitigation Plan 33rd Ave. S., Tukwila, WA 98 Tax Parcel No.: 735960-0473 and:or Wetland Scientist. 9.6 Handling: Plants shall he handled so as to avoid all damage. including bmakieg, noising. root damage, sunburn. drying. freezing or other injury. Plans must be covered during transport. Plans shall not be bound with ,vire or rope in a manner that could damage branches. Protect plant roots with shade and wet soil in the time period between delivery and installation. Do not lift container stock by trunks. stems, or tops. Do not remove from containers until ready m plana. Water all plans as necessary to keep m0is:ure levels appropriate to the species horticultural requirements. Plans shall not be allowed to dry out. All plans shall be watered thoroughly priodrably upon installation. Soak all containerized plans thoroughly r ata installation. Bare root plants arc subject to the following special requirements, and shall not be used unless planted botween December 15th and Mach 15th, and only with the permission of the Lardscape Designer, Wetland Scientist and'or local jurisdiction: staff. Barorout plants must have nougl, fibrous root to insure plant smvivai. Roots must be covered at all times with mud and/or wet straw, moss. or other suitable packing material until time of installation. Plants whose roots have dried out from exposure will not be accepted at installation inspection. 9.7 Damaged Plants: Damaged, dried out or otherwise mishandled plans will he rejected at installation inspection. All rejected plans shall be iminediately removed from the site. 9.8Rnots: All plants shall be balled and burlapped, containerized. or bareool as appropriate for their size and condition, unless explicity aulhorind by the Landscape Designer and(er Wetland Scinmist Rear board plants or B&B pants with damaged, cracked or loose rootballs (major damaged will be rejected. Immediately before instalim.on, plan. with miner root damage Some broken and/or Lwis0ed) must he root -pruned Malted or circling roots of containerized plantings must be pruned or straightened and the sales of the mot hall must be mughcned from top to bottom to a depth of appmsinstely half and inch in two to four places. 9.9 Sizes: Plant sizes shall be the sin indicated in the plant schedule. Larger stock an acceptable provided they am not rootbound nn damaged and that the mot ball is prnporticna:c to the size of the plant. Smaller stack may be act: ptable, and under some aircatnstances perf:table, based un sine -specific conditions. Plant size measurements, if any used shall .onfomm to the American Standard of Nursery Suck by the America: Assoiciation of Nurserymen (latest edition) 9.10 Form: Evergreen tress, if used, shall have .single -trunks and symmetrical, well-developed form. Deciduous trees shall be single -trunked unless .specified as multi -stem in the plant schedule. Shmbn shall have multiple stems and be well -branched. 9,11 Planting: Planting shall be dons in accordance with illustrated details in the mitigation plan set and accepted industry standards Plant lucuio s shall also be inspected and approved po to planting. 9.12 Tinting of Planting: Unless otherwise approved btheolpeak----- jurisdiciion. all planting shall ocemakaaanktrgeptember I st and May 310 If ottprimry-iaigauua its nanll nt ng may occur at any true of year. 9.13 Planting in Pits: Planting pins shall he circular or square with vertical 44. ides, and .ball be 6" larger in diameter than the rotball of the plant Break a/ .19 the sides of the pit Inc compacted soils. Set pians upright in pas, as :Iltastrated in planting detail. burlap shall be removed tion: the planting pit. Backfill shall be worked back into holes so that air pockets are removed, without adversely compacting soils. 9.14 Soil Amendments: Cedar Grove compost may be sisal to amend .soil n planting pits, as needed. 415-MmNn,-Thn-sos8'n00ru surto 'in R planting pit 00000 slialr7ective no Ica than 2"-3" of hug fuel. landscaper chip. or medians bark mulch after planting. Mulch shall he kept well any (at leas: 2") from the trunks and stem of woody plants. 9.16 Fertilizer: Slow release fertilizer may be used. Fertilizers sin -ants appkad only at he base of plantings underneath the resat. d covering of wmulch (that does not make contact with stems of the plants). No fertilizers ill he placed in planting holes. 9.17 Water: Plans shall be watered at planting. Plants shall be watered a second time within 24-48 hours atter installation. A temporary irrigation system mus: installed for summer Saris:aims of the buffer plantings. H. y{tik v"y 9.18 Staking: Vas: shrab4.and many trees,Eo not require any staking. 11' j0•-' •-4 the plant can stand alone will�rut sulking Ufa moderate wind, do trot use a stake, lithe plant needs sumo 07.11abdscaper :ape, strapping or webbing showd'be .sed as low as posshle t crank ;o loosely brace the toe with one stake (see Planting Detail). Do t brace the tree tightly or too high on the anr:k. If the tree is unable to s a it will further lose the ability to support itself As soon as nap ing do lent becomes unnecessary, remove the stakes. All stakes moa be removed within three (3) years of installation. 9.19 Weeding: Existing and exotic vegetation in the mitigation and buff .areas will be hand -weeded from the planting areas and on a routine basis throughout the monitoring period) No chemia-il control of vegetation on any portion of the site is allowed without the written permission of the local jurisdiction staff 9.20 Wildlife Control: As determined by the Landscape Designer andt'or Wetland Scientist, fencing or deer repellents may be needed to limit deer brnnse and ro4em girdling. , 10,0 Maintenance Maintenance shall be required in accordurnc with management recommendations of the consulting wetland sotmnist and the Itral jurisdiction staff, 10.1 Duration and Extent: In order fo achieve pert'rmance.standards. the Pnumttee shall hoe hen igation area maintained f the duration of he mooring pentad, oars. All maintenance shall be directed by the Landscape Design • taker Wetland Scientist. Maintain= will include: • watering (see 11.7 for details) • ,reeding • replacement (see 11.5 for details) • retaking • removal of all classes of noxious weeds Wee Washington Slate Noxious Weeds Last, WAC 16-;150-005) as well as Himalayan blackberry • any other measures needed to insure plant survival (see 11.6 for derails) • general maintenance activities which include the replacement of any vandalized or damaged signs, habitat features, fences. signage or other structure/ component of the mitigation site. 10,2 Survival: The Porn -duce shall be responsible for he heath of 10055 of all newly installed plants for one growing season, after installation Ins been accepted by the local jurisdiction (see Performance Standards). A growing season: for these purposes is defined as occurring from March 1 s October 31. For fall installation (often required), the growing season will begin the following spring. The Pemritree shall replace any plants that are fairing, ,veal.. defective in a manner of growth, or dead during this growing season, as directed by the Landscape Designer, Wetland Scientist, and/or local jurisdiction, 10.3 Installation Timing for Replacement Plans: Replacemcrt plants shall be installed between September 1st and May 31st, unless otherwise allowed by the Landscape Designer, Wetland Scientist, and;or lord jurisdiction sniff. 10.4 Standards for Replacement Plants: Replacement plans shall meet the same standards for sine and type as those specified for original installation amless otherwise directed by the Landscape Designer, Wetland Scientist,and/nr local jurisdiction staff. Replacement plants shall be inspected as described above for the original installation, 10.5 Replanting: Plans that have settled in their planting pis too deep, too shallow. loase, or crooked shall be replanted as directed by the Landscape Designer, Wetland Scientist, and/or local jurisdiction staff. 10.6 Herbicides/Pesticides: Chemical controls shall not be .seal in the mitigation arca, sensitive areas or their buffers. However, limited use of herbicides may be approved depending on site specific conditire..oniv if approved by the local junsdiction staff. 10.7 Irrigation/Watering: \Vater shall be provided during the surmmr and fall seasons (lune 1st - October 15th) at least for the first two years atter installation to ensure plant survival and establishment. Water should be provided by a temporary above ground irrigation system. Water should be applied at a rate of I" ofwater one to twc times a week for Year 1 and 1" of water once a week during Year 2. r:itigatimr has failed in whole or in part, and should that failmv be beyond the scope of routine maintenance, a Contingency Plan will be submitted. The Contingency Plan may range in complexity from a list of plans substituted, to cross-sectium ofproposed engineered stmciures. Once approved. it may be installed, and will replace the approved mitigation plan. If the failure is substantial, the local jurisdiction may extend the monitoring period for that mitigation e nG' Swv ran tE v' s,JG[6-h^'t 13.0'137k.r ,gist via Prior te in any work, the Perminoc.tuau mina bond erv- beginning Y assignment of lands 10 the lac ! lse?dictinn. A h6Gd'quatitit • workshrm has ssigm I q ) been completed based on all elements of the mitigation plan. The total cost. plus contingency fees has been determined to he S which will be the amount of the bond or financial guarantee the Permittee is required to provide. Bonds am eligible for reduction to the ma.err00nce and monitoring portion upon approval of installation by the local jurisdiction. 11,0 Performance Standards- Plant Cover and Survival • Plant survival and cover standards are established to measure instigation 000cess as follows: �� y y p,0,/ S Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 .� '- l� Plant Vegetative Covera >10% >15% >20% /.--- Plant Survival 100% >85' >75% •Includes native 1 r plans • Lass than 10% invasive vegetation during any nnmtoring event. r,+5 IC m1r9.-.If • The establishment of species of native trees and 4 species of native P. rr or :boa r 1 , shrubsint the end hthe e monitoring period. r^� d [ ,I S 0-s- 12.0 ir 12.0 Monitoring Monitnrmg.shall be conducted annually for ‘'2 1 years in aaronl0000 with the approved mitigation monitoring plan. 12,1 Vegetation Monitoring: Belt transects and plots will be established .for vegetation monitoring. Linear belt transccs are the preferred method for vegetation monitoring for this site. No less than one (I) 100 -foot transect 3 feet wide per 10,000 square feet of area will be established in rotomtion and mitigation areas. Permanent trans.: location(s) must be identified on mitigation site plans in the first monitoring report (they may be drawn on approved mitigation plans by hand). Plots toasted at one end of each transect shall detail herb, shrub, and tree aerial cover at radii of Im. 5m. and ICm respectively. Monitoring of vegetation transects shall occur 0nnrall9 between Augtut 1st and September 30th (prior to leaf drop), unless otherwise specified. 12.2 Phoropolnts: No less than four 01, permanent overview photo points and one (11 photo point along each transect, will be taken. Photographs will be taken to visually record the condition of the mitigation arca. Photos shall be taken annually between August 1st and September 30th (prior 0 leaf drop), unless otherwise specified. 12.3 Reports: Monitioring reports shall be submitted by Decmnbcr 31st of each year during the monitoring period As applicable, monitoring reports must include description/data for: • Site plan and location map • Historic description of project including date of installation, current year of monitoring, restatement of mitigation goals, and perfonnnom standards • Plant survival. vigor. and aerial coverage from every plant community l transect data), and explanation of monitoring methodology to the context of assessing performance standards • Site hydmlagy, including extent of inundation, saturation, depth to groundwater, function of any hydrologic structures, piezometer nr staff guage IFavaitable. inputs, outlets, etc. • Slope condition, site stability, any structures or special feamras • Buffer conditions. e.g. surrounding land use, an by hunters. wild and domestic creatures • Observed wildlife, including amphibians, aysnns and others • A45casment of nuivancwe5Clic biota and recommendations for anagement • Soils, including texture. Mansell color, rooting and oxidized rhiooshperes • Calor phomgrapls taker from pemtanent photo points as shown in ;he first nus -built plan or the first monitoring report. • and contingency measures proposed for next Summa of maintenance at c o Summary P P season and completed forpast seas „ 1 P 4 , I2.4 Dcfeiences• Any deficiency discovered (luring any monitoring or t inspection visit moa counted corted within[s0 days of approval Irvthe local jurisdiction. +! f -".J 8 12.5 Contingency Pian: Should any monitoring report reveal he CA c d� S4'40515- )1, 4'4055 vy Pu „v` + V� dry -0002 z rc E • C o Ha c c O 03 re7 D ram te 2 0 5 W J W U 0 Z • DREAMCATCHER HOMES PARCEL # 735960-0473 33RD AVE S PL14-0002 L14-0006 1J9 -00a2. elq-- 0005 - APPLICATION FOR REASONABLE USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW April 2, 2018 City of Tukwila Allan Ekberg, Mayor Department of Community Development - Jack Pace, Director Jay Keirouz Dreamcatcher Homes P.O. Box 2608 Lynwood, WA 98036 RE: L14-0002, L14-0006 & E14-0005 Dreamcatcher Homes, Parcel # 735960-047333`d Ave. S. Dear Mr. Keirouz: On December 16, 2014, you, and Jeffrey Jones, your wetland consultant were notified about items that were needed to continue our review of your reasonable use and SEPA applications for development on parcel # 735960-0473. That letter also notified you that pursuant to Section 18.104.070(E) you must submit the missing materials within 90 days of the date of the letter, otherwise the applications would expire. We followed up the December 16, 2014 letter with a letter dated March 30, 2015, discussing the amount of off-site wetland mitigation needed if development were to proceed on the site. You and Mr. Jones met with me and Andrea Cummins, the City's urban environmentalist, on April 14, 2015 to discuss details of wetland mitigation on the site. Since that time, there has been no additional activity on the two land use applications. The ninety day period in which to submit the missing materials expired on July 14, 2015. You have not provided the requested information and as a result your applications for reasonable use and environmental review have expired. If you wish to pursue this project, you must re -apply with new application materials and pay new application fees. As part of any new submittal, please make sure you include the items that were missing and identified in previous correspondence with you and Mr. Jones. A copy of that letter is attached. If you have any questions, please call me at 206-431-3661. Sincerely, Carol Lumb Senior Planner cc: Minnie Dhaliwal, Planning Supervisor Jeffrey Jones, J.S. Jones & Associates Enclosure: December 16, 2014 & March 30, 2015 letters Tukwila City Hall • 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, WA 98188 • 206-433-1800 • Website: TukwilaWA.gov *TY OF TUKWILA 411NONCE OF APPLICATION PROJECT INFORMATION Jeffer y S. Jones for Dreamcatcher Homes has filed a SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) Addendum, Reasonable Use and Lot Size Variance applications for property at 131XX 33rd Avenue South, Tukwila. Permits applied for include: L14-0002: Reasonable Use Application L14-0006: Lot Size Variance E14-0005: SEPA Addendum Other known required permits include: Building Permit, Public Works Clearing/Grading Permit. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (U.S. COE) Jurisdictional Determination, possibly U.S. COE 404 or Nationwide permit; possible Hydraulic Project Approval. Studies required with the applications include: Wetland and Stream Assessment, November 25, 2013, prepared by Jeffery S. Jones. The City of Tukwila has requested additional information related to site drainage and hydrology and geotechnical analysis. A Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) for a similar proposal to develop the site (E99-0017) was issued November 16, 1999. The applicant is updating environmental information through a SEPA Addendum for this project, file number E14-0005. FILES AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW The project files are available at the City of Tukwila. To view the files, you may request them at the counter at the Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard #100. Please call the number listed below to make arrangements to view the files. Project Files include: L14-0002: Reasonable Use Application, L14-0006: Lot Size Variance and E14-0005, SEPA Addendum. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT Your written comments on the project are requested. They must be delivered to DCD at the address below or postmarked no later than 5:00 P.M., June 20, 2014. Opportunity for additional oral and/or written public comments will be provided at a public hearing before the Tukwila Hearing Examiner at the DCD offices, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100, Tukwila, WA 98188. The public hearing, originally scheduled for Thursday, May 29, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. has been postponed. Public notice will be provided when a new hearing date is set. To confirm the hearing date call the Department of Community Development at (206) 431-3661. APPEALS You may request a copy of any decision, information on hearings, and your appeal rights by calling DCD at (206) 431-3670. Both the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and Shoreline Variance are appealable to the Washington State Shoreline Hearings Board. For further information on this proposal, contact Carol Lumb at (206) 431-3661 or visit our offices at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100, Tukwila, WA 98188, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Application Filed: Notice of Completeness Issued: Notice of Application Issued: Notice of Application Re -Issued: January 15, 2014 March 4, 2014 March 25, 2014 June 6, 2014 CL H:\\Dreamcatcher Homes NOA\L14-0002-L14-0006-E14-0005 NOA 06/05/2014 2:36 PM THE VERTICAL DATA IS NAY0-116 THE 80101 RARE IS SURVEY ONTO. PONT NO. 3439 PER SURVEY CONTROL POINT DATA SHEET DESCEND AS A 1101 N CAE NTH A 1' X 1' LEAD NTH '+' LOCATED AT RE N10L71C11011 OF 5.126711 ST A140 2419 AVE S ELEVATION - NAM FEET. TIE 601140AY LEES 910911 WREN ARE PER IECSO CF SURVEY RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO (1911179012. THE LOT UNES OF SAD NEWT RAW BEEN ROTATED TO RAD 6.301111YBY TON A COUPLE OF FOUND LOT CORNERS 1 NNE NO AS 10 11E ACCURACY OF SAID 91RLEY. NLY THE IMO= 14AT NE VISIBLE HAVE BEEN LOCATED. UNLIES THAT AIE UIDOIOFOUD OR ARE =cum 9Y VEGETATION MAY NOT HAVE BEEN LOCATED. PRIOR TO 0100614 91%67140A1164 FOR POSSIBLE HDOEH UDERORO 60 UNITES SHOULD BE VERIFIED. THE BILIS OF DEMIN0 IS STATE PLANE DIAD6! 1101) AS ESTANI9IED BY OPS THE CO/1RO. PONT BENG POINT HO. 3110 PER SURVEY 0014190. PONT DATA 91EET DESCRIBED AS A 1,1014 94 CASE BTM A 1' X 1' LEAD WITH LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTEN OF 11229 3T A140 24Th AVE 1 TIE TEES 91010 HEREON HAVE BEEN DFN1F)ED AND SEED TO TIE BEST OF MY MILT'. 401ENR. 1 MALE NO RANEKTY AS 10 111E ACCURACY 71EIE0F. F TIE PROPER D0AFICAITN OF THE S3E AND SPECIES ARE DEEMED TO DE 0011CAL, TEN A RAINED AMORIST SHOULD HELD bflIFV. 1)63 991EY WAS CONDUCTED 91110UT DE ISNOT OF A CURRENT 1111E REPORT AND THEREFORE DOES NOT 9108 ALL EASEMENTS OR RESTRICTIONS OF IECOD — FAY. UTIUTY LEGEND ON IN 3ANTARY WIER MANHOLE F-3 CONCRETE RNK 616 ■N CATCH BANN •PP POWER POLE D--09000 PENCE 1:14m 1M7ER ME10t CxC ROCKERY ® VERLAFN0 FUG ORM ORDINARY HN WATER UNE —11— NEILND BOUNDARY SCALE: 1' - 12 0 10 20 TREE LEGEND • 40' DSII CR WOOER TEE AS SHOWN • 1r TO 16' OOH TREE AS SHOWN W 10 1010 11 ' 0EE AS 9101 4 • • CEDAR • 106 0ERRY CR 601014 DOD LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 12 BLOCK 4 ROOMS SPINIER= A0017ION TO N121101 ACCORDING TD THE PIAT THEREOF, RECORDED N VOLUME 11 OF PLA1S, PAQ 97, RECORDS 0• MNG COUNTY, RA11NG10N. Stere (/a %%Qi%CK 4..d S Sa res 7431163• CT NE 16011010 93612 MI=N= {N 117-1716 Erni wMbMutllma=n SITE PLAN Drearlcatcher Homes Inc. PA BOX 2608, LYNNWOOD, VA 98036 DATE: OCT 14, 2013 I J08 N0. SCALE 1' = 10' SHEET CHRD. By1 March 30, 2015 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Jeffrey Jones J.S. Jones and Associates P.O. Box 1908 Issaquah, WA 98027 RE: L14-002 — Off-site Mitigation Sites Dear Jeff and Jay, Jay Keirouz Dreamcatcher Homes P.O. Box 2608 Lynwood, WA 98036 Jim Haggerton, Mayor Jack Pace, Director As part of our analysis of the reasonable use request for tax parcel 735960-0473, we need to evaluate the total mitigation proposed to compensate for the construction of a single family dwelling in a wetland, wetland buffer and stream buffer. This information is needed prior to scheduling the public hearing for the reasonable use and lot size variance requests. The Wetland Impacts and Stream Buffer Impacts analysis prepared by Mr. Jones on November 18, 2013 and revised on December 30, 2014, identifies 2,800 sq. ft. of total wetland impact and 53 sq. ft. of wetland buffer that needs to be mitigated for the property. The wetland has been categorized as a Category III wetland and enhancement is proposed for mitigation — the required wetland mitigation ratio for enhancement of a Category III wetland is 8:1 (not 12:1 as noted in the wetland report). I calculate the required amount of wetland mitigation as 22,400 sq. ft. plus 53 sq. ft. of wetland buffer enhancement for a total of 22,453 sq. ft. of needed wetland enhancement (per TMC 18.45.090 E.b. (2)). The site provides the opportunity for 3,177 sq. ft. of enhancement, leaving the need for 19,276 sq. ft. (or .44 acres) of off-site wetland mitigation. The reasonable use analysis states that the off-site mitigation may be either a fee -in -lieu program or enhancement of a city -owned property. Next Steps/Process The City does not have a fee -in -lieu program in place at this time, so the off-site option for wetland mitigation will beon either private or public property. We need you to identify where the off-site mitigation will take place and provide us with the costs for both the implementation of the mitigation and the on-going maintenance and monitoring that will be required. The required City monitoring and maintenance time period is five years for both the on- and off-site mitigation. Please keep in mind, additional requirements, alternative locations, and a longer monitoring period may be required by other permitting agencies (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ecology, WDFW). If you have not contacted these agencies yet to discuss this project, you may want to do so now, so that you are aware of the possible full range of mitigation required for the project outside of what the City will require. CL Page 1 of 2 H:\\L14-0002\Off-site Wetland Mitigation and Stream Assessment 03/30/2015 10:58 AM Mr. Jay Keirouz Mr. Jeffrey Jones L14 -0002 -Off-site Mitigation and Stream Assessment Needed AdditionatInformation and Clarifications 1. The Wetland and Stream Assessment identifies two different ratings for the stream on the site — on page 1, the stream is identified as a seasonal stream while on page 4, the stream is identified as a Type 3 stream — please clarify what the stream typing is for this property and how this deter. 2. Please provide a baseline/existing conditions drawing, clearly indicating the existing stream location, significant trees that will be removed/retained, and the boundaries of the wetland for our records. A "wetland sketch" is referenced in the application materials but was not included. If you have any. questions, please let me know. If you would like to schedule a meeting to discuss the off-site mitigation options, or any other issue, please let me know and I will set up a meeting. Sincerely, Carol Lumb Senior Planner cc: Minnie Dhaliwal, Planning Manager Andrea Cummins, Urban Environmentalist CL Page 2 of 2 H:\\L14-0002\Off-site Wetland Mitigation and Stream Assessment 03/30/2015 10:58 AM December 16, 2014 City of Tukwila Jim Ilaggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director Jeffrey Jones J.S. Jones and Associates P.O. Box 1908 Issaquah, WA 98027 RE: L14-002, L14-006 and E14-0005 Dear Jeff, I am writing to bring to your attention two issues. 1. There are fees outstanding on the Notice of Application sent out to properties within 500 feet of your project in the amount of $97.00. This is the third request for reimbursement and the fee must be paid immediately. 2. We met on March 19, 2014 to discuss the items that were needed in order to continue to review the reasonable use and SEPA applications for the project. Nine months have elapsed and I have not received the items identified in the letter to you dated March 4, 2014. TMC 18.104.070 E. provides the City may cancel an application if requested information is not provided in 90 days. The payment of the outstanding fees must be remitted immediately. You also must submit the items requested in the March 4, 2014 letter by March 17, 2015 otherwise the application will be cancelled. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Carol Lumb Senior Planner Enclosures: March 4, 2014 letter, with attachment 7/24/14 Second request for fee payment cc: Jay Keirouz, Dreamcatcher Homes CL H:\\L14-0002\Fee and Additional Info Ltr Page 1 of 1 12/16/2014 4:41 PM 0 City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATIONS March 4, 2014 Jeffery S. Jones J.S. Jones and Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 1908 Issaquah, WA 98027 RE: Dream Catcher Homes Reasonable Use Application, L14-0002 and Lot Size Variance L14-0006 Dear Jeff: Thank you for submitting the fee for the public notice mailing and making arrangements for the public notice sign board's installation. Your application for approval of a reasonable use, L14-0002, located on 33rd Avenue South (parcel number 7359600473) has been found to be complete on March 4, 2014 for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. The City has also reviewed your application for a lot size variance, L14-0006, and determined that this application is complete as well for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. This determination of complete application does not preclude the City from requesting additional plans or information for either application, 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. We have completed a preliminary review of the reasonable use project and determined that additional information is needed to continue review. These comments are attached. Please provide the information requested as soon as possible so review can continue on the reasonable use application. I would appreciate your identifying 3-4 dates when you and your client are available for a public hearing in early May. The hearings on both applications will be held before the City's hearing examiner during business hours. The tentative hearing date will be included in the information provided in the public notice that must be sent out (and posted on the site) in the next 14 days. This notice of complete application applies only to the permit identified above. It is your responsibility to apply for and obtain any other necessary permits issued by other agencies. There may be permits from other agencies required which we have not identified. CL Page 1 of 2 H:\\L14-002 Keirouz Reasonable Use\ L14-0002 & L14-0006 Complete 03/04/2014 11:09 AM 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax 206-431-3665 fl L14-0002 Dreamcatcher Homes Reasonable Use and Lot Size Variance March 4, 2014 If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 431-3661. Sincerely, £ (',-V Carol Lumb Senior Planner Enclosure — Review Comments CL Page 2 of 2 H:\\L14-002 Keirouz Reasonable Use\L14-0002 & L14-0006 Complete 03/04/2014 11:09 AM Additional Information Needed to Continue Project Review: Approval criteria #2 for reasonable use states: "As a result of the proposed development there will be no unreasonable threat to the public health, safety or welfare on or off the development proposal site." The following additional information is needed to analyze the impacts of developing the subject property: SEPA We have reviewed the SEPA checklist submitted in 1999. At that time a Determination of Nonsignficance was issued for the reasonable use project. In our review of the original Checklist, we have determined that a SEPA Addendum is needed for this project. There is no application to complete for the Addendum, however, there is an additional fee of $607.95. The original Checklist can be supplemented with the additional information requested below and any other more recent information you believe is relevant to the proposed project. Please review the answers provided in 1999 and update them, in particular provide additional or updated information for the following items — numbers in parentheses refer to the Checklist question: 1. Clarify the size of the building footprint for the proposed house (A. 11); 2. The Checklist provides conflicting information on whether fill will be used (B.1.e.) — clarify whether fill is needed to create a building pad and driveway and if so, how much fill is needed. Additionally, how much excavation will take place? 3. Has the percent of the site to be covered by impervious surfaces changed? If so, what is the correct percentage? (B 1.g.) 4. For question B. 3. a. 2) The stream cuts across the lower half of the site at an angle and discharges near the northeast edge of the site. This information needs to be incorporated into the checklist, as well as impacts to the stream from relocating part of it or otherwise keeping the flow away from the proposed house and driveway. 5. Information from the drainage/hydrology assessment (see below) and geotech review should be incorporated into the checklist. Drainage/Hydrology Assessment: DCD and the City's surface water engineer visited the site on February 5, 2014. Based on that visit, and a review of the documents submitted in 1999, the following comments must be addressed: 6. The primary concern with development of this site is that a house is proposed to be constructed within a wetland and the potential for drainage, safety, and health problems that may occur in the future both on-site as well as on adjacent down -stream properties as CL Page 1 of 4 03/04/2014 11:37 AM H:\\L14-0002 Keirouz Reasonable use\Attachment A L14-0002, Keirouz Reasonable' e Project Review Comments J a result of the displacement of the wetland functions. During the site visit, springs above and within the site were observed. The 1999 proposal included a retaining wall on the western portion of the site — it is not clear if that is what is proposed currently. Given the amount of water that is present, it does not appear that a proposal to install a retaining wall with a wall drain to intercept most of the ground water prior to it entering the yard portion of the site is adequate, nor will this approach keep water from coming to the surface below the house or on the driveway. Please provide the following: a. Submit a new drainage and hydrology assessment conforming to the 2009 KCSWDM and to an updated geotechnical engineer's recommendations. The drainage report should evaluate the impact of the proposed development on stream hydrology and wetland function and accurately reflect the location and direction of the current stream flow. The original drainage assessment acknowledges that other water sheet flows across the site — what will happen to this flow when it is interrupted by the construction of a house and driveway (and fill if fill is proposed for the site)? b. Have a geotechnical engineer review the site and the 1999 geotechnical comments, update and revise the comments based on the current development proposal if necessary and make recommendations concerning dewatering the property. c. In addition to the wall drain and drainage system beneath the house, it is recommended that a deep (6'-8') cutoff trench across the back yard beneath the "valley" to intercept ground water flows. The trench would use an 8" perforated pipe surrounded by drain rock and wrapped in an approved geotextile fabric. This should allow the back yard to be usable and keep most of the groundwater from coming to the surface beneath the house. A geotechnical engineer should assess this recommendation based on actual subsurface conditions and modify or propose other means to accomplish the same goal. d. Pipes from the neighboring property and a trench were observed on the northwest side of this site. Please discuss how this drainage will be addressed — will it need to be piped or dealt with in another way? e. Additional dewatering may be required beneath the driveway to keep groundwater from flowing up through cracks and freezing on the planned 12% grade. Please address this issue. 2014 Sensitive Areas Study: 7. Revise the sensitive areas study to: a. Include the wetland mitigation square footages information from the response to the Reasonable Use criteria on amount of wetland impact, the amount of on-site mitigation and the amount of additional off-site mitigation needed in the sensitive areas study. b. Reflect increased planting densities over what has been submitted, including installation of vegetation along the stream banks c. Discuss impacts on the wetland and the watercourse (as well as the adjacent property to the north) from the proposed construction. CL Page 2 of 4 03/04/2014 11:37 AM H:\\L14-0002 Keirouz Reasonable use\Attachment A L14-0002, Keirouz Reasonable Project Review Comments d. Provide a discussion on the off-site mitigation proposed to compensate for the wetland fill — how much and where it will be implemented; e. Correctly map the course of the stream, the springs on-site (or the location where springs daylight or flow on to the property) and the actual discharge point of the stream. Also, the Sensitive Areas Study states that the stream is both seasonal (page 1) and year-round (page 4) — please correct one of these references. f. Identify proposed in -stream improvements and describe new bank configuration and conditions (include a cross section). Tukwila's code requires that for any work proposed in a stream (such as rerouting part of it), the stream be -restored to a better condition than existing conditions. g. Revise the conceptual mitigation plan to indicate how stream flow will be managed and where and how it will discharge; h. Provide more detail on how invasive vegetation will be managed and which vegetation (both invasive and non-invasive) will be removed. Reasonable Use Criteria 8. Please address more completely the impacts to adjacent properties from the wetland fill/displacement, based on the updated information from the drainage study and any other pertinent information. Mitigation Plans The mitigation plan is reviewed and approved as part of the reasonable use application, therefore more details are needed on what is proposed: 9. Identify the significant trees to be removed from the site and provide tree replacement figures, per TMC 18.54. 10. What off-site mitigation is proposed to compensate for the remaining area that is needed to achieve 12:1 mitigation for enhancement? 11. Sheet 2/3 of the Mitigation Plan, indicate where the silt fencing is to be located. 12. Sheet 2/3 of the Mitigation Plan, correct the wetland sign detail, per TMC 18.45.060 6. 13. Sheet 2/3 of the Mitigation Plan, Tree and Shrub Planting and Staking Detail — the vegetation is to be placed at the same level as the native soil, not one inch above it. Remove the staking notes. 14. Sheet 3/3 of the Mitigation Plan, note 9.13 —the entire mitigation area is to be amended, not just the planting pit areas where plants are to be located. 15. Sheet 3/3 of the Mitigation Plan, remove note 9.18 — there is to be no staking of trees. 16. Sheet 3/3 of the Mitigation Plan, correct all notations of the monitoring time from 3 years to 5, as required by TMC 18.45. 17. Sheet 3/3 of the Mitigation Plan, note 11.0 — third bullet — add two species of herbaceous/emergent plants to the trees and shrubs to be established at the end of the monitoring period. CL Page 3 of 4 03/04/2014 11:54 AM H:\\L14-0002 Keirouz Reasonable use\Attachment A L14-0002, Keirouz Reasonable Project Review Comments 18. Please identify the mitigation proposed for the stream channel, particularly if additional piping or replacement piping will be used on the site. 19. Sheet 3/3 of the Mitigation Plan, note 12.1— include streambank/erosion monitoring in the transect and plot areas being monitored. 20. Sheet 3/3 of the Mitigation Plan, note 12.3 — add stream monitoring data criteria to the items being monitored. 21. Sheet 3/3 of the Mitigation Plan, change the heading of note 13.0 to "Financial Assurance/Developer Warranty" and revise the paragraph text to remove references to bonds. Other Permits Based on the site conditions and the proposed project, it appears that you will need the following other determinations or permits: a. Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Determination; b. Corps of Engineers individual 404 or Nationwide permit for filling wetland and altering a watercourse (if determined to be jurisdictional); and c. If watercourse relocation and working in a watercourse is proposed, then a HPA is required. Please provide a copy of these approvals/permits as soon as possible. It is important that any requirements of the COE or Washington State Dept. of Fish and Wildlife be reflected in the mitigation plan submitted to the City to avoid changes to the mitigation plan after the Hearing Examiner decision is issued. CL Page 4 of 4 03/04/2014 11:54 AM H:\\L14-0002 Keirouz Reasonable use\Attachment A CITY OF TUKWILA , ZONING CODE Department of Community Develop eniN -- 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila,'n A 98188 ft OR SHORELINE Telephone: (206) 431-3670 FAX (206) 431- 6� 2 VARIANCE E-mail.' planninga4TukwilaWA.gov \10 - APPLICATION FOR STAFF USE ONLY Permits Plus Type: P -VAR Planner: File Number: LA t-1 -- Ono u Application Complete Date: Project File Number: �L 1 LI ._4(:)nz� Application Incomplete Date: Other File Numbers: L I c4 _OD NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: I,r'ect7te_Lt. /ICY"( P5 LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. 73594 -- t/7 3 LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS (this information may be found on your tax statement). DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR: The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the owner/applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: J G 4e.,,-7 5' I" . its-nv S Address: Po 6( /' C , 55�u , X114 51502.7 Phone: 2_53- 9 DC 3-73 t' FAX: E-mail: % - 81-: es (P C- C a- st riC i Signature: V 4 Date: '21140 0 41 \\DEPTSTORE\DCD Common$\Long Range Projects\Shoreline\New Shoreline Permits \2013 Zoning Code -Shoreline Variance App.docx CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 FAX: (206) 431-3665 E-mail: planningla)TukwilaWA.,Qov ctt io"" AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND HOLD HARMLESS PERMISSION TO ENTER PROPERTY �� f 4 -00C° - SS STATE OF WASHINGTON54��L COUNTY OF KING The undersigned being duly sworn and upon oath states as follows: 1. I am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. 2. All statements contained in the applications have been prepared by me or my agents and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 3. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent. 4. Owner grants the City, its employees, agents, engineers, contractors or other representatives the right to enter upon Owner's real property, located at for the purpose of application review, for the limited time necessary to complete that purpose. 5. Owner agrees to hold the City harmless for any loss or damage to persons or property occurring on the private property during the City's entry upon the property, unless the loss or damage is the result of the sole negligence of the City. 6. Non -responsiveness to a City information request for ninety (90) or more days, shall be cause to cancel the application(s) without refund of fees. EXECUTED at (city), (state), on , 20 (Print Name) (Address) (Phone Number) (Signature) On this day personally appeared before me to me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he/she signed the same as his/her voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME ON THIS DAY OF , 20 NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington residing at My Commission expires on \\DEPTSTORE\DCD Common$\Long Range Projects\Shoreline\New Shoreline Permits\2013 Zoning Code -Shoreline Variance App.docx COMPLETE APPLICATION CHECKLIST The materials listed below must be submitted with your application unless specifically waived in writing by the Public Works Department and the Department of Community Development. Please contact each department if you feel that certain items are not applicable to your project and should be waived. Application review will not begin until the application is determined to be complete. ADDITIONAL MATERIALS MAY BE REQUIRED. The initial application materials allow project review to begin and vest the applicant's rights. However, the City may require additional information as needed to establish consistency with development standards. City staff are available to answer questions about application materials at 206-431-3670 (Department of Community Development) and 206-433-0179 (Department of Public Works). Check items submitted with application Information Required. May be waived in unusual cases, upon approval of both Public Works and Planning APPLICATION MATERIALS: 1. Application Checklist (1 copy) indicating items submitted with application. 2. Completed Application Form and drawings (4 copies). 3. One set of all plans reduced to 8 1/2" x 11" or 11" x 17". 4. Completed and notarized Affidavit of Ownership and Hold Harmless Permission to Enter Property (1 copy attached). 5. Application Fee: See Land Use Fee Schedule. The applicant is also responsible for paying the Hearing Examiner costs before issuance of the decision. PUBLIC NOTICE MATERIALS: 6. Payment of a $365 notice board fee to FastSigns Tukwila OR provide a 4' x 4' public notice board on site within 14 days of the Department determining that a complete application has been received (see Public Notice Sign Specifications Handout). 7. Pay the fee as established by the Land Use Fee Schedule for generating mailing labels; OR provide an excel spreadsheet of mailing labels for all property owners and tenants (residents and businesses) within 500 feet of the subject property. Each unit in multiple family buildings e.g. apartments, condos, trailer parks --must be included. Once your project is assigned to a planner, you will be required to provide an electronic copy of the mailing label spreadsheet in the following format: Name, Street Address, City St Zip, with each of these fields as an individual column: Name Street Address City, St, Zip Mr. Smith 1234 Park Ave S Tukwila WA 98188 PLEASE NOTE: Regardless of whether you pay the City to generate the mailing labels or you provide them, there is an additional fee for postage and material as listed under Public Notice Mailing Fee on the Land Use Fee Schedule. Payment of this fee is due prior to issuance of the decision and you will receive a separate bill for this fee. 8. If providing own labels, include King County Assessor's map(s) which shows the location of each property within 500 ft. of the subject lot. \\DEPTSTORE\DCD Common$\Long Range Projects\Shoreline\New Shoreline Permits\2013 Zoning Code -Shoreline Variance App.docx Check items submitted with application Information Required. May be waived in unusual cases, upon approval of both Public Works and Planning PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS: 9. A written discussion of project consistency with the review criteria found on pages 6-8 of this Application. This is your opportunity to present the merits of your request. 10. Any additional drawings or information needed to explain or support the variance request. Maximum size of any drawing is 24" x 36". SITE PLAN: 11. (a) The site plan must include a graphic scale, north arrow and project name. Maximum size 24" x 36". (b) Existing and proposed building footprints. (c) Vicinity Map with site location; does not have to be to scale. (d) Highlight the change being requested through the variance. (e) Parking lots, landscape areas and other site improvements. (f) Fences, rockeries and retaining walls with called out colors, height and materials. (g) For a shoreline variance, identify the location of the ordinary high water mark, the 200 foot shoreline jurisdiction, and the location of the applicable shoreline buffer (Residential, Urban Conservancy or High Intensity). \\DEPTSTORE\DCD Common$\Long Range Projects\Shoreline\New Shoreline Permits\2013 Zoning Code -Shoreline Variance App.docx Carol Lumb From: Carol Lumb Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 6:25 PM To: FASTSIGNS 157 (FASTSIGNS.157@fastsigns.com) Subject: Keirouz Project Hi Alicia, Sorry, the day got away from me. Here is the information for the Keirouz project: Project Name: Dreamcatcher Homes, 33rd Avenue South File Numbers: L14-0002 and L14-0006 Permit Action: Reasonable Use and Lot Size Variance Site Address: 131XX 33rd Avenue South I will send a map with locations identified for the sign tomorrow but wanted to get you the text so you have it first thing on Tuesday to work with. Please let me know when the sign is up so that I can post it with information related to this project. Thanks very much — please let me know if you have any questions. Carol Carol Lummb, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southeenter Blvd, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 206-431-3661 CarolLumb@TalfwilaWa.gov Tukwila, the City of opportunity, the community of choice. 1 B. For shoreline variance permits waterward of the ordinary high water mark the applicant must address items 2-6 above in addition to the following criteria: 1. The strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the Master Program preclude all reasonable permitted use of the property; and 2. The public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected by the granting of the variance. Please note: in the granting of all shoreline variance permits, consideration must be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area such that the total of the variances would remain consistent with RCW 90.58.020 and not cause substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. \\DEPTSTORE\DCD Common$\Long Range Projects\Shoreline\New Shoreline Permits\2013 Zoning Code -Shoreline Variance App.docx J. S. Jones and .Associates, Inc. 40 Single -Family Lot Size Variance ((-',0_\,9) criteria for Zoning Code Variance t�e qc- For 131 XX 33rd Ave. S. Tukwila, WA 98168 Tax Parcel No.: 735960-0473 Applicant: Jihad Kierouz Dreamcatcher Homes, LLC P.O. Box 2608 Lynnwood, Washington 98036 206-300-6874 Keirouzja@gmail.com Dated: February 17, 2014 Prepared by: Jeffery S. Jones, Professional Wetland Scientist & Wildlife Biologist PO BOY 1908 ISSAQIJAII, WASHINGTON 9 8 0 2 7 253-905-5736 jeff.jsjo nes@comcast.net Dreamcatcher Homes, Lot Size Variance Request Lot Size Variance Request The applicant, Dreamcatcher Homes, LLC, requests a variance to the minimum lot size requirement, as allowed in TMC 18.70.030.C. TMC 18.70.030.C. states, "Nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to prevent the owner of a substandard lot from applying for or receiving approval of variances pursuant to TMC Chapter 18.72". Chapter 18.72 pertains to variances to the zoning code. The purpose of this variance request is to construct a single-family residence on the subject property. The property is a vacant parcel zoned low density residential (LDR). A single-family use is consistent with the neighborhood. A permitted use is one detached single-family dwelling per lot (TMC 18.10.020). The applicant is not requesting any other allowed use for this zoning. The minimum lot size is 6,500 square feet and an average of 50 feet wide (TMC 18.10.060). The lot is 5,881.97 square feet, measuring 117.71 feet deep by 49.97 feet wide. According to code, "For lots less than 6,500 square feet in size, the maximum total footprint shall be the area defined by the application of the standard setback requirements set forth in the application Basic Development Standards, up to a maximum of 2,275 square feet (TMC 18.10.057.5)". The applicant proposes a 1,208 square foot building footprint plus a 68 square foot front porch, see the proposed site plan. The minimum setbacks are 20 feet front, 5 feet sides, 10 feet rear, and 15 feet front porch. These minimum setbacks are met or exceeded. The maximum building footprint is limited to 35% of the lot area (TMC18.10.057). The proposed building footprint and front porch is 1,276 square feet. The lot area is 5,881.97 square feet. The percentage of building footprint to the lot area is 21.6%, which is below the 35% maximum allowed. Existing Condition of Property Looking Southwest from the Northeast Property Corner Dreamcatcher Homes, Lot Size Variance Request Decision Criteria The decision criteria for granting a zoning code variance is provided in TMC 18.72.020. The decision criteria and discussion are as follows: 1. The variance shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and in the zone in which the property on behalf of which the application was filed is located. The granting of a single-family residence on a substandard lot is not a special privilege compared to other properties in the immediate vicinity. The subject parcel is the last remaining undeveloped lot on the west side of this block of 33rd Ave. S. There are eight lots in a row that are all 5,886 square feet. These lots have an undeveloped alley in the back that is public right-of-way, which reduced each lot 801 square feet, compared to lots without a back alley. The table below provides the parcel number, address, square footages, and year the house was built if available on King County Imap. Parcel Number 735960-0500 735960-0497 735960-0495 735960-0470 735960-0475 735960-0474 735960-0473 735960-0467 735960-0465 152304-9068 152304-9296 152304-9273 Existing Parcels on Address 13011 33rd Ave. S. 13015 33rd Ave. S. 13021 33rd Ave. S. 13025 33rd Ave. S. 13029 33rd Ave. S. 13031 33rd Ave. S. 13xxx 33rd Ave. S. 13045 33rd Ave. S. 13049 33rd Ave. S. 13055 33rd Ave. S. 13059 33rd Ave. S. 13065 33rd Ave. S. West Side of 33rd Ave. S. Parcel Area 11,844 sf 5,886 sf 5,886 sf 5,886 sf 5,886 sf 5,886 sf 5,886 sf 5,886 sf 5,886 sf 6,687 sf 6,687 sf 9,564 sf 1924 Not Listed 1941 1981 1998 1998 Subject Parcel Not Listed Not Listed 1947 1983 1965 2. The variance is necessary because of special circumstances relating to the size, shape, topography, location or surrounding of the subject property in order to provide it with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and in the zone in which the subject property is located. The parcel is an existing legal lot 5,886 sf, which is less than the 6,500 sf minimum required size for the LDR district. Seven other parcel in the vicinity area the same size as the subject parcel and all of these have existing single-family structures. Therefore, the subject parcel should be allowed the same rights and privileges permitted on these other properties in the same vicinity and zoning as the subject parcel. 3. The granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and in the zone in which the subject property is situated. The granting of a variance for lot size will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties. The site is entirely critical area and buffers. A reasonable use exception has been requested for the site which will provide mitigation for unavoidable impacts. The result will be that the undeveloped portions of the site will be restored to a native plant community. The site hydrology Dreamcatcher Homes, Lot Size Variance Request will continue to functions as the current condition. Wildlife habitat will be significantly improved by removing invasive plants and restoring the native plant community. The dense Himalayan blackberry provides habitat for European rats. Himalayan blackberry will be removed and kept out of the enhanced area. The eroded culvert will be replaced and the existing channel will be stabilized. An HPA permit will be obtained for WDFW for the culvert replacement. Best Management Construction practices, including seasonal limitations for clearing and grading activities, will be a requirement of the Reasonable Use Exception approval. 4. The authorization of such variance will not adversely affect the implementation of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan. The proposed use is in compliance with the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan and the Tukwila Municipal Code. The proposed use is consistent with allowed uses in the LDR zone. 5. The granting of such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant possessed by the owners of other properties in the same zone or vicinity. The granting of a variance for lot size is necessary to preserve the property owners right to use the property as other property owners have been allowed within the vicinity and zone. One detached single-family dwelling per lot is permitted outright in the LDR district (TMC 18.10.020). ETOSTIO CONCRETE DRIVE ASPHALT DRIVE X24 WATER JEERS CB TOP.24&O4 ' DEVATEN 24814 FELT. DATUM NAVDBE 30' CONCRETE INLET. ELEV.-24&99 SURVEY NOTES. INSTRUMENTS AND PROCEDURES A SPECTRA FOCUS 30 3 ROBOTIC TOTAL STATION WAS USED FOR TE FELD TRAVERSE SURVEY WORK. AN ASR1E04 3GPS .32-130-04 WAS USED FOR 11E CONTROL WON. ACCURACY EXCEEDS WAC THE VERTICAL DATA/ IS NS10-8E 711E BENCH NARK 01 SURVEY CONTROL PONT N0. 3418 PER SURVEY CONTROL PONT DATA REEF DESCRIBED AS A 110 1 N CASE 0110 A 1' 2 1' LEAD YITIH '+' LOCATED AT THE NIERSECION CF 0.128111 ST AND 24111 AVE S. ELEVATION - 308.83 FEET. 111 BOUNDARY LINES SHOOT HEREON ARE PER RECORD OF SURVEY RECORDED UNDER RECOROND N0. 66111711012. TIE LOT LIES OF SAD SURVEY HAVE B EEN ROTATED TO NAD 1091 BY TOR A COUPLE OF FOUND LOT CORNERS N NNE No 4ITY AS TO 111E ACCURACY OF BAD SURVEY. ONLY THE UB0IIES THAT ARE WSW HAVE REDA LOCATED. URRES 1HAT ARE IADFROROUD OR ARE OBSCURED BY VEGETATION NAY NOT HAVE BERN LOCATED. PRIOR TO DIGGING. INVESTIGATOR FOE POSSBLE SODEN UNDERGROUND METES SHOULD BE REEFED. TIE BASIS OF BENING IS STATE PLANE 1091 AS E5TABUSED BY CPS 111E CONTROL POUR BEING PONT NO. 344 Pet SURVEY CONTROL PONT DATA STREET MOWED AS A NON N CASE 0TM A 1' X 1' LEAD EEM '+' LOCATED AT TIE NTERSECTON OF 5125144 ST AND 241N AVE S TIE TREES 04001 NNEIIE01 HAVE BEEN Md/FED AND S® TO TIE BEST OF NY ARMY. Flos 1 NNE NO WARRENTY As TO TIE ACCURACY TLFROOF. F 111E PROPER CATTON OF 11E SIE AND 0E0ES ARE DEEMED TO BE MICR. MIDI A TRAINED ARBORIST SHOED HELD WIFY 105 SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED 111110.17 TIE BDE}TE CF A CURRENT 1111E REPORT AND THEREFORE DOES NOT SOW ALL EASDIIXIS OR RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD — F ANY. \108127'10'1/ 10742'33'W OPER ROS 98111790I2) U11UTY LEGEND Oss 464 wawa SEDER NANIIOIE CONCRETE WALX ETC CATCH BASIN Opp POMC POLE 0--D-0 FOOD F10DE 0046 WATER 1E1E01 =OM R003317 ® REMAND FLAG 00I01N CROKNARY HIGH WATER UNE —IV— REMAND BOUNDARY SOME: 1' - 1C 0 3 10 20 15 E 3' PVC OUTFALL -24.72 117.71' \ a r PVC OUTFALL -23255 TREE LEGEND • 20' DOH CR BIGGER TREE AS SHORN • 12' TO 111 OOH TREE AS 0HOIN • r TO 10' OOH REE AS SHORN C CEDAR CI IBD CHERRY CW COT101NOCD \EDGE OF ASPHALT E 1r CCNCRETE NC IF -ALL -24731 TOP SPIE N EAST EOE OF POSER POLE ELEVATOR - 240.51 FEET. DATUM NAVWS5. LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 12 BLOCK 5, ROBE IG 0PRNOBROOK A0011101 TO MERT01, ACCORDING TO TIE PLAT 1H0E0F. RECORDED 11 VOLUME 18 OF PLATE PAVE 87, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, 003410101& Steve Tag Patte« ra.e SOtated 7431 1810 CT 112 1112110100 IN RINE Mee 415 N7-1715 01140 ra/.IMmlban SITE PLAN DrearTcatcher Hones Inc. P. BLUE 2608, LYNNVOOD, VA 98036 REV. 2/14/14 DATE DCT 14, 2013 JOB NO. DNWn By. J. Jones: SCALE 1' = 10' SHEET 1 1 Carol Lumb From: FASTSIGNS 157 <FASTSIGNS.157@fastsigns.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 2:49 PM To: Carol Lumb Subject: RE: Land Use Sign Attachments: Proof 2.pdf Hi Carol, I added the phone number. Please let me know if this looks correct. Thank you, Greg Chinberg Production Manager Fastsigns of Kent-Southcenter 1 7825 S. 180th Street, Kent, WA 98032 Phone: 206-575-2110 1 Facebook 1 Twitter 1 Website From: Carol Lumb Finailto:Carol.Lumb@TukwilaWA.govl Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 2:33 PM To: FASTSIGNS 157 Subject: RE: Land Use Sign Hi Greg, On the bottom of the sign, where it says how to contact the City — don't we include a phone number? The phone number listed should be 206-431-3670. Other than that, the sign text looks good. Thanks. Carol From: FASTSIGNS 157 fmailto: FASTSIGNS. 157@fastsigns.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 1:46 PM To: Carol Lumb Subject: Land Use Sign HI Carol, Attached is a proof containing the layout for the land use sign you requested. Lease review and reply with your approval for production or further instructions. Thank you, Greg Chinberg 1 Production Manager Fastsigns of Kent-Southcenter 1 7825 S. 180th Street, Kent, WA 98032 Phone: 206-575-2110 I Facebook 1 Twitter 1 Website 1 FASTS/GNS. 7825 S. 180th Street Kent, WA 98032 Phone: (206) 575-2110 Fax: (206) 575-1806 www.fastsigns.com/157 Job Number: 58627 Client: City of Tukwila Contact: Carol Lumb Salesperson: Alicia Designer: Greg Material: MDO Size: 48x48 Quantity: 1 Finishing: Standard Complete By: TBD Date: 6/4/14 Proof is representative of color only. Exact color matching will have to be performed in store. It is the customers responsibility to ensure all text, colors, images etc. presented in this proof are accurate. NOTICE OF LAND USE ACTION Project Name: DREAMCATCHER HOMES, 33RD AVENUE SOUTH File Number: L14-0002 AND L14-0006 Permit Action: REASONABLE USE AND LOT SIZE VARIANCE Site Address: 131 XX 33RD AVENUE SOUTH TO SUBMIT COMMENTS OR TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT at (206) 431- 3670 Tukwila Planning Division 6300 Southcenter Blvd. #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 v • Dreamcatcher Homes LLC - RUE Wetland/Stream Mitigation Plan 33rd Ave. S., Tukwila, WA 98168 Tax Parcel No.: 7359600473 a GOMM HOLIE COME AMC AVM: COW + 1 ++ + +,._. + 4— Building Envaiope t, jai `R + + + o i 4: + j // + + 4'`&Er ,. pWsztri OP11170Z. 4- IEWdaI'E NeTeraa ima o mimeo C7.7f E S PW 016ALL LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 12 BLOCK 5, ROBBINS SPRINGBROOK ADDITION TO RIVERTON, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN VOLUME 16 OF PLATS, PAGE 67, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. 1 E ! no aural. E Wu°O1ama 1, ..ft X- tat Se 'J Sa 14Y SAS+„'VARY SEWER' Nr,: R x: r CONCFETE :1ALI:: ETC. c'88 CATCH BAST C pp PCAA'ER F'O' E ❑—J—IJ ;.D VENCE n 1:V WATER HE 14R (A:4 VEIL ANG FLAG °3'WM '. D'"VARY 'i; G4 PATER LINE Yl tETLAND 5O,JNDARY • 20" DBH OR BIGGER TREE AS SHOWN • 12" TO 18" DBH TREE AS SHOWN • 6" TO 10" DBN. TREE AS SHOWN C CEDAR CH WILD CHERRY CW COTTONWOOD L/'/ -OOO6 1 0 0 0 0 J u c oct mmW woev =a42 r. x3 = m a Y v d C O 0 0 0 a o m JAR Jones I CHECKED BY: APPROVED BY: a,o W Q U c0 1— W W 2 0 J RECEIVFO MA4' 2614 N I EXISTING HOUSE / 80005.3 I 3'13 r Q CONCRETE DRIVE • •1. • . \ o . _ v • _ v • _ v • I _ • ♦ • • D •r \ • •'\ • ASPHALT DRIVE EiWATER CB TDP -246.04!/ 3%8 ` t v 1 \ 248 - 23' FIRE HYDRANT) 6'CW 1. 0 I' b rN GU1S aele • 12'CW / • 18'C1 80536.5 I 60123.0 DRIVEWAY, / METER LE 8' CONCRETE,..... POLE INLET. ELEV.-248.99 0 5882.2 Sq. 0.1 Acres TTA,( .Ol,IAI 4. DITCH t • 6'01 SURVEY NOTES: INSTRUMENTS AND PROCEDURES A SPECTRA FOCUS 30 3' Roam TOTAL STATION WAS USED FOR 11E FIELD TRAVERSE SURVEY WORK. AN ASHTECH CPS SYSTEM WAS USED FOR THE CONTROL WORK. ACCURACY EXCEEDS WAC 332-130-090. HE TVERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD-88. THE BENCH MARK IS SURVEY CONTROL PONT N0. 3448 PER SURVEY CONTROLPOINT DATA SHEET DESCRIBED AS A MN N CASE WITH W1 A 1• X 1' LEAD H '+' LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF 5.128114 ST AND 24114 AVE S. ELEVATION - 395.83 FEET. THE BOUNDARY UNES S80W4 HEREON ARE PER RECORD OF SURVEY RECORDED UNDER RECORDING N0. 9811179012. THE LOT UNES OF SAB) SURVEY HAVE B EEN ROTATED TO NAD 83(1991) BY TYING A COUPLE OF FOUND LOT CORNERS. I MAKE NO WARRENTY AS TO THE ACCURACY OF SAD SURVEY. minas • THE ES THAT ARE VISIBLE HAVE BEEN LOCATED. UTIUTIES THAT ARE UNDERGROUND OR ARE OBSCURED BY VEGETATION MAY NOT HAVE BEEN LOCATED. PRIOR TO DIGGING, INVESTIGATION FOR POSSIBLE HIDDEN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOULD BE VERIFIED. THE BASIS OF BEARING IS STATE PLANE (NAM1991) AS ESTABLISHED BY GPS. THE CONTROL PANT BEING PANT N0. 3448 PDT SURVEY CONTROL POINT DATA SHEET DESCRIBED AS A MON IN CASE WITH A 1' X 1' LEAD NTH LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF 8.128111 ST AND 24714 AVE S THE TREES SHOWN HEREON HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AND SUED TO THE BEST OF mumMY UmumHOWEVER. I MAKE NO WARRENTY AS TO THE ACCURACY THEREOF. IF THE PROPER IDENTIFICATION OF THE SIZE AND SPECIES ARE DEEMED TO BE CRITICAL THEN A TRAINED ARBORIST SHOULD FIELD VERIFY. THIS SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A CURRENT 711LE REPORT AND THEREFORE DOES NOT SHOW ALL EASEMENTS OR RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD -- IF ANY. N8623'20'W 1487'52'33.W (PER ROS 9811179012) UTILITY LEGEND Q SS MH SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE CONCRETE RAU< ETC. II C8 CATCH BASIN •PP POWER POLE 0 0 ❑ WOOD FENCE p wWATER MEIER =act ROCKERY WEl.AND FLAG OHO/ ORDINARY HIGH WATER UNE —6— WETLAND BOUNDARY SCALE 1' - 10' O 5 10 20 IE 3' PVC OUTFALL -252.65 TREE LEGEND • 20" DBH OR BIGGER TREE AS SHOWN • 12" TO 18' 0811 TREE A5 SHOWN • 6' TO 10" DEM TREE AS SHOWN C CEDAR CH WILD CHERRY CW COTTONY/000 \ EDGE OF ASPHALT r..— \ \ 30' l I \ 1 TOP PK NAE N ASPHALT. ELEVATION - 246.94 FEET. DATUM: NAVD88. 30' IE 3' PVC OUTFALL -249.72 IE 12" CONCRETE OUTFALL -247.31 0 LL TBM UI: TOP SPIKE IN EAST 90. 7 POWER POLE ELEVATION - 249.51 FEET. DATUM: NAV088. 30' ?•q0 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 12 BLOQC 5, ROBBINS SPRINCBROOK ADDITION TO RIVERTON, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED DED 14 VOLUME 16 OF PLATS, PAGE 67, RECONS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. • Steae''a' Puttee Prole&loma Zuect Se ea 7431 1533RD CT NE REDREW. WA 96852 Phone 425 857-1715 EmaC vapohNiantMW.am L/ 4 -coo6 SITE PLAN Dreamcatcher Homes Inc. P.D. BOX 2608, LYNNWOOD, WA 98036 REV: 2/14/14 Drwn By. J. Jones: DATE: OCT 14, 2013 JOB NO. SCALE: 1' = 10' SHEET 1 Dreamcatcher Homes LLC - RUE Wetland/Stream Mitigation Plan 33rd Ave. S., Tukwila, WA 98168 Tax Parcel No.: 735960-0473 X I p -/ 1 V a a a a i Jnr.' o 0 0 ok ox' 00 0Q0I0 0 0 ® 0 O 00 *land Sign .a..0O0Ot a 0 r O ®bv. 00,- 1.... tit Rail Fe..n ce 0 e°0 0 ®®00O ciQ 0 ®O O ® Filter Fence O +O i® K,-=- 0 QO p0.1 0 o emu *O 0 .\.".O1j"OOu lc S 7 CC \ .s 0hd .,.,fl®.„.. Sp1RailCnC aFrX e^ jl 0 Q` -" ^R Geo p1 0. - O0 NI o9 f O 0 0—°-a-o-o 00o ` °a qOoV,coo elk•- oca ma e•/ 1111131011 airar3rw Orzo.rtwa0 -' 0 V 0 OWE 4 8-' - n •1 r acMacr DRIVEWAY St Or 1 1 CI) W 0 ✓ ▪ 7P CU WAIL L /y- oaa6 tint ° .• ti NORTH SCALE: 1 = 1 O' PLANT SCHEDULE O 00 0 p 0 Rad AINN SSA um Pace, w . wawa RP.. SalANAILAns Lacy., ENNS71 ONO Rom MORAN Cams ROWER Rosa nulkatta 25 Aro, naw.,. n Ca...em..... TWO RAIL FENCE DETAIL PaCa MOTES. CONSTRICTED OF SPLIT RAIL, PRESSURE TREATED RAIL OF FENCE COATED PAsnc, THE ONLY REOVAREUENr .S THAT THE FENCE NOT DE SOLID AND RUST ALLOW N11Du TO SE AS -E TO PASS THROUGH. -144 Wetland ;it; TREE AND SHRUB PLANTING AND STAKING DETAIL 2 O O W J q J m °© = coo 2 2 N CD tmoX 20oa o E .6 00 L m c Oa E vs Ha c0 WE 2 IC 0 mQ n6 1.0 Project Description The applicant proposes to construct a single-family residence on the subject property. Almost the entire parcel is a Category 111 Wetland with an 80 -foot buffer. A Type 3 (Np) watercourse is on-site. Impacts to the wetland and stream arc unavoidable. The proposed wetland impact is 3,045 sf. A section of the stream must be piped under the proposed driveway. On-site mitigation will be 3,415 sf of wetland enhancement and 33,495 sf of off-site mitigation. The off-site mitigation may be a fee program with the city. 1.1 Goals and Objectives The goal of mitigation is to increase the unctions and values of buffer. Installation of native plant species will imaease plant diversity, and improve wildlife habitat and water quality. The objective, necessary to meet the above stated goal are as follows: • Record the sensitive arca in a "Notice on Title" • Install erosion control filter fencing at the 18 -foot contour of the the stream • Demolish and remove existing structures in the buffer • Remove invasive plant species from the buff • Remove exposed concrete pipe • Install plant materials • Install split rail fencing and critical area signs at the edge of the development area • Maintain and monitor the enhancement area for a period of three years or until the site meets the specified performance standaids • Implement contingency measures as needed during the maintenance and monitoring period 2.0 Project Location The property is located at 131 XX 33rd Ave. S., Tukwila, Washington 98168. 3.0 Responsible Partes Property Owners DreamCatcher Horses, LLC P.O. Box 2608 Lynnwood, Washington 98036 206-300-6874 keioo ja(gfpnail.com Environmental Consultant J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. Atm: Jeffery S. Jones, Professional Wetland Scientist, SWS No. 1025 P.O. Box 1908 Issaquah, Washington 98027 253-905-5736 jeffjsjones&omvast.nct 4.0 Standards All work and materials shall conform to landscape industry standards and specifications, and to the specifications and details shown on these plans. 5.0 City of Tukwila Contact Certain actions within this mitigation plan require inspection or approval by local agency staff. Requests for inspection/approval shall be coordinated - tuough the City of Tukwila Planning Department 6.0 Contractor Information When it is available, contact information shall be providedto local jurisdiction that includes names, addresses and phone numbers of personsifirms that will be responsible for site preparation, installation and maintenance and monitoring. 7.0 Contractor's Qualifications Contractor/Landscape ]nstaller must be experienced in mitigation work. The Permittee shall provide that there is one person on the site at all times during work and installation who is thoroughly familiar with the type of materials being installed and the best methods for their installation, and who shall direct all wodt being performed under these specifications. This person shall be experienced installing native plant materials for wetland mitigation or restoration projects, unless otherwise allowed by the Landscape Designer, Wetland Scientist and/or the local jurisdiction staff. 8.0 Site Conditions The Contractor shall immediately notify the Landscape Designer and/or Wetland Scientist ofdminage or soil coodhtions likely to be delerimental to the growth or survival of pl:mts. The landscape Designer and/or Welland Scientist may adjust the locations of plantings .shown on plans based on field conditions. Planting operations shall not be conducted under the following conditions: freezing weather, when the ground is frozen, excessively wet weather, excessively windy weather, or in excessive heat. Site conditions must be documoted on es -built drawings submitted to the local jurisdiction. 9.0 Plants 9.1 Origin: Plant materials shall be Northwest native plants, nursery grown in the Puget Sound region of Washington. 9.2 Plant Names: Plant names shall comply with those generally accepted in the native plant nursey trade. Any questions regarding plant species or variety shall be refined to the Landscape Designer or Wetland Scientist. All plant materials shall be true to species and variety. 9.3 Plant Substitutions: Same species substitution of larger size do not require special permission.. 11 plant substitutions shall be approved by Landscape Designer, Wetland Scientist and,'or local jurisdiction staff 9.4 Quality and Condition: Plants shall be normal in pattern of growth, healthy, well -branched, vigorous, with well-developed root systems and free of pests and discos... Damaged, diseased, pest -infested, scraped, bruised, dried -out, homed, broken, or defective plants will be injected. 9.5 Intermediate Inspections: All plants shall be inspected and approved by the Landscape Designer and or Wetland Scientist prior to installation. Condition of plants will be inspected upon delivery mol prior to planting. Plant materials may be rejected at the discretion of the Landscape Designer Dreamcatcher - RUE Wetland/Stream Mitigation Plan 33rd Ave. S., Tukwila, WA 98 Tax Parcel No.: 735960-0473 motor Wetland Scientist 9.6 handling: Plants shall be handled so as to avoid all damage, including breaking, bruising, root damage, sunburn, drying, freezing or other injury. Plants must be covered during transport. Plants shall not be bound with wire r rope in a manner that could damage branches. Protect plant roots with shade and wet soil in the time period between delivery and installation. Do not lift enntainer stock by trunks, stems, or tops. Do not remove from containers until ready to plant, Water all plants as necessary to keep moisture levels appropriate to the species horticultural requirements. Plants shall not be allowed to dry out. Al! planes shall be watered thoroughly immediately upon installation. Soak all containerized plants thoroughly prior to installation. Bare toot plants are subject to the following special requirements, and shall not be used unless planned between December 15th and March 15011, and only with the permission of the Landscape Designer, Wetland Scientist, and/or local jurisdiction staff Barefoot plants musthave enough fibrous root to insure plant survival. Roots must be covered at all times with mud and/or wet straw, moss, or other suitable packing material until time of installation. Plants whose roots have dried out from exposure will not be accepted at installation inspection. 9.7 Damaged Plants: Damaged, dried out or otherwise mishandled plants will be rejected at installation inspection. All rejected plans shall be immediately removed from the site. 9.8 Roots: All plants shall be balled and buriapped, containerized, or hareroot as appropriate for their size and condition, unless explicitly authorized by the Landscape Designer and/or Wetland Scientist. Root bound plants or B&B plants with damaged, cracked or loose footballs (major damage) will be rejected. Immediately before installation, plants with minor toot damage (some broken and/or twisted) must be mot -pruned. Matted or circling roots of containerized planings must be pruned or straightened and the sides of the root ball must be roughened from top to bottom to a depth of approximately half and inch in two to four places. 9.9 Sizes: Plant sizes shall be the size indicated in the plant schedule. Larger stock are acceptable provided they are not rntbound or damaged and that the root ball is proportionate to the size of the plant. Smaller stock may be acceptable, and under some circumstances perferable, based on site-specific conditions. Plant size measurements, if any used, shall conform to the American Standard of Nursery Stock by the American Assoiciation of Nurserymen (latest edition). 9.10 Form: Evergreen trees, if used, shall have single -trunks and symmetrical, well-developed form. Deciduous trees shall be single -trunked unless specified as multi -stem in the plant schedule. Shrubs shall have multiple stems and be well -branched. 9.11 Planting: Planting shall be done in accordance with illustrated details in the mitigation plan set and accepted industry standards. Plant locations shall also be inspected and approved prior to planting. 9.12 Timing of Planing: Unless otherwise approved by the local jurisdiction, all planting shall occur between September 1st and May 31st. If temporary irrigation is installed, planting may occur at any time of year. 9.13 Planting In Pits: Planting pits shall be circular or square with vertical sides, and shall be 6" larger in diameter than the ruotball of the plant. Break up the sides of the pit in compacted soils. Set plants upright in pits, as illustrated in planting detail. Burlap shall be removed from the planting pit Backfill shall be worked back into holes so that air pockets are removed, without adversely compacting soils. 9.14 Soli Amendments: Cedar Grove compost may be used to amend soil in planting pits, as needed 9.15 Mulch: The soil surface surrounding all planting pit areas shall receive no less than 2"-3" of hog fuel, landscaper chip, or medium bark mulch after planting. Mulch shall be kept well away (at least 2") from the trunks and stems ofwoody plants. 9.16 Fertilizer. Slow release fertilizer may be used. Fertilizers shall be applied only at the base of plantings underneath the required covering of mulch (that does not make contact with stems of the plants). No fertilizers will be placed in planting holes. 9.17 Water- Plant; shall be watered at planting. Plants shall be watered a second time within 2448 hours after installation. A temporary irrigation system must installed for summer irrigation of the buff plantings. 9.18 Staking: Most shrubs and many trees do not require any staking. If the plant can stand alone without staking in a moderate wind, do not use a stake. lithe plant needs support, then landscaper tape, strapping or webbing should be used as low as possible on the trunk to loosely lame the tree with one stake (sec Planting Derail). Do not brace the tree tightly or too high on the trunk. If the tree is unable to sway, it will further lose the ability to support ioelf. As soon as supporting the plant becomes unnecessary; remove the stakes. All stakes must be removed within three (3) years of installation. 9.19 Weeding: Existing and exotic vegetation in the mitigation and butler areas will be hand -weeded from the planting areas and on a routine basis throughout the monitoring period. No chemical con.rol of vegetation on any portion of the site is allowed without the written permission of the local jurisdiction staff. • 9.20 Wildlife Control: As determined by the Landscape Designer and/or Wetland Scientist, fencing or deer repelants may be needed to limit deer brouse and rodent girdling. 10.0 Maintenance Maintenance shall be required in accordance with management recommendations oldie consulting wetland scientist and the local jurisdiction staff. 10.1 Duration and Extent: In order to achieve performance standards, the Permittee shall have the mitigation area /maintained for the duration of the 3 cars. All maintenance shall be directed b y the monitoring y g l ad Y Landscape Designer and/or Wetland Scientist. Maintenance will include: • watering (see 11.7 for details) • weeding • replacement (see 11.5 for details) • remaking • removal of all classes of noxious weeds (sec Washington State Noxious Weeds List, WAC 16-7150-005) as well as Himalayan blareberry • any other measures needed to insure plant survival (see 11.6 for details) • general maintenance activities which include the replacement of any vandalized or damaged signs, habitat features, fences. signage or other structural component of the mitigation site. 10.2 Survival: The Permittee shall be responsible for the health of 100% of all newly immlled plants for one growing season, after installation has been accepted by the local jurisdiction (see Performance Standards). A growing season for those purposes is defined as occurring from March 1 to October 31. For tall installation (often required), the growing season will begin the following spring. The Permhtee shall replace any plants that are failing, weak, defective in a manner of growth, or dead during this growing season, as directed by the Landscape Designer, Wetland Scientist, and/or local jurisdiction. 10.3 Installation Timing far Replacement Plants: Replacement plants shall be installed between September 1st and May 31m, tmless otherwise allowed by the Landscape Designer, Wetud Scientist, and/or local jurisdiction staff. 10.4 Standards for Replacement Plants: Replacement planta shall meet the same standards for sire and type as those specified for original installation unless otherwise directed by the landscape Designer, Wetland Scientist andlor Ioca1 jurisdiction staff. Replacement plants shall be inspected es described above for the original installation. 10.5 Replanting: Plants that have settled in their planting pits too deep, too shallow, looses, or crooked shall be replanted as directed by the Landscape Designer, Wetland Scientist, andlm local jurisdiction staff. 10.6 Herbicides/Pesticides: Chemical controls "shall not be used in the mitigation area, sensitive areas or their buffers. However, limned use of herbicides may be approved depending on site specific conditions. only if approved by the local jurisdiction staff. 10.7 Irrigation/Watering: Water shall be provided during the summer sad fall seasons (June 1st - October 15141) at least for the first two years after installation to ensure plant survival and establishment. Water should be provided by a temporary above ground irrigation system. Water should be applied et a tete of 1" of water one to two times a week for Year 1 and 1" of water once a week during Year 2. 11.0 Performance Standards - Plant Cover and Survival • Plant survival and cover standards are established to measure mitigation success as follows: Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Plant Vegetative Cover" 010% >15% >20a% Plant Survival 1000% >85% >75°% •includes native volunteer plants • Less than 10% invasive vegetation during any monitoring :went. • The establishment of 2 species of native trees and species of native shrubs at the end the the 4 monitoring period 12.0 Monitoring Monitoring shall be conducted annually for 3 years in accordance with the approved mitigation monitoring plan. 12.1 Vegetation Monitoring: Belt transects and plots will be established for vegetation monitoring. Linear belt transects are the preferred method for vegetation monitoring for this site. No less than one (1) 100 -foot transect 3 feet wide per 10,000 square feet of area will be established in restoration and mitigation meas. Permanent transect location(s) must be identified on mitigation site plans in the first monitoring repot. (they may be drawn on approved mitigation pians by hand). Plots located at one end of each transit shall detail herb, shrub, and tree aerial cover at radii of Ina 5m, and IOm respectively. Monitoring of vegetation transects shall occur annually between August 1st and September 30th (prior to leaf drop), unless otherwise specified 12.2 Photopoints: No less than four (4) permanent overview photo points and one (1) photo point along each transect will be taken. Photographs will be token to visually recons the condition of the mitigation area Photos shall be taken annually between August 1st and September 30th (prior to leaf drop), unless otherwise specified 12,3 Reports: Monitoring reports shall be submitted by December 31st of each year during the monitoring period. As applicable, monitoring reports must include description/data for: • Site plan and location map • Historic description of project, including date of installation, current year of monitoring, restatement of mitigation goals, and performance standards • Plant survival, vigor, and aerial coverage from every plant community (transit data), and explanation of monitoring methodology in the context of assessing performance standards • Site hydrology, including extent of inundation, saturation depth to groundwater, function of any hydrologic structures, piezometer or staff gunge if available, inputs, outlets, etc. • Slope condition, site stability, any stmemms or special features • Buffer conditions, e.g. surrounding land use, use by humans, wild and domestic creatures • Observed wildlife, including amphibians, avian and others • Assessment of nuisance/exotic biota and recommendations for management • Soils, including texture, Munsell color, rooting and oxidized rhizoshperes • Color photographs taken from permanent photo points as shown m the first as -built plan or the first monitoring report. • Summary of maintenance and contingency measures proposed for neat season and completed for past season 12.4 Detleiemees: Any deficiency discovered during any monitoring or inspection visit must be torrential within 60 days of approval bynle local jurisdiction. 12.5 Contingency Plan: Should any monitoring report reveal the mitigation has failed in whole or in part, and should that failure be beyond the scope of routine maintenance, a Contingency Plan will be submitted. The Contingency Plan may range in complexity from a list of plants substituted, to cross-sections of proposed engineered structures. Once approved, it may be installed, and will replace the approved mitigation plan. If the failure is substantia], the local jurisdiction may extend the monitoring period for that mitigation. 13.0 Bond Prior to beginning any work, the Permittee must provide a mitigation bond or assignment of funds to the Local jurisdiction. A bond quantity worksheet has been completed based an all elements of the mitigation plan. The total cost, plus contingency fees has been determined to be which will be the amount of the bond or financial guarantee the Permittee is required to provide. Bonds are eligible for reduction to the maintenance and monitoring portion upon approval of installation by the local jurisdiction. fqaao 4 0 z 0 0 0 J u ▪ a e • 0 @J o moi Q ca;2 v 0 ▪ 5q 0111.3h c m E o • 0 2 M 0 N E Ha C1.00 ectWE cc 5 C C