Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMisc; . . , ® King County -Department of Development and .Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest -Renton, Washington 98055-1219 fax (206) 296-6729 Permit Approval Conditions Document DATE: 6/212005 This plan reviewed to 2003 International codes updated to the State of Washington and King County Codes Structural Plan Review Tracking Number: B03DCOOI Location: La Fortuna Townhomes Lot 4 Blk.l Benson Heights Add. 12632 SE Petrovitsky Road Concrete Detention & Water Quality Vault The following conditions apply to the above referenced pennit: 0001 GENERAL This correction sheet is an abridged version of code requirements and is a review aid only. It shall not be used in lieu Of the International Building Code, International Mechanical Code, International Fire Code, or any King County regulation or state law. Please note that there are guite a few differences between the International Codes and the Uniform codes which King County previously adopted. For continued code compliance, carefully review the new provisions. , Corrections noted below are part of the approved plans and shall remain attached to them at all times. The approval of plans and specifications does not permit the violation of any section of the International Building Code, International Mechanical Code, International Fire Code, or any King County regulation or state law. Corrections as indicated below, along with the unchanged information shown on the drawings, must be complied with. In addition, since this correction sheet is a review aid, it shall not be used in lieu of the above mentioned codes, regulations, and laws. Therefore, code compliance with all noted applicable code sections on this correction sheet, as well as other applicable code sections not specifically noted, shall be required. The approved plans shall not be changed, modified, or altered without authorization from the building officiaL The approved plans are required to be on the job site. Section 106.3.1 International Building Code 0348 SPECIAL INSPECTIONS A. Approval of Special Inspection Service shall be obtained from the Building Services Division, Building Inspection Unit, prior to construction. Section 106.3.4.3 I.B.C. as amended by King County Code B. Submit field inspection reports, test lab reports and final reports to the Building Services Division, Building Inspection Unit, in compliance with Section 106.3.4.3 1.B.c. as amended by King County Code C. Provide the following special inspections (to comply with Section 1709, I.B.C.): 2003 IBe short jobs condition items Last saved by brevhcho 06/02/2005 . Page I of3 • .; I) Concrete work 2) Concrete reinforcing steel placing. 3) installation of expansion bolts. 0350 SPECIAL INSPECTIONS Provide special inspection by Geotechnical Engineer of Record for compliance with soil report recommendations. Submit field inspection reports, test lab reports and final reports to the Building Services Division, Building inspection Unit, in compliance with Section 1704, IRe. The following items shall have .special inspection: I) Excavation and foundation sub grade preparation; and soil bearing load capacity confirmation 2) Wall lateral load design soil parameters confirmation. 3) Backfill soil materials selection and compaction. 4) Drainage systems installation behind walls. 0357 SPECIAL INSPECTIONS-COMPACTED FILL MATERIAL Any fill emplaced under footings, slab, or other foundation systems must be certified by a special inspection as having been compacted to at least 95% of ASTM 0·1557. 0366 SHOP DRAWINGS Engineer of record shall review and approve all shop drawings. An approved copy shall be submitted to the Building Services Division, Building inspection Unit. I) Concrete mix designs 2) Reinforcing steeL 3) Precast Prestressed concrete hollow core planks of vault roof, design and reinforcing details. 4) Structural steel and grating. 2003 IBe short jobs condition items Last saved by brevhcho 06/02/2005 Page 2 of3 I . ' ·1,:' I l . " I' I I .. 'I I 'I I '.' I I" I I I I , I ' . i '. II, ... ,' , . -:. . " ,'LA ,FORTUNA COMMERCIAL SITE, .DEVELO~MENr TRAFFIGIMPACT ANALYSIS, . . . ." ' . .. ~ , ,:,:' KING COUNTY . , . " . .April 25, 2003 . '. . . c . ," '2223 -1121h Avenue N.E.; Suite 101 '.. , Believue, Washington 98004-2952' . .,"" "',' . '. Telephone: (425).455-5320 ' :' f6)[E:~ [En~[E ~ Facsimile: (425) 453-~759,: . . IrU.MAY 29,2003 ,', ., '" .. "., . ' .. . K.C. D.D.E.S~, ','.' , ., . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I lA IFORTUNA COMMERCIAL SiTE DEVElOIPMENT TRAlFlFiC IMPACT ANALYSiS KiNG COUNTY Prepared for D.R. STRONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 10604 N.E. 38th Pl., #101 Kirkland, WA 98033 Prepared by TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. 222311ih Ave. N.E., Suite 101 Bellevue, WA 98004-2952 425.455.5320 Fax 425.453.5759 April 25, 2003 I EXPIRES 9/151 of I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. VICTOR H. BISHOP. P:E. President DAVIO H. ENGEA, P.E. Vice Pre,ldenl Mr. Luay R. Joudeh, P.E. 2223·112'" AVENUE N.E .. SUITE 101 . BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98004·2952 TELEPHONE (425) 455·5320 FACSIMILE (425) 453-5759 April 25, 2003 D.R.STRONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 10604 N.E. 38th Place, #101 Kirkland, WA 98033 Re: La Fortuna Commercial Site Development -King County Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Joudeh: We are pleased to submit this traffic impact analysis for the proposed 41 townhouse unit residential project located south of S.E. 172nd St. at 12th Ave. S.E. in unincorporated King County. Access to the site will be via 12th Ave. S.E. with the construction of a new plat road. We have visited the project site and surrounding road network. This study has been prepared in accordance with King County guidelines for preparing traffic studies. King County Intersection Standards requirements as implemented by Ordinance #11617 which requires analysis of intersections that carry 30 or more site generated peak hour trips and at least 20 percent of the site generated traffic does not apply because the site's trip generation is such that no intersections are impacted by 30 or more peak hour trips. Therefore this is a limited scope traffic impact analysis with emphasis on the site access operations. The conclusions and recommendations begin on page 6 of this report. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Figure 1 is a vicinity map showing the location of the site and the surrounding road network. Figure 2 shows the preliminary site plan prepared by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc. The project proposes the construction of 41 townhouse units in eight buildings on approximately 4.51 acres. The project is located south of S.E. 172nd St. at 127th Ave. Southeast.. Access is proposed via the extension of 127'h Ave. S. E. to the south via a new internal roadway. Full development and occupancy of the project should occur by 2005. Therefore we used 2005 as the horizon year for this project. TRIP GENERA TION AND DISTRIBUTION Trip Generation A vehicle trip is defined as a single or one direction vehicle movement with either the origin or destination (exiting or entering) inside the proposed development. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Luay R. Joudeh, P.E. D.R.STRONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. April 25, 2003 Page -2- The 41 unit La Fortuna project is expected to generate the vehicular trips during an average weekday and during the street traffic peak hours as shown in Table 1. The trip generation is calculated using the average trip rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, Sixth Edition for Residential CondominiumrTownhouse (ITE Land Use Code 230). These trip generation values account for all site trips made by all vehicles for all purposes, including commuter, visitor, recreation, and service and delivery vehicle trips. Trip Distribution Figure 3 shows the projected trip distribution and the calculated Site-generated traffic volumes. The trip distribution is based on the characteristics of the road network, existing traffic volume patterns, the location of likely trip origins and destinations (employment, shopping, social and recreational opportunities), expected travel times, and previous traffic studies. EXISTING PHYSICAL CONDITIONS The project site presently is undeveloped and is located at the southern end of 1-27'h, Ave. Southeast. The intersection of S.E. 172"d S1.I127'h Ave. S.E. currently does not have any signed traffic control. The middle of the intersection contains a small island. There is a marked five-foot wide bicycle lane on the south side of S.E. 172"d Street. Roadway Facilities Figure 4 shows existing traffic control, number of roadway lanes, number of approach lanes at intersections, and other pertinent information. The S.E. 172"d S1.I127'h Ave. S.E. intersection is currently controlled by a traffic island. The primary roads within the study area and their classification per the Arterial Functional Classification Map. December 1998 are as follows: Petrovitsky Rd. 128'h Ave. S.E. S.E. 172"d St. 127'h Ave. S.E. Pedestrian Circulation Principal Arterial Collector Arterial Unclassified Unclassified There are no raised sidewalks in the project vicinity along 127'h Ave. S.E. or S.E. 172"d Street. Pedestrians would use the existing paved shoulder or marked bicycle lane on S.E. 172"d Street. Transit Facilities We have reviewed the King County Metro online map, 2003 for transit routes in the site vicinity. The map shows that METRO route 155, runs along S.E. 168'h St. and 128'h Ave. S.E. and connects to Petrovitsky Rd., which in turn connects to transfer points for all areas in the Puget Sound area. Bus stops are located within a half mile of the proposed La Fortuna site. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Luay R. Joudeh, P.E. D.R.STRONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. April 25, 2003 Page -3- EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Figure 5 shows existing PM peak hour traffic volumes at the analysis intersection affected by site-generated traffic. The analysis intersection is as follows: S.E. 1720d St.l1271h Ave. S.E. Transportation Planning & Engineering, Inc., performed the existing PM peak hour traffic volume count at the above intersection on Wednesday, April 16, 2003. The existing traffic volume count data sheets are attached in the appendix. Level of Service Analysis Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic flow, and the perception of these conditions by drivers or passengers. These conditions include factors such as speed, delay, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, . comfort, convenience, and safety. Levels of service are given letter designations, from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions (free flow, little delay) and LOS F the worst (congestion, long delays). Generally, LOS A and B are high, LOS C and 0 are moderate, and LOS E and F are low. Table 2 shows calculated levels of service (LOS) for existing conditions at the pertinent street intersection. The LOS were calculated using the procedures in the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual. 2000 Edition. The LOS shown indicates overall intersection operation. At intersections, LOS is determined by the calculated average control delay per vehicle. The LOS and corresponding average control delay in seconds are as follows: TYPE OF A B C D E F INTERSECTION Signalized ~10 > 10 and ~ 20 >20 and ~ 35 > 35 and ~ 55 > 55 and ~ 80 >80 Stop Sign Control ~10 > 10 and ~ 15 >15 and ~ 25 > 25 and ~ 35 > 35 and::: 50 >50 The analysis intersection is currently operating at LOS A during the PM peak time period analyzed. The LOS calculation sheets are attached in the appendix. The County's LOS standard is E. Accident Data King County staff provided three-year (1999, 2000 and 2001) accident data for the analysis intersection and surrounding area. Table 3 summarizes the number of recorded I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Luay R. Joudeh, P.E. D.R.STRONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. April 25, 2003 Page -4- accidents that occurred at the intersections during the three-year time period. The accident summary data sheets are attached in the appendix. There were no recorded accidents at the S.E. 172nd St.l127'h Ave. S.E. intersection which is the proposed La Fortuna project access. Other intersections in the vicinity are not experiencing a greater than average number of accidents. There is no apparent accident problem in the site vicinity. ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS King County The King County Capital Improvement Program (CIP) 2003, identifies the following road improvement projects that are planned to be constructed in the near future, in the vicinity of the proposed development: Project # 400400 Petrovitsky Rd ITS Southcenter Pkwy to SE 184th St.~-Study and develop an integrated traffic signal (ITS) program for the Trans Valley route that starts on the east from SE 184th St on Petrovitsky Rd and follows along on SE 176th, Carr Rd, SW 43rd, S 180th, and onto SE 180th St where it ends at Southcenter Pkwy. Funding to install equipment to coordinate signals along a portion of Petrovitsky Road is also budgeted. Project # 400197 140th Ave SE @ Petrovitsky Rd 140th Ave SE to 143rd Ave SE. - Improve the intersection of 140th Ave SE and SE Petrovitsky Road to provide .dual left- turns and a right turn for each leg of the intersection. Other improvements include the addition of bike lanes from 140th Ave SE to 143rd Ave SE and from Petrovitsky Road to Pipeline Rd, illumination, drainage and curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements. Project # 400698 Benson Rd SE (SR-515) @ Carr Rd -Prepare Design Memorandum and Final Design Report including alternative analysis, traffic study, and environmental consideration. Prepare Plan, Specifications, and Engineer Estimate for preferred alternative. The intersection improvements are consistent with the Carr Road widening project. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITHOUT THE PROJECT Traffic Volumes Figure 6 shows the horizon year 2005 PM peak hour traffic volumes at the analysi~ intersection. These volumes incorporate the projected traffic volumes from "pipeline" projects. Additionally, a three percent per year growth factor was applied to the background traffic volumes. The use of both the traffic by "pipeline" projects and a historical growth factor ensures a conservative analysis. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Luay R. Joudeh, P.E. D.R.STRONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. April 25, 2003 Page -5- "Pipeline" Developments "Pipeline" developments are those that have either received concurrency certificates and have held a pre-application meeting with the County or those developments that have received permits. Attached in the appendix is a list of these nearby developments, as provided by King County Transportation Planning staff, that meets the "pipeline" criteria. The trips generated by the listed "pipeline" developments were distributed to the road system based on their location and traffic patterns in the area. It is not expected that any of the pipeline projects would add traffic to either S.E. 172nd St. or 127'h Ave. Southeast. Level of Service Table 3 shows calculated LOS for the 2005 PM peak hour without project conditions at the analysis intersection. The analysis intersection is projected to operate at LOS A. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT • Traffic Volumes Figure 7 shows the projected 2005 PM peak hour traffic volumes with the proposed project. The site-generated PM peak hour traffic volumes shown on Figure 3 were added to the projected background traffic volumes shown on Figure 6 to obtain Figure 7 volumes. Level of Service Table 2 shows calculated LOS for the 2005 PM peak hour with-project traffic conditions at the analysis road intersection. The analysis intersection and site access would not be significantly impacted by the proposed project and is projected to continue to operate at LOS A. Site Access Operation The vehicular access to the La Fortuna project is at the S.E. 172nd St.l127 th Ave. S.E. intersection. The intersection is expected to operate at good levels of service as noted in previous sections. The low traffic volumes from the La Fortuna project should allow the intersection to operate as it currently does, with the traffic island. Pedestrian Circulation Sidewalks are planned on one side of the new internal La Fortuna roadway. There are no raised sidewalks in the project vicinity along 127'h Ave. S.E. or S.E. 172nd Street. Pedestrians would use the existing paved shoulder or marked bicycle lane on S.E. 172nd Street. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Luay R. Joudeh, P.E. D.R.STRONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. April 25, 2003 Page -6- TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGA TlON REQUIREMENTS King County's Mitigation Payment System (MPS) is utilized to provide funding for transportation improvements. The County is divided into 457 zones for which a residential fee has been pre-calculated. This project appears to be located in MPS zone #336. The MPS fee for multi-family residential units in zone #336 is $2,789.40 per unit ($4,649.00 X 0.6 = $2,789.40). The total MPS fee for the proposed 41 unit La Fortuna townhouse project is estimated to be 41 X $2,789.40 = $114,365.40. In addition to the MPS fee the internal roadway facilities would need to be constructed to King County criteria. Therefore, coordination with the County is needed to ensure this road is constructed appropriately. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDA TlONS This report used existing traffic data collected at the pertinent street intersection and roads identified for analysis. Level of service analyses were performed for existing and projected future traffic volumes, using the collected traffic data, for the "without" project condition. The evaluation of the traffic impact of the proposed project, included adding project generated traffic to the future traffic volume projection and calculating the level of service. The "with" project traffic operations were then compared to the "without" project operations. The comparison of traffic operations "with" and "without" the project identified that the project with appropriate traffic mitigation measures would not significantly impact the operation of the analysis intersections or road corridors. Based on our analysis the La Fortuna townhouse project should be approved with the following traffic mitigation measures: 1. MPS fee contribution. The total MPS fee for the proposed 41 townhouse unit project is calculated to be $114,365.40. 2. Construct the project site and road improvements in accordance with applicable King County requirements. No other traffic mitigation should be necessary. Please contact me at (425) 455-5320, or via e-mail atlarry@tranplaneng.comif you have any questions. LDH:lh Very truly yours, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERIN~ ~~:'P.E. Senior Transportation Engineer I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE 1 VEHICULAR TRIP GENERATION LA FORTUNA COMMERCIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT -KING COUNTY TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Time Period Trip Generation Trips Trips Total Rates Entering Exiting Weekday T = 5.86(X) 120 (50%) 120 (50%) 240 AM Peak Hour T = 0.44(X) 3 (17%) 15 (83%) 18 PM Peak Hour T = 0.54(X) 15 (67%) 7 (33%) 22 Where T = Trips Generated X = Number of Dwelling Units (= 41) Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, Sixth Edition, ,1997 for Residential Condominiumrrownhouse (ITE Land Use Code 230). A vehicle trip is defined as a single or one direction vehicle movement with either the origin or destination (exiting or entering) inside the proposed development. Notes: TABLE 2 PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY LA FORTUNA COMMERCIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT-KING COUNTY TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Movement! Existing 2005 2005 Intersection Approach 2003 Without With Project Project S.E. 172nd St.! PM All A (7.0) A (7.0) A (7.1) 127'h Ave. SE Approaches Number shown is the average control delay in seconds per vehicle for the overall intersection at signalized intersections, or approach at stop sign control intersections. These values determine the LOS for intersections per the Highway Capacity Manual, 2000 Edition. C:I-ProjectsIK043IS031K043150J Traffic Impact Analysis,doc I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II TABLE 3 ACCIDENT SUMMARY LA FORTUNA COMMERCIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT -KING COUNTY TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS INTERSECTION 1999 2000 2001 TOTAL S.E. 172no St.! 0 0 0 0 127'h Ave. S.E. S.E. 172M St.! 0 1 1 2 1281h Ave. S.E. 1281n Ave. S.E.I 2 1 5 8 Petrovitsky Rd. C;\-ProjeclsV<043IS03IK0431503 Troffie Impact Analysis.doc I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ST 65TH ~ 5T c , < < PL ~ CIIARLES A 13 LINDBERGH 115 1715 S1 "Reproduced with permission granted by lHOMAS BROS. MAPSGJI. This map is copyrighted by THOMAS BROS. MAPse. It Is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any port thereof. whether for personal use or resole, without permission. An rights reserved." VICINITY MAP LA FORTUNA TOWNHOUSES -KING COUNTY TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FIGURE 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ... '_.R _______ • ___ ' ........ , .... , ... . ~"' f." ;;::.::::::.::.~ .... _. -.·._··.·.·_·-__ ··.·.·.·.·..;:··:;.r.,j~_=~~~.~::~~:;;;:==:::=:~Giil«,';;;;;;;;' ... 'L....... . ......................... -.... -............ . -.. -.----------~-. -------•• -.---••••••• -" •• -__ .~. __ •••••••• H. ____ ••••••••••••• _ ••• _ . .. . ... _ . _ .' .. ·.·.·i .::;:::: ~ ~~; ~ \ ~; ~~~nt·/:: :~/ .. !J!E~ :::::::::::: ~::::::: ~:::;.;::: :,:.:/ : : : : : : : : : : : : : :: : : :>~:~ : : ;i'-J:'..m~,-K. '." ..•. ,',' ," ,".;!.',",. " .;' j ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~ :';.<~:: ~:.:.~ .. ~(:.,. /' , .. . . . . .. , . . • • • . • . l' • • '. i ! : : ! .. ' " ( : , , ,.' ..... ,~ ,.:.- / --- SITE PLAN \ . -..... ~... , LA FORTUNA TOWNHOUSES -KING COUNTY TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS _.-_.-. FIGURE 2 I •• I I I I I I I I I I I I I S.E. 172nd St. 10% 80% ill OUT TOTAL 15 7 22 petrovitsky Rd. 50% I LEGEND I I I x -PM Peak Hour Troffic Volume & Direction SITE GENERATED PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES LA FORTUNA TOWNHOUSES -KING COUNTY TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS , N not to scole 25% FIGURE 3 I I , w w N I se- D-vi (J) not to scale \:. ui Q) > > <{ <{ I .r:: .r:: ~ ~ I'-OJ N N I I 172nd st. 25 mph 4 p I Traffic island in I middle of intersection -' N If) N I I I I petrovitsl<y Rd. 35 m I 4L I I LEGEND I 0 Traffic Control Signal <l Stop Sign I XX mph Posted Speed Limit --Approach Lane & Direction XL Number of Roodway Lanes I EXISTING CONDITIONS 1~~ FIGURE I LA FORTUNA TOWNHOUSES -KING COUNTY 4 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS I I I I I I I I I I I I ~I I I I S.E. 172nd S petrovitsky Rd. Wednesday 4-16-03 4: 45-5: 45 PM w (f) .,; > <{ I LEGENp I I I x -<> PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume & Direction EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES LA FORTUNA TOWNHOUSES -KING COUNTY TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS , N not to scale FIGURE 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I S.E. 172nd St. petrovitsky Rd. LEGEND X -PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume & Direction t.J Cf) Q) > <{ PROJECTED 2005 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT LA FORTUNA TOWNHOUSES -KING COUNTY TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS N not to scale FIGURE 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I petrovits\<'Y Rd. LEGEND X -PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume & Direction w VJ PROJECTED 2005 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH PROJECT LA FORTUNA TOWNHOUSES -KING COUNTY TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS , N not to scale FIGURE 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: SE 172nd St & 127th Ave SE G"X157}/Il4 Zoo3 4/25/2003 -<> -t Tv1bYerngritk!1i.5:l!::;;j~lit';,5!.EBllV~'iES:~EBRliOOiwJ3g~WBjf;T;~WBRt:SNBL'l:5P"N~'NBR-;'-;::§B[n;::SB:T.2IJs-BR Lane Configurations 4> 4> 4> 4> SignContiol;" '> Yield Yield Yield Yield Volume (veh/h) 3 21 0 0 13 9 0 0 0 6 0 1 Peak Hour Factor 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (veh/h) 3 23 0 0 14 10 0 0 0 9 0 1 .QjE§s;Ji6jjH.I;~.6·~~·#i;~!t~_BM!:,iTh~.B~~~;~;mN. ~tlt~'31$~~t!~1~~~1l:'iJa~,1£iill~t;:i;l!b't.J:~:~,Z ,~~e:~»f" ~~':':'~·~;,Jr~:~?~~~1 Volume Total (vph) 26 24 0 10 V6Iqm~,L:ef\ ("ph) 3 0 ·09 Volume Right (vph) 0 10 0 1 Hadj(s) " " .. 0.1 .. 0.2' 0.0 0.1 Departure Headway (s) 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.1 Degree Utilization, x 0.03 0.02 0,00 0.01 Capacity (veh/h) 691 653 900 659 Control DelaY(s) 7.1' 6.9 7.0 7.2 Approach Delay (s) 7.1 6.9 0.0 7.2 Approac~ LOS':' . , ,A' . A 'A .' A'; ,IRter:.s.e:dtiori1summaryJ~Jltll.!:~pA~gt:lri;~1&hWJfu~WH:~~lIWm~I/}/'~:;lL~l~!'t'nl$~~'ilikijk~t,&i, \:~E1W!r~~:~t;~t*r:.:,~':~E!~~!?ilF:~:Jfu:71~~r:7J Delay. 7.0 HCM Level of Service A InterseCtion Capacity Utilization 13.3% ICU Level of Service A Baseline TRANSPBELL .. ST51 Synchro 5 Report Page 1 I I I '1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis ! 3: 5E 172nd 5t & 127th Ave 5E Wrvl((f" wf.2 ff(.c •• (loo,,-) 4/25/2003 MQi).emegt~,I.~~]J!."lEB~~ili1fEB]f~'.l'J:lW,BI1IIi1li~WBjni~f.\W.~:NBlii;~NB;fii1i~NB~~:;:-SBGJ~.~isBf,\'SBR Lane Configurations .;. .;. .;. .;. Sign (:;ontrol . Yield Yield Yield Yield Volume (veh/h) 3 22 0 0 14 10 0 0 0 8 0 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (veh/h) 3 24 0 0 15 11 0 0 0 9 0 1 Volume Total (vph) 27 26 0 10 Volume Left (vph) 3 0 0 9 Volume Right (vph) 0 11 0 1 Hadj (s) 0.1 -0.2 0.0 0.1 Departure Headway (s) 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.2 Degree U!ilization, x 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 Capacity (veh/h) 890 654 889 857 ContrcilDelay (s) 7.1 6.9 7.0 7.2 Approach Delay (s) 7.1 6.9 0.0 7.2 Approach ,Cbs ·A A A A .-~. '. ,,'. . lfil~ts~~Jjp:t;lls.urriJTfar.YL!faj:~~;~!i~tJ:~~:;Ciiif~~~illIJ!tf!!lJ;~~ti:~Q,j~!!f:it;~;t]~~~:ttlit~~!t:!@&:l~~, :})~~~~ ;·i:~~i&:;:t,:~::(1~~~Ht~:':3~.~·1 Delay 7.0 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.3% Baseline TRANSPBELL-ST51 ICU Level of Service A Synchro 5 Report Page 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: SE 172nd St & 127th Ave SE fi.,'l"VltI!" VJ/ ("aol\."-'I (l.o<.:>S) 4/25/2003 +-t MQV~fije'ljtWi."id~?:fLm~JEB.~~'.!?EB!ii.~aEBT~l';.0~~~~NB1Pffi7rNB~~::rr\lBRl:B?SBi1~:~SBjP?:SBR Lane Configurations of, of, of, of, Sign Control :' Yield . Yield Yield Yield Volume (veh/h) 3 22 2 12 14 10 1 0 6 8 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (veh/h) 324 2131511 1 0 7 9 1 1 Volume Total (vph) 29 \tiiiurlleLeft (vph) 3 Volume Right (vph) 2 Hadj (8) 0.0 Departure Headway (s) 4.0 Degree Utilization, x 0.03 Capacity (veh/h) 892 Control belay (s) . 7:1 Approach Delay (s) 7.1 Approach LOS A Delay HCM Level of Service Intersection Capacity Utilization Baseline TRANSPBELL-ST51 39 13 11 -0.1 4.0 0.04 634 7.1 7.1 A 8 1 7 -0.5 3.6 0.01 970 6.6 6.6 A 7.1 A 13.3% 11 9 1 0.1 4.2 0.01 851 7.2 7.2 A .. ICU Level of Service A Synchro 5 Report Page 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Larry Hobbs From: To: Sent: "Mark J. Jacobs" <mjacobs@tranplaneng.com> "Larry Hobbs, PE" <Iarry@tranplaneng.com> Monday, April 21,2003 1 :28 PM Subject: Fw: traffic accident data request SE 172nd Street -122nd to 129th Avenues SE Acddenl Ii.ring Ul/01/1999.12/Z8/21)111 QUADRANT CAS]'; II) D,\"I'I; TIMrl Ace SJWr,IUTY I'F.D AGE WH,\'['[IJ,1l l.1GIITINI; II(M!) CllU.1SIOf',; TYI''' DlS"!',\", STRElrr 1 99.765(,7" 10/ \-1/ I'J?? 1'):20 I'roperty [)~m;lI;C (l OI-l7n(~)s 1O/2{'/2001 20;! 5 I'rnpnt)' Dam,lgc U OI)·')').l1(11 08/2SJ2(~)1) !fl:2? lnjllfY Ace () (1]·3111010 II/IS/ZOOI II;S~ ]I1ju,}, Ae~ Ituning Snowing Halning Snol1'inr, DMk m~c( I'glu Dry \',·h ~Ifikc~ li,cd "hi () ]221'\1) ;\\'1, SE SI, 172:-JD SOl Dark 5In'~r hgllt Wt'f M,,"ing "eh !t,ikc" pa,ked (1 122:-JD ,\\,1' :'1': Sf<: InND Sf D.,),light Wet ltightangk· (I 123']'11 AVI\SE :;1: 172t\'I)S'1 j)~)"ligh' \'I/~I Riglot .",;;1<-1210'11,\\"1\ SI·: Sic 1?2i'.'1'l ST 127th Ave. SE -south of SE 172nd SI. SE to north of SE 164th Street :\n';d",,, li";"f~ tH/ill/l'),),).12/211/21J1J1 ST1U,F,T::: I.lLI,\I)Lt,INT CA~1l II) DAn; 'l'l.lll( ,u:C SH\"l>nnr PEll ,\(;1·; WE,.\Tlllm l.a:IITINC III ),\1) C( )1.1.1.~1()r-,; Tn'!' 1)I~r:\C\I S'fUI':I':'I' I SIIII;I: I" 2 ~ \I'J.Il(,I.~~.~ O~/I.'i/l')<)') );15 l'wl'eny 1),I"'"g" 0 Uc-Jr ur C;lnu<iy DJrk mll't light Dr)" ~I",i"i: "'h <nik", l'"k",1 ~'il) 1171'11 .. IVI: SI: :'1-: 1(0(0'111 ~'L ~ 1~1.r.7(, IUlJ nM 1.\/2I~)I) :!.k~~ p"'per')' 1)"m,lge It Clrolr (lr Cloud)' D,,,k ",,'c, Iogll1 Dr)' ,\(,.".i,,!; n·h ~',ikc'I'",I.,'d I ~O I ~1T11 ,\ \'1'. SI: ~F, I 7\1'j'11 1'1, 128th Ave. SE -SE 176th to SE 164th Streets .Icdd,·", 1i~I,"g 01/01/19')9·1:!/ZR/211!)J QUADRANT e,ISE m IH'I'E TIME. M:C SEVERITY PED AGE \'t'E.XI"Illm 1.1(:IITiNG nO,11) C01.USIOr-; TYl'E DlS'L\~ S'mEET I ~1'n1~I~T 1 99.('761.1901/.2.\119'19 UO Injury,\cc 0 S, .. ""ing [)~rk streclI,ght Wet Iti)';ht ~"glc It 1211"1"11 "\'E~E SIC 16TI"IJ $'r 9').(,1\3211(102/19/1<)<)') IS;35Inju'r Me II S"" ... ·,"g Daylir,hl I\'ci \{~lht ~nlilc II 1211T11 ,II'E SE SE 1'ETROI'ITSKY 1(0- 99.06\022 UJ/12/191)9 (,;S; l't()l",rty D~"':Lgc U Sumo'ing D~)"liI\IH Dry sn hoth """'I\hr "ne ""f' ItE II 1211"1'11 II \'J-::m :'E l'I,TltlWIT:'KI" Itl)- <)<)'(h~J.~\(, 12/12/1')<)') 2.UI l'n~,. .... ry D,n",J:C n Snowing D~lk ~trCCI liy,hl ,,'et :'Ioving ,d, I";~C~ r~,hd 420 12l'fL'lI il I'E Sf<: SE 1(,7 n 1 ~T 1~),f,7(,~791)]/2'J/2(K1\1 :::!(),1 11''''pcny n."'MJ.. .... · 0 Ck-~r '" Oou,ly \:}Mk sm·c, lil~h, nry SD Ionlh .... ,i;:lor hu,h UK1\'''lt nE I(M' 1211"1'11.\\·1;:'f<: -"1'.1(.11"11 S"I' OU,H?On(, 112/::!S/~(l(~1 If. (~J Prop""Y I)""",r,,' II CleM'" Clo ... dy 1l.,)I'l\ht Dry I'<'""illl\ ,lrin"",,) 1I~(t I ::!S'II ( ,\ I'E SJ-: S!'.. 172 ..... 1) S r OO-lVI9n(, m/OJ/2\))() 1~;20 Inlury Ike !} S'I()wi"g D~)"lig.t W,·t SIJ 1>I"h "r";#,' I""h """,ill!" RI, IUtI 128']'11 ,\1'1,: :'1, SE I" I111 S I ()()·8')(I'HIj 07/2.1/21~k) 1'1;.1(1 I''''pwy n,II1~'g<: no..,,, or Clorrdy DAyli)\hr I J,}, SD "II ",hc'~ I) 12M n I :\ \." SI·: S,·: IMt'I II ST (lO.99.nOI U8/25/20(JO W:29 Inju,y Ace n lI.~in;"g [h)liglu \Vet Righi .IIglc () J::!RTII ,1\"1,: -"I: Si": 172L'1>-"T OO,')').n(J21~)/I)(,/2fli~) (o::!.~ I''''pl'rt)' D,m,lgc () It,in;ng DJ)'lir,hr \Vcr ()[) one II ruen ,,,1,· ~tr.lir.ht 12flTIf ,"'" SI·: SE I'ETltO"I'!'!"K\" ltD - 1Il·162064 (1I/17/2Ikll II:~.~ l'rope·tIl' I),mtage 0 CleM or Cloud,v I)"rlighr D,)' SD ~II ,)thcr~ I'IU 1211"111,\I'E -"" SI\ 1('(,'1'11 ST (t1.1456~1 02/0V211()1 .un Properly llam:oJ:<' 0 1t,lining D,uk ~"cel light W.'r Vl'll !tr,ke! littd "hi If 12f1'1'11 ,.\\'10: S!; SE 1'!':"I'nO\"1T:';KY IID_ 1f1-')'J.l!~).Ilf2/HI2(~1l H:HI'ror~rI)·[),\ln.'r,cO 0 D,'ylil\lu 9 -"[)h"'h~I,,,il',hllr"fh,nO\'i"glm .H.~ 1211'1'1I,\I'I':SI, SE 1(,("flIST UI·).IStl2R 1I.1/1I'i/2IK'J,21:111 ('fOp",ly [)"nl"",'ll Sno .... ing I)-,uk m"ct light \\"'" SI) "olh """'1\11I1""h '''')\'i''g lUi II 12KI II .\\'E S" Sli 1'E'lltO\'I'I'SKY HI! 01.891Jn404/2(,/2t~11 11:2tll"i"'Y Ike (j CI~JrurCluud)' 1),')'''I\l1r I),.y SO both slIlLiy,lrlo,," ~wl' liE (l 1~I!TI! A\"I':SE SI: 1("1'1'11 ST 111.IW;I~ ONn2/2\Xll 1,1:3(, I'wI'C<lY I)",n"p: 0 Clt-,n Of Cloudy ])u~ ~I"'ct I'glll Dry SD "OIh <It,';gh' "nc ""I' Itt: II I~H111 ,lYE Sf<: SF, 1'1.:-t'ltOI·I'I'SI":Y IU) .- III ·17111~)2 (~/H.';/2IXH 2.\,10 1'["1"''')' D""'"I;" II I{"ini,,)\ ])"ylight Dry ()J) nne Ii III'" one ,""ighl Il 12H'J'1I :\ \'1·: SE S[·; l'E'j'II.()\'n~h: \' Itl) - 111-.'11111)(,10/19/21)1)1 12;I1IJ 1''''pe'I)' 1),,,n,lf\cO 0 1)"I'Iil\hr ') V,"" ,"ik,,~ li",,1 "hj II 12tHII,IV)·:."I': SI; [(,'11"11 S'I OI·lIU2.H 11/07/20()11I:22 [njllt)' ,\~C 0 Clear or Cloud)' l),,)'I'ghr D"r 5n \o.'lh !trrliJ!,hr '.'UC Sh,p RE /I 12HT11 ,\\'1', SI£ 51\ I'E't nO\,IT~K\' H,I) (l1.JIO(~l? 11/1·1/2()OI II:~O [ujuI)' :\c~ Sno ... ·'ng n,l)"light W~I llight,,,,gk 0 I~HTI' ,1\'1\:;1'. :;E IHI1[ SI" OI·.lW{lJ(lII/I.'iI20()1 11:~51nj"r)" .I~c Snow;ng D"yliflht Wct n'l\hl ~nl\lc n 1211'1'11 :\\'HSI'; 51'. 172~[) ~T Page I of I 4/22/03 ------------__ 1!lII!I1!!I!!!I -----~ I!!!!!!I!J .. King County Transportation Concurrency Pipeline Projects in the Vicinity of 128th Ave SE SE 176th ~;~Sta:tUS'f:~ ¥@::~~ii~?~~ ;1i:~~~~~,~~-F1tOR,erty--:-~aares,s,~t~~~ [S~tunHs~ ~'Mr;{ffi61ts~' -:,~~~&~~~\~0settl~fii~~lr1&:~ :l::S_c{F;t -(C~illDln'Y~ r';,2lRarcEfi}~t-l LEXEMPT_ 101-03-12-01 118608 116th Avenue SE . 3; 9!Single Family Residential I 01 6197800100, L~-",-~~~_+-o.!':~!5~92-02 ISE P_etrovi~!<y Rd & 125th Av SE ! ~ ____ OJSin~1.~ Fam~i' R"'~d.en~!a~ _____ --l-. _______ 0; 0739000042: i~PP_ROVE .JD1-07-10-01 118612 _~?o.th~\f':~~~_ : 32 1 o~ingle Family Resigential -i--_. ____ ~~~6000~ i::-P£,_R_OVE !01-10-30-02J:!8809 134th Av,?: _. __ . ____________ ' ... ____ .~---o.2singl.e..£"'~ily ~':s~d_~ntial __ ._,' ___ .. _,_.~ __ ~423Q5912~ !APP~OVE i02-0?-05-o.1 112632 Petrovitsky Road SE ! .Dj 41 :Mul~fami!Y Residenti",_1 .--=1"-__ OJ 07390000?6: ,APPROVE 10.2-03-18-0.1 ,11925 SE Petrovltsky Rd 23! O!Slngle Family Residential I .0.1 6196600380.: iAP-PROVEloi':-o5-13-02 113120 SE 192nd Street ; ~---oiChurch AdditionsiAlteration-s·-i------43s521 3323059077: 'APPROVE 102-10.:0.7-02 [jiQ44-SE 184th Place -, 201 o.;Single Family Residential"--i'--0] 619960.0320] ~-: -. --------,-,,-----.--------,--,---~-----~------.. -.--------------.--~-_i---_______ -4 ____ -0-= ,APPROVE 103-01-23-01 i124th Avenue SE & SE 192nd Street ' 19: o.;Single Family Residences , 0: 6199000260, !API"~<2.":'§ __ ~o.3-o.1-31-o.2 !12632 Petrovitsky Road SE -+-__ o.L"::-:::' {1:Multif"':nily~':.si<:!"'nt~I,---~---.L--~~=--=--~ o.~ __ 1!.~396000z61 ,APPROVE 10.3-0.2-26-0.3 11230.8 SE Petrovltsky Road i 361 o.ISlngle Family Resldenti~ _____ 1 ___ ._. ___ ~9739o.o.o.o.51i !APPROVE 10.3-0.3-13-0.2 112216 SE 192nd Street i 20.: o.!Single Family Residential i 0.1 6199o.o.0240! '-----r:-:-----------_ ... --.,----'-... --.-.. -.----.-, .. -, ~-.. ---~--,---------------------.----,-.---T·-----.. --. -----;-----.----.--; !APPROVE 195-10-26-01 :12905 SE Petrovitsky Rd : 441 O'Single Family Residential: 0, 2823059027, ._--,--------~_r_-.--~-------------.--------, -------1 lAPP ROVE 196-03-18-01 iPetrovitsky Rd & 134 Ave SE I 01 150iMultifamily. i.. 01 34230590o.8i [APPROVE 196-10-23-01 11730.0-125 Ave SE . . r--131"-O:Single Fan-iilyResiderltial--------"1---.----0, -07390000411 l--._. _____ --+-_ .. _. . ,_. :: _____ . ___ ..... __ ... ___ ,.". _________ . __ , :~~P~OV§ .. J.~!_=9.~:29-=9~!78~~ .. !.Il.~':El_?E. .. ___ .__ _ .. ___ . ____ -..J_ ..... __ ~--.---.0 ?ingle.£amiiLR""sid".'!!ia_1 _ ----_1-. ... ___ , _OL_~1§.660028~i :,APPROVE ,98-04-15-01 lPetrovitsky Rd &!~4 Ave SE __________ .J...___ 0' . 39~~ultifaJl2iL ___ .. ________ .. i ____ ~:...._2723059049i 'APPROVE ;99-03-15-03 i122XX SE Petrovitsky I 01 172.Multifamily . 0; 0739000056; L________ . ____________ .. -----------,-------.----------, -_,. --" .---.. _--.. --... ,--_~ ____ ., -________ . ___________ _ 4/25/0.3 7,0.7 AM Pipeline Projects · , ® King County Department of Development and Environmental Services 900 OakesdaJe A venue Southwest Renton, WA 98055-1219 Commercial Site Development Permit (CSDP) Report and Decision Application: Project Location: Applicant/Owner: Applicant Representatives: B03DC001 La Fortuna CSDP La Fortuna CSDP LLC, File No.: B03DC001 - Generally 150 feet south of SE 172nd Street and East of 12ih Avenue SE. Karl Best La Fortuna LLC Post Office Box 1790 Snohomish WA 98291 Phone: (425) 238-9831 Steven P. Elkins, Architect 2630 116th Avenue NE, Suite 200 Bellevue WA 98004 Phone: (425) 889-9174 Lauy R. Joudeh, PE & Vicky Banks, P.L.S. D. R. Strong Consulting Engineers 10604 NE 38 th Place, Suite 101 Kirkland WA 98033 Phone: (425) 827-3063 George Kaage, LLA Jay Group LLC 1927 5th Street Marysville WA 98270 Phone: (360) 659-8159 La Fortuna, LLC, B03dc001 09/22/03 Page 2 County Representative: Site Zone: Comprehensive Plan Designation: Site Area: Base Units Allowed By Site Zoning: Applicable Code: Proposal: Action Contemplated: Findings: David Baugh, Program Manager, III King County DDES 900 Oaksdale Ave. SW Renton WA 98055-1219 Phone: (206) 296-7281 E-Mail: david.baugh@metrokc.gov R-8-S0 (3.07 acres) & R-12-S0 (1.44 acres) Urban, Medium Density (4 -12 units per acre) 4.51 acres total 42 units KCC 21A.41 (Commercial Site Development Permit) This proposed commercial site development permit (CSDP) serves as the basis fora forty-one (41) unit residential development project. Site, road and utility work will be performed under this permit together with landscaping, recreation features and installation of play apparatus. Two separate recreation areas will be connected with a ~hort trail. A separate building permit is required to approve the residential structures. A reduced full build-out site plan has been included with this decision as Attachment A. Administrative decision regarding request to make certain site improvements at this location (buildings to be submitted and reviewed separately). 1. The subject Commercial Site Development Permit (CSDP) application was received on February 13, 2003. B03DC001 La Fortuna CSDP La Fortuna, LLC, B03dc001 09/22/03 Page 3 2. The application consists of all required submittal information and development plans. This information is contained in files developed and maintained by King County. 3. The application was determined to be complete pursuant to KCC 20.20.050 and ready for screening/review on February 20, 2003. A complete application letter was sent to the applicant, copy retained in the file. 4. The Notice of Application (NOA) with a 21-day comment period for consideration of this permit was mailed to applicable public agencies and property owners within a 500-foot radius of the subject on March 06, 2003. The NOA provides that a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) determination will be issued following the end of the comment period or later. All comments regarding the subject request were due by March 31, 2003, also the earliest possible date for a SEPA determination. The NOA for the subject application was faxed to both the King County Journal and Seattle Times newspapers on February 18, 2003. Both newspapers published the advertisement on February 24, 2003. A twenty one-day comment period was advertised to end on March 31,2003. Notarized affidavits of publication from both newspapers received by King County indicate the public had until March 31,2003 to submit comments regarding this proposal. 5. A Mitigated SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on XXXXXXXX. The proposal is subject to the following conditions: o XXXXXXXXX 6. The applicant posted the subject property pursuant to code requirements. King County received an affidavit of posting from the applicant indicating that the subject property posting was complete February 28th , 2003. Regulation sign boards with notice materials were posted at the South side of 12ih Avenue SE and SE 172 nd Street. The sign was posted at the Southern terminus end of 12ih Avenue SE. 7. King County received two letters from adjacent neighbors and a letter from the City of Renton concerning the subject proposal. In addition, several neighbors requested to received SEPA determinations once issued. They have been added to the mailing list and will receive a copy of this CSDP decision also: o Jeannette Hansen and family, residents at the end of 12ih Avenue SE for more than sixteen years, are concerned about new traffic and its B03DC001 La Fortuna CSDP La Fortuna, LLC, B03dc001 09/22/03 Page 4 effects on their quite neighborhood using the further extension of this avenue to serve the new housing complex. They and their neighbors fear also the potential affects this development may have on the Soos Creek source wetland and its creatures. The wetland/stream complex encompasses approximately half of the subject property. o Andrew and Clara McCulloch nearby residents at 128 th Avenue SE are worried about access to the subject site on 12ih Avenue/SE 172nd Street and traffic that it will generate. They claim the one way in/out access to the subject property is a potential fire hazard. Also, they say periodic flooding of the site street is a major issue. The traffic issue within the neighborhood is one they say the County has recognized previously by trying to block access at various locations. They recommend that access to this and other newer project in the area be directed directly to Petrovitsky Road rather from the existing SE 172nd Street grid. They as k that this proposal be denied unless access can be required from Petrovitsky. o The City of Renton was the only public agency to respond to the NOA. The city requested that the applicant contact the Soos Creek Sewer and Water District for those services. In addition, as a property within the city's potential annexation area, they requested that required streets meet City of Renton street improvement standards. 8. Sensitive area conditions of approval (wetlands and geotech issues) have been attached to the plan sets. A two drawing set of sensitive area/wetland plans approved by a DOES Senior Ecologist has been included in the plan sets. Wetland boundaries, required buffers and fifteen foot building setback boundaries have been identified and are depicted on the approved drawings. On-site buffer areas impacted by the road alignment and building placement have been calculated. Buffer averaging has been used to expand some buffers as mitigation for the disturbed buffers, (see plan sheets W-1 and W-2). Applicable County Codes: 21A:J2.200 . L"(3F'b('"$,te"(JTvideCJ i3yzOQ'iriidWlCJ,iFV·Wifi;ll'Ji.iorOt site is divided b'~tone"bouniJa"itfe}dllowiri a')jes:Y,."q.. . ,', ....• p'.. . , ,}{, ,'j" ,"), ~ ",."")>>""fj(",, ,"' ',,( " ,", "";I,,,g .. "PP.\ 1" ,'1. j, '.j,',,, I " t'" ,j ',-",.' , ",-""" ." c, , "i" "',,' ',', • I _\ ','\0 1. ,'" 'J. '" :"'H \',;-':),',11.'/),1 ;, "u}:1' _,h'i'-,,"''.' (.' \' c",.:,,:,. /. """., .. "{A,. ,,:,:,-,!:. ",:;", '" "'\ .'" ,',,, , S./fal/ot ,pr;site ,Cpt;lt(3 i[ls"r:e~idI?ntial zones 9f.yarying, density:" . . -"';, ,.' r " ,'~ ,', j" , ,\ ," .,. 'I ;, ,,':": ;,j!~~I,'~~"t,"':'r"'~'>""\'!' """ 'I:-','k ,.",' ,:':·l!,'/."-,:,''.,,,' .. J ) ",' (.;":":"",,,,,/', " "':-.;, ":,:,,,~, "J /' ,,,',,,"'''_',> " , ,1/'Anyres.ldentiE!l;d€,!nsity trl3nsfero,yitb,in th.,1f! Igtgf.sit?, sb(3lrR,~"alfow.e~ (i(, sIc.)' , tbe;deri~itY'Jas'ial,~e~ultof, moving d,yvef/i[lg:.iJ[I{ts.,(rornPQEi,./p,t t9a'Jot,~f!!i: lot w..itb/n'" aSite'or;aeross zcfmelineswitbin asinglel/ot,'JtQ~§j]9t·~)~P~,(!5Lone flHnd,r2s:!1!.f1L B03DC001 La Fortuna CSDP La Fortuna, LLC, B03dc001 09/22/03 Page 5 rper2en(otflfil8?4e'g~fisity'an: arJY'r;ftlje latsor portions of a lot to which the aensityis:transferred;.,~: ':',.' . ';.: .... :.:.;... '. ". '. .... . ,':,: ~'>,," '1 1':';',1, 'j •• ,. ;','. /!',<'j.,:" '~J",\~!/" ,-" , ,~," }"i"'>',i~~, " ;,~',::I,," ",'..,/', n.:,',,( \ ':1,:, ",' ",:, ,-, b.the:tfansfer. do,es,l'fiO(djdiJcethe niinirni1mdensityachievable on the lot or site,: , ", ';."",". "'. ,", ",:, 'i :, " ... ,,' ",.,,,'" '.' " , "Il' ' 'j",',·w !, '.' J' i ''I'; ,j" " ','I.' ""_ ,. -J " "" " , • c8hetr"lnsfer enhancf3sthe ef(icient,u!>€I,pf ii€leCffJ.(l/nf,fa!>.ttu,qti)fe; . 1,:, , h, ,,,,,,' ::,:;:::;~:~: ,:~:'::, !;,:.~:"~,j,~}:,); ,:'; \;;,:j:r':~~':L, ,~, >:' "! /' ;",::::,i~_,<,'.' ":~'"._ ,.: _.',f:'. " ,"" :'( -, t.' " ," '>'I:\~''''';' ':;' _,ii ''. " ~,,' \ ... Id,. tlwtr;ansrer:,.do.e.!i;iiq( r;es,Li/(Jn .~ignlfic;Ef.l?t. f3C{,f(~~~~:it;ne~cts totflelowdensity Iporfion·.oMhe·!I;)t or;;sitej ,,,' . .:,': .Ii.·· .. ., . (.:~:',,'<::;'::: , , ,,;1,,'); ':",',,;-""',:?';:'.:',:Ii H',','''' '. ,;>..:,~;,:,::::;,,"y, ,< :,;:1:,:'-: .j.,,;' ,,~, .:;~:: ." " .-,\:> ,'>':,.':':, ,",.': '1 ",' '"':~''' """,'--: l ei.th~tr:ans~erc;ontCiJj.ute~ to pr:e§e[V?tion:gf.~iJyir~n'PentallY sen$itiveare?~, ,. wildlife cotndors,·or'other naturaMeatures;.and ... ,', .. ;.. ',,;,. .',' ... ! -,,',''', ";:"": ','1 >'!J~i" :'" , it,' '(i""",",;''''l!l.' ".' >"'~V":i, .,' :'::' "", ,,,,,,,0 .'_' .:~;<. ': ,,,,,~,',o'iW,.:i '" i "'" ,,:' ::" If. . ih~ .i~~nsf~~dges:,i16t;rJsU(t (0, s'igrific,~nt:~clvers~irI'f1f3c,~~ to.~cJ/oinin,g 10W~~' . 'densltyproperflesi'i);I"!"'ll " .. " .. '." ;.. . .. ,,, .... ,., ,,: ", '. ! , '., ",:.;-.. ;:,i::",::':,':':,",\I';,:,'-::::""t':;:""::,i:';j,,~~;'i:r.;:::';/:J.:'';;,,:;: "':':;:1:.'" \;,"'~ ,~::;" ':'j.be' I ::"';:',:" ' 1:,'><:( __ " ", ,",1:":' , -;, /",1, "' .. ·'YH,.\. J 3;R.~~idential.i:fef1sity:.tranWtJ:$.~/!fJlI/!/HrP~. ~Y!9W.ff.CI:t,9;a,/Qt~r:po.rfidnOra.lot··. . ~f~i~~t::~~if:fl~ii~~;;;"f~;~~~~~;:~~~;~d.j Comment: The applicant proposes to build the allowed base number of units on this site, calculated by the number of units allowed under each zone category, R- 8 & R-12. The location of wetlands and unit placement results in a minor adjustment of density. The density shifts slightly from the R-8 portion of the site to the R-12 section. Twenty two (22) units, or 7.16 units per acre will be placed on the R-8 portion of the site (3.07 acres). Nineteen (19) units. or 13.19 units per acre will be located on the 1.44 acre R-12 portion of the site. The blended density (rounded to 41 units) is in compliance with the base density allowance for this site. Comment: The CSDP review process includes analysis for compliance with zoning (including sensitive areas), Road Standards and the Drainage Manual plus other applicable current regulations, (see code section KCC 21A.41.060 B03DC001 La Fortuna CSDP La Fortuna, LLC, B03dc001 09/22/03 Page 6 below). Approval of the site plan and civil engineering drawings means that the submittal application has been found either in full regulatory compliance as designed or is conditioned accordingly, including SEPA Mitigation, (see stamped and approved drawings). An approved CSDP plan will permit construction of site improvements only, no buildings. Future building applications are not vested to existing Uniform codes (Building and Fire). Construction standards for future buildings must meet those uniform codes applicable at the time of application submittal. This CSDP decision will establish site and building construction time limits. The standard maximum CSDP time limit for application of all valid building permits is three years from the approval date with submission within four years. The CSDP will be considered null and void if these target dates are missed. It is possible to request longer building permit submission and completion time periods, however, that was not the case for the subjects CSDP request. 12.,' ,Oo9sideratibn"of, the, recommendatiotisior cbmm~nfs .of!nt€J.re,$te7J partiesardl Ithos~ ,.~?e~1i~~j:~~~!7~ :xpert~s~,or ju~is~iction" ~con~i~tent,~iththef"eqf1irements I lofthls,tltle. " ~.""" 11, Ph' '\ t.," 1.' -.'.-li.,"'," .> ,IJ,,:n .1"_.,' >'. "tL;:.:2..JJ:211,:;':.:b:':iJ~";J..;.j~~~.:..J";;:"',,;;_~ Comment: The public notice, mailed and posted, generated several neighborhood comments and a letter from the City of Renton, as noted above in "Findings", paragraph seven (7). The body of public input is being researched thoroughly. The analysis of each salient point raised is contained below in "Analysis", paragraph one (1). !s, ,~u1J1eqy~9ffi!iimjlgq'{;:{h~:,~~§J~g:~llf~hJtf{'~e:;~~u~?7frfTYl'Y cbrnpli~nce ' "l with ,the approl(ed: commer;ciEi/ sitedevelopmeht plari . .;4daitional site .'" J de,v~/9f?rpe.p~.:9on«itiors?qdl§if? ':[~~~e~ :.~ilf(,lpt ~~~e9u,ir,*~W:s'Libseq ~~rft t,:' perf1!,tsproVlded,t,he"ElPprove,dplEin ,Is ,f!Qt ,Elltl?r:~c1.j",." "'; ., ..... , ,:, .•. ', j .,,' ." , . . , , ',' ','.' ,,', , , '11+",0,"';/' "'11)" "f \ ,i'I' __ ,.r",,! '.,,:1' "j".-; ,,' I~,'i. ',':,},' >-:","'",,{~ "! .. '_ ,," ",.\ ',. ~", Q. ' .. Approval qf.the ,proposed COmmf#rQ{a(si(~ .ciell,lj/gpml}'!tshall·not,(![9,vicie. the ... , applicantwith.a:;ve,~t~d right,tobuild,withPuf. Sljb~l}q.Lle?tc.ha.f]ge,s in/the building J and"fire"codes,·1Iste·d, In K!G, Qi·. ··1. 6. 04J,and ,17:.Q4;.!§.gY1?J!!1g£9fl~1£uctlo!l:-",,,-,,_:_~~ Comment: Building permits for the construction of residential structures within the boundaries of this site have not been submitted. New building permit applications must comply with current versions of the uniform codes at the time of submittal. . %~J~~(;Ii~eC~?~'s~W~,:r1ail:~'c~PY'Of, th~' decisiomto the applicant and other ,.' lee(sonWho Msereselifedwntteli commenttothe.del2artment.'" ' . Comment: A parties of record list to receive copies of this decision can be found in "Attachment B". B03DC001 La Fortuna CSDP La Fortuna, LLC, B03dc001 09/22/03 Page 7 2JA,4 .. 1. O~O~;~App/~9iiJlqr?;fa~~Ii}opfii~nr~ra!JCfi~a~~.·APi~ppli9iiti6n for·· .•.. ". '. COlT!me[cialsite developmentpermit"sball. be review~dpursWlfJtlo .pbapter43, 4.19 . RCW,''SEPA·aslmplementecibywflC 1.97·1·1?KrC,GX9.04,·S()rraceW,ater M~{}i;!F!~pJ:!riJ:::IS:..c, .9,/4 ·1?,· ~9a,.g .~a,n.~~,.ds; f<'~' 6/:.1~. ~~,~r~~ing;· K. C: C,.Title. 17, ~1(~,;Cod.e, ~; S.G, ?Q,44, 9?/!ntY.~I).~'ro~~f:!lJtal.ftr~Sf:!aq;e.~,t<.G. C, TI!fe ~1A, ZonmfH·K., C:C, Tltfe25lSborefme. Mar;lagemen.t;flqmln!~kqtf.VeJy'fes .aqoeted.. • ..... ptJfstJant'.·to KC:G.)?: 9Et to' implement Ijnysuch code ol\ordinance.pr;ovision;.l{ing , "'-""',t,L'Y-'..f .. 'j't'h:,'I', _'"",' '," " _,',. ".' /,' '" ,t, _ '. ". " ", , ,) , , 90L(nty·:tiq.?r;~.8thl1iitt'l/(JIi¥~ :~n,Ci.re,~~iat!?~~/~o~nt~.app~o~~d.~tif(ty ... .. ,. . comprehens,'v.eplfln§;90nt9.W(tY.:'f'th.applf9fJ.~/e.l'.~~(Jffix q9nq'tI9Tl~:: .... . ,'''';'., :""'i1;,'" ,,' _. ",'!-"'i([,, ",,\~; ",":,'! ,j" .>""':'<1,,'_', .,.:,~"".; ""!':,-' ',",1: "1,,:·"'/" ,~:",;""'!,:i~',,, ': ':'.,/,:" '\' :':, ),' ,:,,,~'" ,~," , Lot"b8Seastand~(CI$,·sucn· as internal circu/ation,landscaping signage:and . S~,tP~.¢~,I:~fl.ujNfp~;i(Si:,~~typiffJily' ~RfJ.'!f:!~'to.eac~'(n~Md/1~J lot within the,site.· Howe.ver, .. the~directormfly.apwov~ an appficatiori.f()rcommerCia/site .' .' devefgpmerit whele,suchstandards .haYe!beeri.app'lie(J,to'ttieMfa~·inf . " cdrisi§te'd,ofoheparcel::Lot.based'regulationsshall',not,bewaived altogether ... "1 ~L('."""J':i'';;\'':'II:~'"'I''' '~'.'H',"IJ'," 1',,' ""J'I;",",,:"', '.1:;'1', ',/,""'",);"",,,,, ;""",,( "':,""" \)" .. ,;' '", '1 liiie,.$i,.~qt¢~·j.(,a~ip9difY,l()t~~~~~~9~i9,(lip~~?~~/Ji(e.ril~iits, qopta'inedWithlnthe' . bUilding •. pre and,othersimilaC'!Jnifgimcqdes. ~goRtf3d!bytQe:pou,iity,t?rov,ided. th~. site: is'b'eing'revie,wed,concurrently with· a . binciingsiteplan..appfication .. (Ord.". 13·022·§.' 3 r 1998!(J)ti:J:116 211§ ,1251994\ .. ' 'i-Ji" •• ..,;.. ..... ----'_ •• ...;.. _. • .;c.... ·2''-... ··_· .. ·'.'-···· ._ .. .........:.".'-. .'-'., '.'-...'-",.:..; .. "-1 "A,';;;; .. """,*"",,,,~ ,"'"'"""'~_!_ .. n"~"~-...."' .. ________ -.., __ , ____ 1_ Comment: Code and regulatory modifications to any lot·based standard are not p'art of the subject request. Analysis: Conclusions: The commercial site development permit application, as expressed on attachment A, complies with or can be conditioned to meet all the zoning and design standards of KCC 21A requirements, including KCC 21 A, 12.200, KCC 21A.41 and other related codes, Previous zoning conditions and required SEPA Mitigation, primarily road and intersection improvements, can be enforced under building permit B01 L0467, The site plan is consistent with the Amended King County Comprehensive Plan, Proposed uses are permitted in the R·12·PSO and R·1·PSO zones, The on-site transfer of density from the R-1-PSO and R-12·PSO steep slope portions of the site (Tract A) achieves the purpose of provided permanent protection of this sensitive area and is consistent with requirements of KCC 21A.12,200 (Lot or site divided by zoning boundary). B03DC001 La Fortuna CSDP La Fortuna, LLC, B03dc001 09/22/03 Page 8 Correspondence noted above (see Finding 5 above) citing specific opposition to this proposal for traffic congestion reasons is not relevant to this application to combine all permits into a single development site. All on-site improvements and development within the designated building envelopes can be designed and approved under related building permits B01 L0618 and B01 L0467. Having met all requirements of code for a CSDP, the revised proposal dated June 28, 2002 should be approved subject to conditions noted below. Decision: The Commercial Site Development Permit is hereby APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: All site development shall be in accordance with building plans B01 L0467 and B01 L0618 once approved and conditioned. Approval of the commercial site development permit shall not provide the applicant with a vested right to build without regard to subsequent changes in the building and fire codes listed in KCC 16.04 and 17.04 regulating construction. Subsequent building permit applications may contain minor modifications to the approved CSDP, KCC 21A.41.11 O. Exceeding the conditions of approval will require a new commercial site development permit for the entire site. ORDERED THIS day of Director Designee TRANSMITTED to Parties and Persons of Interest: Attachment B cc: Jim Chan, Supervisor, Site Engineering and Planning & File B02DC002 CR:DB Attachment A -Proposed Site Plan Attachment B -Persons of Interest/Parties Attachment C -Right to Appeal B03DC001 La Fortuna CSDP ~. King County Road Services Division DepartmclllofTransportation 201 SoulhJackson Street ScHttll!, WA 9B104-3H56 TYPE OF CERTIFICATE ~ORIGINAL o CONDITIONAL , February 19, 2002 Certificate # 01375 File Number: 02-02-05-01 Expires: February 19 2003 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY o Specific conditions are described on the reverse side of this certificate. Pursuant to King County Code, Chapter 14.70 as amended, this certificate confirms that the level of service standard used in the Transportation Concurrency Management program has been satisfied and sufficient road capacity is reserved for the development project described below. IMPORTANT: This certificate does not guarantee a development permit. Other transportation improvements and mitigation will be required to comply with Intersection Standards, Mitigation Payment System, King County road standards, and/or safety needs. [ffi@© @ ~ W@fjy FEB 132003 ~ I. Applicant Name and Address: Karl Best, K-Best Construction 4801 Storm Lake Road, Snohomish, WA 98290 2. Property Location: a. Property Address: 12632 Petrovitsky Road SE b. Development Name: LaFortuna Townhouses c. Parcel Number: 0739000026,20,15 K.C. D.D.E.S. 3. Type of Development Permit To Be Requested: Multifamily Permit 4. Proposed Land Use: Multifamily Residential 5. Zone Location and Reserved Units: . a. Concurrency Zone: 336 CommUliity Planning Area: Soos Creek i. Conunercial Project -Total Square Feet: 0 ii. Multi-family -Number of Units: 41 iii. Single family -Number of Units: 0 6. This Certificate is subject to the following general conditions: a. This Certificate of Concurrency runs with the land and is transferable only to subsequent owners of the same property for the stated development, subject to the terms, conditions and expiration date listed herein. This Certificate of Concurrency is not transferable to any other property and has no commercial value. This Certificate Expires: February 19, 2003 unless you apply for the development permit described above, prior to that date. If this requirement is not met the King County Department of Transportation reserves the option to cancel your certificate and capacity reservation. When you apply for a development permit with King County's Department of Development and Environmental Senices (DDES). bring this Certificate of Transportation Concurrency as part of the development application package. If you have any questions, please call (206) 263-4722 . .~. .... /;:( /' ,~t4{ V Linda Dougherty, Manager, Road Services IJI' ..... _ Department of Transportatioll King County, Washington • " "',' . " Conceptual Mitigation Plan for the La Fortuna Townhouses in King County, Washington Pre-Application #A01 PM115 Prepared For: Best Construction Karl Best 10117 -158 th Avenue SE Snohomish, WA 98290 Phone: 360-644-2565 Project Engineer: D.R:' Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc. '" Walt Shostack 10604 NE 38 th Place, Suite 101 Kirkland, WA 98033 Phone: 425-827-3063 Fax: 425-827-4223 '" ",." ," ~f.epared By: .. , The Jay Group, Inc . . /' Greta Murdoff " 1927 - 5 th Street Marysville, WA 98270 Phone: (360) 659-8159 FAX: (360) 651-7252 January 17, 2003 The Jay Group, Inc. ~ '0{ \ • • TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... i INTRODUCTION ...................................................... : ................................................................. 1 WETLANDS FUNCTIONS AND VALUES ASSESSMENT. ........................................................ 1 Flood and Storm Water Control .................................................................................................. 8 Base Flow / Groundwater Support ... , .......................................................................................... 8 Erosion / Shoreline Protection ............................................................... : ..................................... 8 Water Quality Improvement ........................................................................................................ 8 Natural Biological Support ........... '" ............................................................................................ 9 Overall / Specific Habitat Functions ............................................................................................ 9 Noise and Visual Screening ........................................................................................................ 9 Cultural/ Socioeconomic ............................................................................................................ 9 PROJECT IMPACTS AND CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION ......................................................... 11 Regulations ............................................................................................................................... 11 Local ..................................................................................................................................... 11 Federal and State ................................................................................................................. 11 Impacts ................................................................................................................................. 12 FUNCTIONS AND VALUES ......................................................................................................... 12 Function and Value Comparison of Wetlands Before and After Impacts and Mitigation ........ 12 MITIGATION GOALS ............................................................................................................... 14 MITIGATION CONCEPT .......................................................................................................... 14 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ............................................................................................... 14 MITIGATION PLANTING DETAILS ....................................................................................... 145 Wetland Creation Area .......................................................................................................... 15 Buffer Enhancement Area ..................................................................................................... 15 Wetland and Buffer Restoration/Enhancement Area ............................................................. 16 MONITORING .......................................................................................................................... 16 General ................................................................................................................................. 16 Details of Monitoring ............................................................................................................. 17 MONITORING SCHEDULE ...................................................................................................... 18 Time-Zero Report: ................................................................................................................ 18 Monitoring Reports ................................................................................................................ 19 CONSTRUCTION TIMING ....................................................................................................... 20 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION ......................................................... 20 MAINTENANCE ........................................................................................................................ 20 CONTINGENCY PLAN .................................... ; ........................................................................ 20 PERFORMANCE SECURITY ................................................................................................... 21 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 22 APPENDIX A: Mitigation Planting Plan .................................................................................... W APPENDIX B: Mitigation Cost Estimate .................................................................................... B APPENDIX C: Wetland Investigation letter ............................................................................... C La Fortuna Detailed Mitigation pran Best Construction King County The Jay GrouP. LLC January, 2003 Job # 202095 t ' ' t INTRODUCTION The subject property is located at the south end of 127'h Avenue SE at 12632 Petrovitsky Road, in King County, Washington. The site is located in Section 10, Township 23N, Range 7E, Willamette Meridian; and encompasses approximately 4.5 acres. The property is currently developed at a low density, with single family residences on each of the parcels. The subject property is bordered on all sides by a mix of roadways and single family development, and a sewer line easement. The subject property is dominated by maintained lawn, old pasture and other human-altered yard features. A wetland investigation and classification assessment was conducted in May of 2002 by Gary Schultz which describes the property and wetland classifications on the site. This report is intended to address wetland functions and values, proposed project impacts to critical areas and/or their buffers, and to propose mitigation for these impacts. WETLAND FUNCTIONS AND VALUES ASSESSMENT Wetlands play important roles in flood control, pollution control, biological support, groundwater support, and many other functions valued by society. Functions and values of the on-site wetland were assesses using a combination of methods drawn from the Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET) and from Cooke, 1996. The intent of the functional assessment method used (Cooke, 1996) is to quickly identify and quantify the potential functions of the wetland from a routine site visit. The method is designed to extrapolate potential functions from the presence of physical characteristics conducive to a specific function. It is also designed for ease of use and repeatability of results. The role the subject wetlands may play in several such functions is discussed below, and is represented in Figure 7. La Fortuna Detailed Mitigation Plan Best Construction King County The Jay Group, LLC January, 2003 Job # 202095 , . Figure 1: Wetland A (forested) and Associated Buffer based on the Functions and Semi-quantitative Performance Assessment, Cooke (1996) Criteria Function Group I I pI Group 2 2 pIs Flood/ 2L size < 5 Dcres -size 5~ 1 0 acres -riverine or lakeshore wetland -mid~sloped wethlnd Storm Water Control -< 10% forested cover 10-30% forested cover unconstnlined outlet ~ semi-constrained outlet 2L located in lower 1/3 of drainage -located in middle 1/3 of Points ~ drainage (max 15) Base Flow/ ;L size < 5 acres size 5-10 acres riverine or lakeshore wetland _ mid-sloped wetland Groundwater - Support LL located in lower 113 of drainage -locatt:d in middle 1/3 of drainnge _ temporarily tlooded or saturated 2L seasonally or semi-pennanen!ly /looded or saturated ;L no now-sensitive fish low flow-sensitive tish -populations on-site or populations on-site or Points 3-downstream downstream (max 15) Erosion/ _ sparse grass I herbs or no _ sparse wood or vegetation along vegetation along OHWM OHWM Shoreline -wetland extends < 30 III from -wetland extends 30 -60m from Protection OHWM OHWM _ highly developed shoreline or _ moderately developed shoreline subcatchment or subcatchment Points n/a (max 9) Water Quality _ rapid flow through site 3 moderate Ilow through sile _ < 50% vegetative cover _ 50 -80% vegetntive cover Improvement _ upstream in basin Irom wetland _ ::s 50% of basin upstrenm from is undeveloped wetland is developed Points --.ll -holds < 25% overland nmolT -holds 25 -50% overland runoff (max 12) N/A = Not Applicable, Nil = No Informallon Available La Fortuna Detailed Mitigation Plan Best Construction King County 2 Group 3 . 3 pts size> 10 acres -....4 depressions, headwaters. bogs. tlats -X > 30% fo~ested cover culvert I benned outlet -_ located in upper 1/3 of drainage size> 10 acres - ~ depressions. headwaters. bogs, flats _ located in upper 1/3 of drainage _ permanently flooded or satufflled, or intermittently exposed _ high Ilow-sensitive !ish populations contiguous with site in highly permenble stmta -dense wood or vegetation along OHWM wetland extends> 200 III from -OHWM _ undeveloped shoreline or suhcatchment _ slow flow through site ...x > 80% vegetative COver ~ > 50% of basin upstream from wetland is developed ...x holds > 50% overland runolf The Jay Group, LLC January, 2003 Job # 202095 , ' Figure 1 Cont.: Wetland A (forested) and Associated Buffer Functions and Semi- quantitative Performance Assessment Function Group I Ipt Group 2 2pt Group 3 3pts Natural Biological Support Points 27 (max 36) Overall Habitat Functions Points 6 (max 9) Specific Habitat Functions Points .JJ. (max 15) Cultural/ Socio- economic Points 10 (max 21) Noise and Visual Screening Points -.1. (max 9) x.. size < 5 acres _ Dg land. low vegetative structure 2l. seasonal surface ,vater __ one habitat type PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST _ low plnnt diversity « 6 species) _ > 50% invasive species _ low primm), productivity _ low organic acculllulation _ low organic t!xport few hub lin! leatures _ bu neT very disturbed _ isolated from up1<md hubilnts X-size < 5 acres _ low habitat diversity _ low Stlllcluary or refuge low invertebrate habitat = low amphibian habitat ....x low fish habitat _ low mammal hubilat _ low bird habitat _ low educnlional opportunities low aesthetic value 1L locks commercial tisheries, agriculture. renewable resources A-lacks historical or archeological resources _ lacks pOlssive and nclive recre .. tional opportunities A-privately owned 2L not nem open space 3 burter < required width no shmb layer _ one vegetative layer _ size 5 to acres _ 2 vegetative levels permanent surfnce water .1\. two habitnllypes PAS POW PEM PSS pro EST _ moderate planl diversity ( 7 -15 species) _ 10-50% invnsive species .1i modt:rnte primary productivity ~ modemte organic accumulation ....x moderate organic export some habitat features ~ bulTers slightly disturbed _ partially connected to upland habilnLs _ size5-IOacres ~ moderate hnhita! diversity _ moderate sanctuary or refuge moderate invertebrate habitat -.X moderate amphibian habitat moderate fish habitat -X moderate mnmmal habitat moderate bird habitat .-X moderate educational opportunities ~ moderate aesthetic vallie _ moderate commercial fisheries. agriculture. renewable resources _ historical or archeological site X some passive and active -recreational opportunities _ privately owned. some public access _ not near open space _ butTer required width _ sparse shrub layer _ two vegetative layers N/A = Not Applicable, Nil -No Information Available La Forluna Detailed Mitigation Plan Best Construction King County 3 _ size> 10 acres .1i high vegetative structure _ open water pools through summer _ 2: 3 !labitnt types PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST ~ high plant diversity ( > 15 species) ~ < 10% invasive species _ high primnry productivity _ high organic accumulation _ high organic export .....x many habitat features _ butTers not disturbed ~ well connected to upland habitats _ size> 10 acres _ high habitat diversity ~ high sanctl1ary or retllge .1i high invertebrate habitat _ high amphibian habitat _ high fish habitat _ high mammal habitat -.X high bird habitat _ high educational opportunities _ high aesthetic value _ high commercial fisheries, agriculture. renewable resources _ important historical or archeological site _ many passive and active recrentiOlml opportunities _ unrestricted public access _ directly connected to open space _ butTer> required width 2L ample shrub layer A-three vegetative layers The Jay Group, LLC January, 2003 Job # 202095 " " Figure 2: Wetland B (scrub-shrub) and Associated Buffer based on Functions and Semi-quantitative Performance Assessment, Cooke (1996) Criteria Function Group 1 I pt Group 2 2 pts Flood/ X. size < 5 acres -size 5-10 ncres -riverine or lakeshore wetland -mid-sloped wetland Storm Water Control x. < [0% forested cover -10 -30% forested cover unconstrained outlet ~ semi-constrained outlet x.. located in lower 113 of drainage -located in middle 1/3 of Points 8 drainage (max 15) Base Flow/ x.. size < 5 acres -size 5-10 acres -riverine or lakeshore wetland _ mid-sloped wetland Groundwater Support 2L located in lower 1/3 of drninage -localed in middle 1/3 of drainage _ temporarily Ilooded or saturated 2L seasonally or semi·pcTmanently flooded or saturated .A no flow-sensitive lish -low now-sensitive" !ish populntions on-site or populations on-site or Points .Jl. downstream downstream (max 15) Erosion/ _ sparse grass I herbs or no -sparse wood or vegetation along vegetation along OHWM OHWM Shoreline -wetland extends < 30 In from -wetland extends 30 -60m from Protection OHWM OHWM _ highly developed shoreline or _ moderately developed shoreline subcntchment or subcatchment Points N/A (max 9) Water Quality _ rapid now through site _ moderate tlow through site _ < 50% vegetative cover ..x 50 -80% vegetative cover Improvement _ upstream in hasin from wetland _ ~ 50% of has in upstream from is LIIu..leveloped wetland is developed Points ~ X. holds < 25% overland rUllotT holds 25 -50% overlnnd Tunoff - (max 12) N/A -Not Applicable, Nil -No Information Available La Fortuna Detailed Mirigation Plan Best Construction King County 4 Group 3 3 pts size> 10 acres -....2S: depressions. headwaters. bogs. !lats > 30% forested cover --culvert / bemled outlet _ loeDled in upper 1/3 of drainage size> 10 acres --X depressions. headwaters. bogs, Ilats _ located in upper 1/3 of drainage _ permanently Iloeded or saturated, or inlemlittently exposed _ high /low-sensitive lish populations contiguolls with sile in highly permeable strata -dense wood or vegetation along OHWM wetland extends > 200 111 from -OHWM -undeveloped shoreline or suhcatchment ~ slow flow through sile _ > 80% vegetative cover ....x> 50% of bas in upstream from - wetland is developed holds > 50% overland TUlloff The Jay Group, LLC January, 2003 JOb # 202095 Figure 2 Cont.: Wetland B (scrub-shrub) and Associated Buffer based on Functions and Seml-quanlltallve Performance Assessment Function Group I Ipt Group 2 2pt Group 3 3pts Natural Biological Support Points 20 (max 36) Overall Habitat Functions Points 2 (max 9) Specific Habitat Functions Points -.2 (max IS) Cultural I Socio- economic Points -.2 (111ax21) Noise and Visual Screening Points .J. (max 9) 2L size < ::; tleres _ ag land. low vegetative structurl;: _ seasonal surface water _ one hubilnl type PAS POW PEM PSS PFO EST 2L low pl'lIlt diversity « 6 species) _ > 500/0 invasive species 2L low primary productivity 2L low orgnnic occlimulation L low organic export 2L few habitat features _ butTer very disturbed _ isolated from upland habitats x... size < 5 acres 2L low habitat diversity 2L low sanctuary or refuge _ low invertebrate Imbitat X low amphibian habitat 2L low tish habitat 1L low mammal habitat 1L low bird habitat L low educational opportunities X low f1esthetic value 2L lacks commercial fisheries. agriculture. renewable resources 2L. lacks historical or archeological resources 1L lacks passive and active recreotionnl opportunities 2L privately owned _ not near open space _ butler < required width _ no shrub layer _ one vegetative layer _ size 5 -10 acres -.X 2 vegetative levels -X permanent surface water ~ two habitat types PAS POW IThl ~ PFO EST _ moderate plant diversity (7 -15 species) _ 10-50% invasive species _ moderate primary productivity _ moderate organic accumulation _ moderate organic export _ 50l11e habitat features .A. butTers slightly disturbed _ partially connected to upland habilats _ size 5 10 acres _ moderate habitat diversity _ moderate snnctunry or refuge ...x moderate invertebrate habitat _ moderate amphibian habitat _ moderate fish habitat _ modernte mammal habitat _ moderate bird hnbitnt _ moderate educational opportunities _ moderate aesthetic value _ moderate commerciallisheries. agriculture. renewable resources _ historical or archeological site _ sOllle passive and active recreationnlopportllnities _ privately owned. some public access _ not near open space J buffer= required width _ sparse shrub layer J two vegetative layers N/A -Not Applicable, Nil -No Information Available La Fortuna Detailed Mitigation Plan Best Construction King County 5 _ size> 10 acres _ high vcgetntive structure _ open w<lh:!r pools through summer _ ~ 3 habitat types PAS POW PEM PSS PFO EST _ high plant diversity ( > 15 species) -.X < 10% invasive species _ high primufY productivity _ high organic accLllllulation _ high organic export _ many habitat features _ buffers not disturbed ~ well connected to upland habitats _ size> 10 acres _ high habitat diversity _ high sanctunry or refllge _ high invertebrate habitat _ high amphibian habitat _ high fish habitat _ high mnmmal hahi!<lI _ high bird hobitn! _ high educational opportunities _ high aesthetic value _ high commercial lisheries, agriculture. renewable resources _ important historical or archeological site _ many passive and active recreational opportunities _ unrestricted public access ~ directlr connected to open spnce _ buller> required width -X ample shrub layer _ three vegetative Inyers The Jay Group, LLC January, 2003 Job # 202095 Figure 3: WetiandC (emergent) and Associated Buffer based on Functions and Semi- quantitative Performance Assessment, Cooke (1996) Criteria Function Group I 1 pt Group 2 2 pts Flood! x.. size < 5 acres -size 5-10 acres -riverine or lakeshore wetland _ mid-sloped weiland Storm Water Control x.. < [0% forested cover 10 -30% forested cover -unconstrained outlet 2 semi-constrained outlet 2L locnted in lower 1/3 of drainage -locnted in middle 1/3 of Points ~ drninage (max 15) Base Flow! x.. size < 5 ncres -size 5-10 acres -riverine or lal,:eshore wetland _ mid-sloped wetland Groundwater Support x located in lower 1/3 of drainage -loenled in middle 1/3 of drainage 2L temporarily Ilooded or saturated _ seasonally or semi·pemlanently llooded or saturated x.. no llow·sensitive !ish -low flow·sensitive fish Points -.l populations on·site or populations on-site or (max IS) downstream dowllstream Erosion! _ sparse grass I herbs or no -sparse wood or vegetation along vegetation along OHWM OHWM Shoreline -wetland extends < 30 111 from -wetland extends 30 -60m from Protection OHWM OHWM _ highly developed shoreline or -moderately developed shoreline subcalchmenl or subcatchment Points n!a (max 9) Water Quality _ rapid !low through site .-X moderate now through site _ < 50% vegetative cover ...4 50 -80% vegetative cover Improvement _ upstream in basin from weiland _ ~ 50% of basin upstream from is undeveloped wetland is developed X holds < 25% overland runotl' -holds 25 -50% overlund runoff Points ~ (max 12) N/A = Not Applicable, Nil = No Informalion Available' La Fortuna Detailed Mitigation Plan Best Construction King County 6 Group 3 3 pts size> 10 acres --2i depressions. headwaters. bogs. !lats > 30% forested cover -culvert J bermed outlet _ located in upper 1/3 of drainage size> 10 acres -....x depressions. headwaters. bogs. iluts _ located in upper 1/3 of drainage _ permanently tlooded or snturated, or intermittently exposed -high flow-sensitive fish popUlations contiguous with site in highly permeable SinHa -dense wood or vegetation along OHWM wetland eXlends > 200 m from -OHWM _ undeveloped shoreline or subcatchmenl _ slow llow through site _ > 80% vegetative caver ~ > 50% of basin upstream from - wetland is developed holds> 50% overland rUllotf The Jay Group, LLC January, 2003 Job #202095 " Figure 3 Cont.: Wetland C (emergent) and Associated Buffer Functions and Semi- quantItatIve Performance Assessment Function Group I I pt Group 2 2pt Group 3 3pts Natural Biological Support Points 23 (max 36) Overall Habitat Functions Points 3 (max 9) Specific Habitat Functions Points~ (max 15) Cultural/ Socio- economic Points -.2 (max 21) Noise and Visual Screening Points --.2 (max 9) L size < 5 acres _ ag land. low vegetative structure X seasonal surface water ~ one habitilt type PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST L low plant diversity « 6 species) _ > 50% invasive species JL low primary productivity L low organic accumulation _ low organic export X li!\v habitat lealures X bufTer'very disturbed _ isolnted from upi<md habitats 2L size < 5 acres· L low habitat diversity 1L low sllnctuary or refuge low invertebrate habitat 2L low amphibian habitat 2L low tish habitat L low malllillal habitat L low bird habitat L low educational opportunities 2L low aesthetic value -2S lacks commercial tisheries. agriculture, renewable resources x... lacks historical or archeological resources x.. lacks passive and active recreational opportunities x... privUlelyowned _ not near open space X-butler < required width _ no shrub layer _ one vegetative layer _ size 5 -10 acres -X 2 vegetative levels _ permanent surfnce water _ two habitat types PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST _ moderate plant diversity ( 7 • 15 species) ...x 10-50% invasive species _ moderate primary productivity _ moderate organic accumulation --X moderate organic export _ some habitatleatures _ buflers slightly disturbed _ partially connected to upland habitats _ size 5 10 acres _ moderate habitat diversity _ moderate sanctuary or reluge .A moderate invertebrate habitat _ moderate amphibian habitat _ moderate fish habitat _ moderate mamlllal habitat _ moderate bird habitat _ moderate educational opportunities _ modernte aesthetic vallie _ moderate commercial fisheries, agriculture. renewable resources _ historical or archeological site _ some passive and active recreational opportunities _ privately owned. some public access _ not near open space _ buffer c: required width _ sparse shrub layer ...x two vegetative Inyers N/A = Not Applicable, Nil = No Information Available La Fortuna Detai/ad Mitigation Plan Best Construction King County 7 size> 10 acres _ high vegetative structure _ open waler pools through summer ..A ~ 3 habitat types PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST ~ high plant diversity ( > 15 species) _ < 10% invasive species _ high primary productivity _ high organic accumulation _ high organic export _ mcmy hnhitat tenhlres _ bufTers nol disturbed ...2i well cOllnected to upland habitats _ size> 10 acres _ high habitat diversity _ high sanctuary or re luge _ high invertebrate habitat _ high amphibian habitat _ high fish habitat _ high mamillal habitat _ high bird habitat _ high educational opportunities _ high aesthetic value _ high commercial tisheries. agriculture. renewable resources _ important historical or archeological site _ many passive and active recreational opportunities _ unrestricted public access ~ directly connected to open spnce _ buffer> required width ~ <lmple shrub layer _ three vegetative layers The Jay Group, LLC January, 2003 Job #202095 Flood and Storm Water Control Wetlands act as natural sponges; they soak up water when it is overabundant in the environment, and release water when it is relatively scarce. In this way, wetlands can moderate local water supply, tempering the effects of flood or drought. The ability of a particular wetland to perform runoff control is based on such characteristics as its position in the landscape, hydrogeomorphic class, and amount of vegetative cover. The wetlands are all less than 5 acres in area and are positioned in the lower third of the drainage basin. All the wetlands rate moderate to high for this function. The buffers are slightly disturbed native vegetation, with moderate ability to intercept precipitation and contain overland flow, thus rating moderate for this function. Base Flow I Groundwater Support Wetlands can serve to recharge aquifers, discharge to streams and downstream wetlands, and attenuate surface flow. Groundwater recharge and discharge are very site specific. Some factors influencing this are wetland size, position in the landscape, and hydrologic regime. Wetland A is a broad, forested complex, and is saturated seasonally, justifying a moderate rating for this function. Wetlands Band C are small complexes, with seasonal or temporary saturation and no fish presence, thus rating moderate for this function. Wetland buffers (upland) are not applicable to rating this function. Erosion I Shoreline Protection Wetlands function to protect shorelines from erosion by securing the substrate with the root systems of vegetation along the shoreline. Greater functions will result from dense vegetation, large size and an undeveloped shoreline. None of the wetlands on-site are associated with shorelines. Wetland buffers (upland) are not applicable to rating this function. Water Quality Improvement Through a variety of physical, biological and chemical processes, wetlands function to naturally purify water by removing organic and mineral particulate matter. Large, densely vegetated wetlands can support the processes of sedimentation, ion exchange, algal and bacterial degradation of pollutants, and sequestration and burial of pollutants in partially decomposed organic soils. The slower the water velocity, the greater the settling of sediments, toxins and nutrient removal/transformation. Vegetated wetland buffers function to reduce adverse impacts to water quality by controlling the severity of soil erosion, removing a variety of pollutants and taking up nutrients. Wetland A has >80% vegetative cover, holds >50% overland runoff, and> 50% 'of the upstream basin is developed, thus rating high for this function. Wetland B rates moderately high for this function due to the vegetative cover and inability to hold overland run- off. Wetland C holds <25% overland runoff and has moderate flow through the site, thus rating moderate for this function. The buffers of the wetlands are relatively well vegetated and large enough in functional area to contribute to a moderate rating for this function. La Fortuna Detailed Mitigation Plan Best Construction King County 8 The Jay Group, LLC January, 2003 Job # 202095 Natural Biological Support Several factors contribute to biological support. The most important elements are size, and diversity and structure of plant communities and habitat types. In addition, primary productivity of wetlands provides a vital foundation for well-developed food webs. Other elements include percentage of invasive species, surface water, organic accumulation and export, buffers and connection to upland habitats. The wetlands exhibit moderate to moderately high characteristics conducive to performing this function. They have moderate to high vegetative structure, low to moderate primary productivity, and low to moderate organic export. The buffers of the wetlands are similar in vegetative structure and habitat type to the wetlands, and also rate moderate for this function. Overall I Specific Habitat Functions Overall habitat functions are related to size, species richness and refuge or sanctuary capabilities. Specific habitat functions are based on individual needs of particular animal species. Wetland A rates moderate for these functions due to the moderate habitat diversity and high refuge potential. Wetlands Band C rate low for this function due to their low habitat diversity and refuge. The buffers of the wetlands rate moderate for this function due to their size, moderate to high degree of sanctuary, and moderate habitat diversity. Noise and Visual Screening Vegetated buffers provide visual separation between wetlands and developed environments. Dense buffers discourage direct human disturbance (such as dumping debris, cutting vegetation, or trampling soil and seedling plants) within the wetland. Animals that are sensitive to noise and movement by humans can safely use buffers to move through and around wetlands. The ability of a buffer to perform this function depends on the plant structure and its width. The buffers of the wetlands are generally somewhat disturbed, with an ample s.hrub layer thus offering a moderate to high potential to perform this function. Cultural I Socioeconomic This function is assessed from a purely value-based perspective. Although values of wetlands are subjective, ownership, educational opportunities, aesthetic value, renewable resources, and recreational opportunities. are considered important characteristics for this function. Since all the wetlands and their buffers are privately owned with no public access, have low educational opportunities, low to moderate aesthetic value, no historical or archaeological resources, and no passive or active recreation opportunities, they rate low to moderate for this function. La Fortuna Detailed Mitigation Plan Best Construction King County 9 The Jay GrouP. LLC January, 2003 Job # 202095 Figure 4: Function and Value Assessment of Existing Wetlands and Buffers Occurring on the Subject Property. . Function, . Wetland ,:;' . .:.. .":: .\,'; " , 'I·'·"A/:,: ' , •• 'r; .... Flood/Storm Moderate Water Control Base Flow/ Moderate Groundwater Support Erosion/Shoreline N/A Protection Water Quality High Improvement Natural Biological Moderate / Support High Overall/Specific. Moderate Habitat Functions Noise and Visual Moderate / Screening High Cultural! Socio-Moderate economic Overall Functions Moderate / and Values High La Fortuna Detailed Mitigation Plan Best Construction King County WetJ~,:nd A Buffer' Moderate N/A N/A Moderate Moderate Moderate High Moderate Moderate Wetland B" , Moderate Moderate N/A Moderate/ High Moderate Low Moderate / High Moderate / Low Moderate 10 Wetland .. Wetland .. -. .-.:'; . ",,": ., C', . " ::', ,,\V.etla~d , B Buffer'. Moderate N/A N/A Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate / High Moderate Moderate " C Buffer Moderate Moderate Low/ N/A Moderate N/A N/A Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Low Moderate Moderate Moderate / Low Low Moderate / Moderate / Low Low The Jay Group. LLC January, 2003 Job #202095 PROJECT IMPACTS AND CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION The La Fortuna development project proposes impacts to critical areas and their buffers on the subject property in the form of filling Wetland C and two small portions of Wetland B, totaling approximately 393 square feet (ft2). The filling of these wetlands would allow for construction of the roads and site development. Buffer impacts from these developments would total 8,784 ft2. No impacts are proposed to Wetland A, and only 30 fe of impacts to its buffer. The wetland areas proposed to be filled consist of forested and scrub/shrub vegetation. The buffer areas proposed to be impacted consist of disturbed forested, with some areas of past clearing, debris deposition and other human activities. Enhancement of the buffers of the created wetland and creation/enhancement of the disturbed buffer associated with the road extension and lot development will amount to approximately 26,915 ff Avoidance Measures The subject site was chosen for this residential development because it is one of the few sites remaining in the area that is not entirely wetland and has not already been developed. The project applicant has designed this development to avoid impacts to sensitive areas, including wetlands, and has concluded the design process with a design that limits the road extension to impacting a small portion of an unregulated wetland and buffer. Minimization The road extension proposed is the minimum impact necessary to provide access to the residences. The configuration avoids the majority of wetlands, with the exception of two small areas of Wetland B. Rectification I Reduction The proposed unavoidable impacts will all be permanent and after preparation of a number of alternative plans, rectification was not feasible in the final design. Regulations Local King County will require mitigation for wetlands impacted by the proposed placement of the road. On-site, Wetlands Band C are scrub/shrub and emergent unregulated wetlands (per agreements with King County staff) where the proposed impacts will take place. The impacted area will be mitigated for with wetland creation at a 1: 1 replacement ratio. Additional mitigation will be provided by enhancing the buffer of the created wetland, existing wetland, and creation of additional buffer around the Class 2 Wetland A. All Sensitive Areas will be designated and set aside as Native Growth Protection Areas (NGPA) prior to any development activity on the site. Federal and State Mitigation for the disturbance of wetlands may also be required by federal and state regulatory agencies. Wetlands are regulated by the federal government under the Clean Water Act. The primary goal of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological, integrity of the Nation's waters." Section 404 is specifically directed towards regulating the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including La Fortuna Detailed Mitigation Plan Best Construction King County 1 1 The Jay GrouP. LLC January, 2003 Job # 202095 wetlands. Creation projects often involve dredging ponds, reconstructing dikes or levees, re- contouring sites, filling wetlands, and general earth-moving activities. These activities will sometimes require a Section 404 permit. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) should be contacted prior to construction to determine if a permit is required. Other federal and state agencies have jurisdiction over development impacts associated with wetlands these include, but may not be limited to, the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE), and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). A Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) can be used to apply for Hydraulic Project Approvals, Shoreline Management Permits, Approval for Exceedence of Water Quality Standards, Water Quality Certifications and Army Corps of Engineers permits. Depending on the type of project proposed, other permits may be required that are not covered by JARPA. Impacts Wetlands Band C are under 2,500 fe and are unregulated by King County. The project proposes to fill Wetland C as it is very disturbed and is assumed to have artificial means of hydrology as well as active disturbance in and around the wetland. Wetland B is also a small, unregulated wetland, but is less disturbed and dominated by scrub/shrub habitat and as such, the project proposes mitigation for the filling of approximately 393 ft' of Wetland B. The proposed mitigation includes creation of approximately 396 ft' along the southern boundary of Wetland B. Associated buffer impacts to Wetland B amounts to approximately 8,784 ft', and will be mitigated for by the enhancement of 17,853 ft' and the creation of 9,062 ft' additional buffer around the buffer to Wetland A and Wetland B. T bl 1 I a e t d mpace vs. MT t d I:lga e areas Impacted Wetland . Impacted Buffers Mitigation Area Mitigation Area Buffers ft" 393 8,784 396 26,915 overall Moderate Moderate Moderate High functions vegetation Comus sericea, Alnus rubra, Rubus Fraxinus latifolia, Acer macrophyllum, Lonicera involucrata, discolor Picea sitchensis, Thuja plicata, pteridium aquilinum Carex obnupta, Pseudotsuga Lonicera involucrata menziesii, Corylus cornuta FUNCTIONS AND VALUES Function and Value Comparison of Wetlands Before and After Impacts and Mitigation Wetlands play important roles in flood control, pollution control, biological support, groundwater support, and many other functions valued by society. Functions and values of the on-site wetland were assesses using a combination of methods drawn from the Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET) and from Cooke, 1996. The intent of the functional assessment methods used is to quickly identify and quantify the potential functions of the wetland from a routine site visit. The methods are designed to extrapolate potential functions from the presence of physical characteristics conducive to that function. They are also designed for ease of use and repeatability of results. The role the subject wetlands may play in several such functions is represented in Figure 5. The intent of this analysis is to compare the currently existing La Fortuna Detailed Mitigation Plan Best Construction King County 12 The Jey Group, LLC January, 2003 Job # 202095 , , . functions and values of on-site critical areas with the expected functions and values following impacts and proposed mitigation. The wetland creation area will function similarly to the impacted wetland because of their relative size. Improvements to this wetland area will come from the enhancement to the buffer, which is currently functioning at a sub-optimal level. The eXisting buffer is disturbed, vegetated with red alder and blackberries, The enhanced buffers will improve natural biological support and noise screening for the wetland and creation area. Figure 5: Function and Value Assessment of Impacted Wetlands and Buffers Occurring on the Sub'ect Property Flood/Storm Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Water Control Base Flow/ Groundwater Support Erosion/Shoreline Protection Water Quality Improvement Natural Biological Support Overall/Specific Habitat Functions Noise and Visual Screening Cultural! Socio- economic Overall Functions and Values . Moderate N/A Moderate/High Moderate Low Moderate/High Moderate/Low Moderate La Fortuna Detailed Mitigation Plan Best Construction King County N/A Moderate N/A N/A Moderate Moderate/High Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Moderate/High Moderate Moderate Moderate/Low Moderate Moderate 13 N/A N/A Moderate Moderate/High Moderate/High High Moderate/High Moderate/High The Jay Group, LLC January, 2003 Job # 202095 'MITIGATION GOALS Goals of the mitigation plan are three-fold: 1. Create 396 ff of scrub-shrub wetland adjacent to impacted wetland. 2. Enhance 17,853 ft2 of buffer to compensate for the loss of 8,784 ft2 existing buffer. 3. Create approximately 9,062 ft2 additional buffer adjacent to existing Class 2 wetland. MITIGATION CONCEPT The goals of this mitigation plan will be met by applying the following mitigation objectives to the project: 1. Replace the lost functions and valu~s of approximately 393 ft2 of wetland impacted by road construction and site development by creating wetland at a 1: 1 ratio. 2. Replace the lost functions and values of approximately 8,784 ff of wetland buffer impacted by road construction and site development, by removal of stockpiled debris in wetland buffers and planting of 17,853 ft2 in and around existing buffers. 3. Create additional functions, values, and protection for Wetland A with five additional species. 4. Permanently mark the Native Growth Protection Area boundaries on the Site per King County Code. 5. Develop a monitoring program which will define the annual performance standards required and a procedure for determining whether the Mitigation Plan is meeting those performance standards. 6. Estimate costs of the plants, installation, maintenance, and monitoring for bonding purposes. 7. Develop a multi-faceted contingency plan to take into consideration annual variations and modifications in the maintenance program, as well as mitigation area success or failure and the need for adjustments. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 1. Invasive and exotic species shall be represented by less than 10% coverage in the created wetland and enhanced/created buffer areas. 2. Wetland and buffer planting areas acceptable cover standards shall be: Year 1 3 5 Shrub/saplings ->60% 85% Wetland Emergent 60% 80% 90% Buffer Shrub/saplings ->60% Coverage shall include trees, shrubs and herbs, but not grasses. Baseline cover values shall be established upon completion of a Time-Zero report immediately after planting. These standards may be modified upon County review of baseline information. La Fortuna Detailed Mirigation Plan Best Construction King County 14 The Jay GrouP. LLC January. 2003 Job # 202095 3. Survival of planted and volunteer native vegetation shall 100% by Year 1 and will be a minimum of 80% after 3 years. 4. The created wetland area shall meet all three wetland criteria after 5 years. The soils shall exhibit hydric characteristics, vegetation shall be predominately hydrophytic, and wetland hydrology indicators shall be established. 5 There shall be no significant topographic or hydrologic difference between the created wetland areas and the adjacent existing wetland areas. "Up to 20% of any stratum can be composed of desirable native volunteers when measuring cover. No more than 10% cover of non-native or other invasives, e.g., Himalayan blackberry, Japanese knotweed, evergreen blackberry, reed canary grass, Scots broom, English ivy, morning glory, etc. is permissible in any monitoring year. Bond holders are encouraged to maintain mitigation sites within these standards throughout the monitoring period, to avoid corrective measures." MITIGATION PLANTING DETAILS Wetland Creation Area Approximately 396 fe of wetland will be created on-site by excavating upland immediately adjacent to an existing wetland boundary to a depth sufficient to take advantage of naturally occurring wetland hydrology. This will provide the greatest chance for the successful establishment of wetland conditions in the creation area. The wetland creation area will be slightly over-excavated, and backfilled with stockpiled wetland topsoil reserved from the proposed wetland fill areas. Grading should mimic the present natural slopes and contours of the wetland edge, provided the finish elevation is low enough to allow wetland hydrology to be present. The created wetland will be planted with a mix of native trees, shrubs and emergent species to provide wildlife habitat, water quality improvement, sediment retention, production export, and noise and visual screening functions. Plantings in the created wetland areas will consist of the installation of native deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs. Approximately 396 1t2 of created wetland will be planted with native vegetation. Trees may include, but are not limited to: Sitka spruce (Picea sifchensis) and Oregon ash (Fraxinus lafifolia). Trees will be planted 12 feet on-center, and shall be nursery grown, and conform to specifications listed on the planting plan. Approximately 2 trees will be required. Shrubs consist of black twinberry (Lonicera involucrafa), shrubs shall be planted an average of 5 feet on center, grouped in clusters. Shrubs shall be nursery-grown species, and should be 2-gallon' container size. Approximately 4 shrubs will be required. Emergent plants include 17 slough sedge (Carex obnupta). Buffer Enhancement Area Enhancement of approximately 17,853 square feet of buffer will be accomplished by planting native evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs in the buffer area of the created wetland, wetland B, and Wetland A. Enhancement of the required 50-foot buffer will provide an improvement in buffer and wetland functions and values greater than that of an unimproved buffer. Without enhancement plantings, the buffer vegetation over time would include a high percentage of invasive exotic species (Himalayan blackberry). Currently, the buffer in this area La Fortuna Detailed Mitigation Plan 15 The Jay Group, LLC Best Construction January, 2003 King County Job # 202095 has a high percentage of invasive species and has been disturbed by clearing/stockpiling and rubbish dumping associated with the nursery. Suitable native tree species include, but are not. limited to, Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesit), western red cedar (Thuja p/icata) and big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyl/um). Trees will be planted 12 feet on-center, and should be nursery grown, and conform to plan specifications. Approximately 63 trees will be required. Shrubs suitable for buffer enhancement include, but are not limited to, snowberry (Symphoricarpos a/bus), red-twig dogwood (Comus sericea), ocean 'spray (H%discus disc%r), beaked hazelnut (Cory/us comuta), Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana), and vine maple (Acer circinatum). Shrubs shall be planted an average of 4 feet on-center, and shall be nursery-grown, 2 gallon container size. Approximately 69 shrubs will be required for buffer enhancement. Buffer Creation Area The buffer creation area is currently vegetated with a few trees, and a sparse shrub layer. Adding this area to the NGPA will further protect Wetland A and add to the aesthetic values. Suitable native tree species include, but are not limited to, Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesit), western red cedar (Thuja p/icata) and big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyl/um). Trees will be planted 12 feet on-center, and should be nursery grown, and conform to plan speCifications. Approximately 26 trees will be required. Shrubs suitable for buffer creation include, but are not limited to, snowberry (Symphoricarpos a/bus), red-twig dogwood (Comus sericea), ocean spray (H%discus disc%r), beaked hazelnut (Cory/us comuta), Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana), and vine maple (Acer circinatum). Shrubs shall be planted an average of 4 feet on-center, and shall be nursery-grown, 2 gallon container size. Approximately 55 shrubs will be required for buffer creation. MONITORING General The mitigation planting areas will be monitored for a period of five years following construction. Monitoring shall commence the first year following completion of all construction activities. Monitoring will use standardized techniq ues and procedures as described below to measure the survival and growth of plant material and the success of the mitigation plan overall. The monitoring strategy will include the following elements unless otherwise approved by King County: 1. Photopoints Photopoints shall be established in order to obtain representative photographs of the mitigation areas. Photographs of the created wetland, enhanced buffer, and created buffers will be taken from the same locations to document appearance, progress, and changes of the project. The existing vegetation prior to construction will be photographed to provide historical documentation. This information will be provided in the first report. Review of photos over time will provide some indication of the growth and success of the mitigation plantings. 2. Vegetation Transects Vegetation data will be collected along permanent transects in order to obtain quantitative data on vegetation survival. Permanent transect locations shall be sited with the objective of obtaining representative data for each plant community. Transect locations shall be shown on an 'as-built' plan and shall corr.espond to photopoints. Permanent transects shall be established with rebar following construction of the mitigation project. The permanent transect in the buffer shall be approximately 100 feet long, and run lengthwise (northwesUsoutheast) in the buffer. The permanent transects in the wetland creation area shall be approximately 30 feet La FOrluna Detailed Mitigation Plan 16 The Jay Group, LLC Best Construction January, 2003 King County Job # 202095 long and run laterally (northeast/southwest) through the wetland creation area. One photo point will be placed at each end of the transects in the mitigation areas. A Transect will also be placed in the buffer creation area, and shall be approximately 100 feet long, running laterally (north/south) through the creation area. The routine on site sampling methods shall include quadrat sampling to measure the percent cover of herb, shrub and tree species. The quadrat sampling locations will correspond with the photopoints and the transects in the wetland creation area and the buffer enhancement area. Trees, shrubs and herbs that have been planted for the purpose of mitigation shall be visually evaluated to determine the rate of survival, health, and vigor of each plant. The categories to be used shall include: Live, Stressed, Tip Die Back, Basal Sprouts, Not found, Apparently Dead and Dead. Visual observations along transects will include trees at a 30' radii, shrubs at a 15', 'and herbs at a 5' radii. A biennial report describing and quantifying the level of success of the plan will be submitted to King County Land Use Division for review and approval. The monitoring strategy will consider, but is not limited to: a. plant species composition and cover values for vegetation in the wetland creation/enhancement, detention pon,d and buffer enhancement planting areas b. hydrology and soil changes in the created wetland c. survival rate of planted vegetation d. wildlife use e. water quality and erosion control in the wetlands f. existing or potential degradation in the wetland creation and buffer enhancement areas Details of Monitoring The mitigation planting areas will be monitored for a period of five years following construction. Monitoring shall commence the first year following completion of planting. Sample plots will be established within the wetland creation area, and will be sampled for trees, shrubs and herbs using the Braun-Blanquet releve method of sampling. Sample plots will be located at designated points along the transects chosen as areas representative of the entire mitigation area. In addition sample plots will be established in the buffer enhancement area at either end of the transect. 20'X20' quadrats will be established along transects to monitor trees and shrubs. 4'X4' quadrats will be established within the 20'X20' quadrats in the mitigation areas to monitor herbs. Grasses will be noted, but will not be measured in the mitigation areas, except as relevant to invasive species presence. Species composition, percent of total cover and canopy cover will be measured at each point. In addition, invasive species that were not planted will be noted and their density recorded. Records will be kept of non-native invasive species, particularly Himalayan blackberry and Scot's broom. La Fortuna Detailed Mitigation Plan Best Construction King County 17 The Jay Group, LLC January, 2003 Job # 202095 MONITORING SCHEDULE Time-Zero Report: At the completion of planting, a Time-Zero Report will be completed by the contractor and the wetlands consultant (project biologist). The Time-Zero Report will identify problems in obtaining materials; differences of sizes of materials than were originally called for; replacement materials, if necessary, and any other conditions that varied from the mitigation plan. If the installation is found to be significantly different from the prepared mitigation plan, the landscape contractor will be responsible for the creation of an as-built plan. At the initiation of the Time-Zero Report, a series of permanent photo points, transects and vegetation measurement plots will be established. The photo pOints will be designed to give a representation of the entire site during each stage of the monitoring program. Photo points will be established with permanently marked rebar. An instruction sheet, with the direction and number of photographs to be taken, will be provided to allow continuity if the monitor changes over the years. Year 1: Year 1 consists of the growing season following the first year of planting. Two site visits The first site visit will be conducted at green-up, approximately early spring, to determine the initial survival of the shrubs and trees in the wetland and buffer. It will include a plant-by-plant inspection along the transects and within the sample plot quadrats with a notation of any species which appear to be stressed, dead or delayed in initial growth. Photos will be taken of the site per the established photo schedule, which will be created at the initiation of the Time- Zero Report. Wetland soils and hydrology will be investigated in the wetland creation area. Wildlife usage, water quality, existing or potential degradation in the wetland creation area and the buffer enhancement areas will be recorded. The second site visit will be completed at the end of the growing season. This visit will determine the success or failure of the plants at the end of the first year. At this time, all dead plants will be noted. This information will be supplied to the planting contractor for re-vegetation during the dormant winter period. Wildlife usage, water quality, existing or potential degradation in the wetland creation/restoration areas and the buffer enhancement/restoration areas will be recorded. Photos from the established photo points will be taken per the established photo schedule. Year 2: Two site visits The first site visit will be during the early spring, i.e., during green-up, to evaluate over winter success and to inspect plants that were re-planted during the dormant winter season as part of the re-vegetation construction contract. Plants along the vegetation transects and in the sample plots will be inspected. Any species that appear to be stressed, dead or delayed in growth will be noted. Photos will be taken of the site per the established photo schedule. Wetland soils and hydrology will be investigated in the wetland creation area. Wildlife usage, water quality, existing or potential degradation in the mitigation areas will also be recorded. A second site visit will be completed at the end of the growing season. This visit will determine the success or failure of the plants at the end of the second year. Plants along the vegetation transects and in the sample plots will be inspected. Any species that appear stressed, dead or La Fortuna Detailed Mitigation Plan 18 The Jay Group, LLC Best Construction January, 2003 King County Job # 202095 · . delayed in growth will be noted. In addition, percent coverage will be estimated per the performance standards. Wildlife usage, water quality. and existing or potential degradation in the mitigation areas will also be recorded. Photos from the established photo points will be taken per the established photo schedule. Year 3 and 4: One site visit. The site visit will be during the early spring. i.e., during green-up, to evaluate over winter success and to inspect any plants that were re-planted during the dormant winter season as part of the re-vegetation construction contract. Plants along the vegetation transects and in the sample plots will be inspected. Any species that appear to be stressed. dead or delayed in growth will be noted. Photos will be taken of the site per the established photo schedule. Wetland soils and hydrology will be investigated in the wetland creation and restoration areas. Wildlife usage, water quality. and existing or potential degradation in the mitigation areas will also be recorded. Year 5: Two site visits. The first site visit will be during the early spring, i.e., during green-up, to evaluate over winter success and to inspect any plants that were re-planted during the dormant winter season as part of the re-vegetation construction contract. Plants along the vegetation transects and in the sample plots will be inspected. Any species that appear to be stressed, dead or delayed in growth will be noted. Photos will be taken of the site per the established photo schedule. Wetland soils and hydrology will be investigated in the wetland creation and restoration areas. Wildlife usage, water quality, and existing or potential degradation in the mitigation areas will also be recorded. The second visit will be in late fall and will be the final site visit. At this time. it will be determined by the monitor whether the site is meeting the performance standards and goals as identified in the Mitigation Plan. Plants along the vegetation transects and in the sample plots will be inspected. Any species that appear stressed, dead or delayed in growth will be noted. In addition. percent coverage will be estimated per the performance standards. Wildlife usage, water quality, and existing or potential degradation in the mitigation areas will also be recorded. Photos from the established photo pOints will be taken per the established photo schedule. As this will be the final site visit. the project monitor will meet with County personnel on site to verify the project monitor's final determination. If County personnel and the project monitor agree that the site has met the goals, no additional work will be done. If it is determined that the site has not yet met the goals, a contingency plan meeting will be established between the developer. wetland consultant, contractor, monitor and appropriate regulatory agency, to modify the project so it will meet the performance standards. This could include additional plantings. replacement of plant species and/or an extension of the monitoring period. Monitoring Reports /JM.~ ""I MM~ A time-zero report at the initiation of the monitoring program, and biennial monitor reports beginning Year 1 will be submitted to the developer and appropriate regulatory agency by the annual anniversary of the project bonding date. The monitoring reports will include photographic documentation for each site visit, with photo descriptions and a plot-by-plot analysis of the vegetation plots. The report will generalize the overall conditions and address the effectiveness of the Mitigation Plan in meeting the performance standards. La Fortuna Detailed Mitigation Plan Best Construction King County 19 The Jay GrouP. LLC January. 2003 Job # 202095 oft. final report will be completed by the anniversary of the project bonding date during the final year of monitoring and will include a summation and final analysis. If at that time, the performance standards have not been fully satisfied, but the monitor believes that the site is viable, growing and that the standards will be met, it should be noted. The final report will be the determination of whether the site is a success and whether the Restoration Bond can be released upon King County approval of the project. CONSTRUCTION TIMING Site development and construction of the wetland creation area, and the grading associated with these activities will be during the summer. Erosion control will meet all of the requirements of King County. Silt fencing will be placed between the existing wetland and the creation area and between the wetland and road construction areas. All other temporary erosion and sedimentation control requirements will be met as required. Planting of the wetland and buffer creation areas, and the buffer enhancement areas, will take place in mid-fall to early spring to increase plant survival. This is generally the rainy season and during a normal rainfall year little or no supplemental irrigation would be required. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION No construction work will take place until a pre-construction meeting is held between the project biologist, owner's representative, and construction contractor(s). King County representatives may attend, at their option. Planting locations and transplanting techniques, TESC requirements, grading procedures and other project specifics shall be discussed and agreed upon during this pre-construction meeting. The project biologist shall provide construction management services for all wetland creation and mitigation aspects of the project; and will direct all field activities, including plant locations, field modifications of the plan, and excavation of the wetland creation areas. . The owner's representative or contractor shall give the project biologist at least one week's notice prior to the commencement of construction activities. The contractor shall be responsible for protecting existing vegetation, field staking the construction areas, and installing the temporary SENSITIVE AREAS markers prior to construction. All wetland planting work shall be performed by a contractor familiar with wetlands landscape installation, and all planting shall be under the supervision of a qualified foreperson and the project biologist. MAINTENANCE The maintenance period shall extend for 5 growing seasons after the planting operations are complete. If inadequate maintenance is exhibited, this period may be extended until performance standards (according to the mitigation report) are met. The maintenance program requires monthly visits during the growing season, (March through September). All non- native/undesirable plants (blackberries, Scot's Broom, reed canary grass etc.) that may inhibit the growth of new plantings, shall be removed by most appropriate means from the mitigation areas. Volunteer trees (red alder, big-leaf maple, etc.) in the wetland creation area should be thinned to allow for best growth. An average spacing of 12 feet on center for volunteer trees is recommended. Any tree staking materials used on planted material shall be monitored and removed when appropriate. The plant pits shall remain free of weeds or competing plants, to insure optimum growth. Replanting of any dead trees or shrubs noted in the first year of monitoring will be conducted the first year (winter) after installation only. La Fortuna Det~i1ed Mitigation Plan 20 Best Construction King County The Jay Group, LLC January, 2003 Job # 202095 CONTINGENCY PLAN In the event the mitigation project demonstrates failure to meet some or all of the performance standards specified in this report, a meeting between the project biologist and King County staff will be held to determine contingency actions. If further action is considered necessary, an amendment to this Mitigation Plan will be developed. The amendment will attempt to identify causative factors for the shortfall and will include recommendations for corrective action. Depending on the problems addressed, activities could include changes in soil or hydrologic conditions and/or the replanting of vegetation or modifying species selected for the initial planting. The monitoring period may be extended if additional site work is determined to be necessary. "If there is significant problem with the mitigation achieving its performance standards, the Bond-holder shall work with King County to develop a Contingency Plan. Contingency plans can include, but are not limited to: regrading, additional plant installation, erosion control, modifications to hydrology, and plant substitutions of type, sized, quantity, and location. Such Contingency Plan shall be submitted to County by December 31 of any year when deficiencies are discovered." PERFORMANCE SECURITY ~e. ~ lM'~ In general a performance bond or other tancial guarantee shall be required prior to permit issuance to secure the mitigation plan. ~~a~erformance bond shall be for 120 percent of the estimated cost, as approved by the director, of conformance to plans, specifications and permit or approval requirements, under King County Code including corrective work, enhancement, mitigation, and restoration of critical areas. Please check with King County for appropriate performance securities for this project. The financial guarantee may be released upon written notification by the director, following final site inspection or at such time as specified in a mitigation plan when the director is satisfied that the work or activity complies with and conforms to permit conditions, plans, and speCifications including corrective work, compensation, enhancement, and mitigation or restoration of critical areas, when required. The financial guarantee typically is only released after the County has inspected the site, and the applicant's appropriate professional has provided written confirmation that the mitigation installation, monitoring and performance standards have been met. If the performance standards have not been met, a contingency plan shall be implemented and must be successfully completed prior to the release of the financial guarantee. La Fortuna Detailed Mitigation Plan Best Construction King County 21 The Jay Group, LLC January, 2003 Job # 202095 REFERENCES Adamus, P.R., L.T. Stockwell, E.J. Clairain, Jr., M.E. Morrow, L.P. Rozas, and RD. Smith. 1991. Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET): Volume 1: Methodology. Wetland Research Program Technical Report WRP-DE-2. US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Castelle, A.J., C. Conolly, M. Emers, E.D. Metz, S. Meyer, M. Witter, S. Mauermann, M.Bentley, D. Sheldon and D. Dole. 1992. Wetland Mitigation Replacement Ratios: Defining Equivalency. Adolfson Associates, Inc., for Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington. Pub. No. 92-08. Caste lie, A.J., C. Conolly, M. Emers, E.D. Metz, S. Meyer, M. Witter, S. Mauermann, T. Erickson, S.S. Cook. 1992. Wetland Buffers: Use and Effectiveness. Adolfson' Associates, Inc., for Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington. Pub. No. 92-10. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, .F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. Office of Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, US Department of the Interior, Washington DC. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y -87 -1. Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, and USDA Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Cooperative technique publication. Hitchcock, C.L., A. Cronquist, M. Ownbey, and J.W. Thompson. 1969. Vascular Plants of the Pacific Northwest, Parts 1-5. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA. Horner, R R 1988. Biofiflration Systems for Storm Runoff Water Quality Control. Prepared for Washington Department of Ecology, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, King County, City of Bellevue, City of Mountlake Terrace and City of Redmond. King County. 2001. King County Code Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Chapter 21A.24. Marble, A.D. 1990. A Guide to Wetland Functional Design. A.D. Marble & Company, Inc. for US Department of Commerce. Report No. FHWA-IP-90-010 Mueller-Dombois, Dieter, Ellenberg, Heinz. 1974. Aims and Methods of Vegetation Ecology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, NY. Reed, P.B., Jr. 1993. Supplement to National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). U.S. F.W.S. BioI. Rep. Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). U.S. Fish Wildlife Service BioI. Rep. 88(26.9). La Fortuna Detailed Mitigation Plan Best Construction King County 22 The Jay Group, LLC January, 2003 Job # 202095 . Richter, K.O., A. Azous, S.S. Cooke, RW. Wisseman, RR Horner 1991. Effects of Stormwater Runoff on Wetland Zoology and Soils Characterization. Puget Sound Wetlands and Stormwater Management Research Program; Fourth Year of Comprehensive Research. Richter, K.O. 1990. Effects of Storm water Runoff on Wetland Zoology. Puget Sound Wetlands and Stormwater Management Research Program; Third Year of Comprehensive Research. Stevens, M.L. and R Vanbianchi. 1993. Restoring Wetlands in Washington. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington. Pub. No. 93-17 Washington Department of Ecology. 1993. Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Western Washington. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington. Pub. No. 93-74 Washington Department of Ecology. 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Publication 96-94. Washington State Department of Ecology. Olympia, WA. Washington Department of Ecology. August, 1993, Second Edition. Washington State Wetlands Rating System. Publication 93-74. Washington State Department of Ecology. Olympia, WA. La Fortuna Detailed Mitigation Plan Best Construction King County 23 Tho Jay Group, LLC January, 2003 Job # 202095 ., APPENDIX B: Mitigation Cost Estimate' '(FOR BONDING PURPOSES ONLY, NOT A CONTRACT OR BID FOR SERVICES) Construction Costs Construction/Excavation of the Wetland Creation Area Plants Installation Maintenance Monitoring Total *This total does not Include the cost of SENSITIVE AREAS markers. La Fortuna Detailed Mitigation Plan Best Construction King County B Total $ 1,200.00 $ 2,527.00 $ 1,229.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 3,400.00 $ 15,856.00' The Jay Group, LLC January, 2003 Job # 202095 Ivlay 25, 2002 IVir. ~,arnail Johal c/o Mr. Luay R. Joudeh, P.E. D.R. Strong Consulting Enginssrs, Inc. 10604 N.E. 38th Place, Suile 101 f(iriliand, W A 98033 Re: Weiland Investigation for La Fortuna Townhouses, King County: PreAppliC:allon #AOl PM115. Dear Mr. Johal: Per l/our rsquest, wetland investigation was conducted on the subject property located just east of Renton in unincorporated King County (Section 10, Township 23 N., Range 7 E. W.M.). The project site is situated on two parcets its total size is approximately 4.51 acres. A Boundary Line Adjustment will be included in the project proposal, The subject property is bcated at 12632 Petrovitsky Road on 1he north side of the existing homes Ihat front on the Road (see attached vicinity map). The project site is mostly developed and surrounded by single-family residences. Both parceis have existing houses. The western parcel includes an active nursery business and specializes in growing aquatic plants. The eastern parcel inCludes a house, tawn, old paslure, and manmade pond. The pond and house areas, and the plant nursery are not included In this project. Both homes and the plant nursery will remain and are adjacent to the proposed La Fortuna Townhouse residential project. purpose/Method The purpose of this letter report is to Identify the exlent of the wetland area on the project property and the regulatory implications of wetland management currently adminislered by King County, The County's sensitive areas regulations are found in KCC Chaptar 21A.24. A pre- application meeling was conducted with King County on 1/8/02 to present the project and gather related information for detailed planning. Wetlands exist on the site, and this letter deserit,es those conditions for County verification. In accordance with current State requirements, the Washington State Wsllands idenWicalion and Delineation Manual (Ecology PUb .• 96-94) was used for wetland determination. The State Manual is a revised version to tha 1987 US Army Corps of Engineers IN a!lands Delineation Manual (FICWD 1997). The intent of the State Manual is to reflect regional conditions but resui! in the same detarmination and delineation as the 1967 Corps Manual. Wetlands are determined where "egetation, soils, and hydrology alf reflect that hydric conditions are present on a site. . Six, weiland date. plots were installed throughout the site and marked with pink plestic lIegging. ThE< Bnclosed sile map shows IDeations of weiland data plots, and the data plot forms are attached to this letter. Mr. Luay Joudeh May 25.2002 Page 2 Public natural resource documents were reviewed for the site. King County's Sensitive Areas Map Folio (1990) has identified one wetland area on the project site (Soos Creek 11104). The King County Area Soil Survey (US Soil Conservation Service 1973) has mapped two soil series on the site -Arents. Alderwood material. 6 to 15 percant slopes (AmC). and Seattle mucl( (Sk). The Alents. Alderwood soil type consists of soils that have been so disturbed by urbanization that they can no longer be classified with the Alderwood series. The Seattle muck is a poorly drained organic soil formed in material primarily derived from sedges. The Seattle muck soil mapping is directly associated with the Soos Creek # 104 wetland area. Wetland Investlgallon The site area was initially investigated on 6/25/01 to delineate wetlands on the western parcel. Additional site visit work occurred on 1/25102 to assess conditions on the eastern parcel. In addition to wetland descriptions. a brief overview of the property is included. Three wetlands were identified on the project site. Two 01 the wetlands are very small. less than 2.500 square feet. and may not be regulated by King County within the Urban Growth Area. Wef/sndA Weiland A is County inventoried Soos Creek #104. This forested wetland exists on the western side of the project site. Observed soils within the wetland include organic muck and hydric mineral soil similar 10 Norma sandy loam. Tree cover includes red alder (Alnus rubra). Oregon ash (Fraxinus lalifolia). black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera). and Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra). Western red cedar (Thuja plicala). western crabapple (Malus fusca). and western hemlock (T Buga heterophylla) trees were observed on the weiland edge. The shrub component has salmonberry (Rubus spectabi/is). red osier dogwood (Comus slo/anilers). black !winberry (Lonicera involucra/a). and spirea (Spiraea douglasH) with western hazelnut (Cory/us cornu/a) and vine maple (Acer circinatum) occurring mostly on the wetland/upland edge. Emergent vegetation Includes slough sedge (Carex obnupla). creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens). lady fern (Athyrium felix-feminS). and mannagrass (Glyeeris sp.) with soma skunk cabbage (Lysichi/on americsnum) and yellow iris (Iris pseudocorus). The wetland area appears to be isolated but past channelization activities. within the wetland. direc! surface water flows south into the Pertrovitsky Road storm drainage systern. In addition. a small detention pond area has been constructed by King County at the north end of the wetland on the project site. The small pond receives piped stormwater from residential development just north of the site. The pond area is a deSignated drainage easement. As reported in the La Fortuna Townhouses Level One Downstream Analysis (D.R. Strong Engineers 11/01). the on-site portion of walland is approximately 54.000 square feet. • • IvIr. Luay Joudeh May 25,2002 Palle 3 Using the US Fish and Wildille Service (USFWS) classification system (Cowardin et al t 979), the wetland is palustrine, forested, scrub/shrub, persistent and non-persistent emergent, with seasonally flooded conditions. According to the County's wetland rating criteria (KCC 21A.06.1415). the wetland would be a Class 2 because it is greater than 1 acre but less than 10 acres in size, and has three wetland' classes of vegetation including a forested class. The standard buller setback distance is 50 feet and has been provided as part of the project. Wet/snd S Wetland B is a very small depression (1,636 square feet) of scrub/shrub habitat located near the center of the project site. The wetland is dominated by red osier dogwood with some black twinberry and rose (Rosa sp.) present. Emergent vegetation is subdominant and includes slough sedge, mannagrass, and lady lern. Hydric mineral soils are present. Seasonal hydrology overflows into a pipe located under old fill material. Using the USFWS system, the wetland is palustrine, scrub/shrub, with seasonal hydrology. According to the County's wetland rating criterie, it appears the wetland is exempt from regulation because it is less than 2,500 square feet in size. WGt/ande Wetland C is a very disturbed area adjacent to the eastern boundary of the project site. like Wetland B, the area is very small (1,047 squere leet) but active hydrology was observed as groundwater discharging at the north point 01 the weiland. DUB to the amount of past filling and grading in this area, a natural source 01 hydrology was not determined. Because the surrounding areas have been developed, the water flows could be related to piped or other artificial conditions. The adjacent pasture/field area appears to also have baan graded and filled. Waler flows from the groundwater discharge point into a narrow channel and spreads out along the south side of an old fill mound. The water flows around an old concrete foundation towards the off·site manmada pond. However, most 01 the flows from this wetland drain to the west through a concrete culvert. These surface water !lows have been utilized by the adjacent nursery for the aquatic plant ponds. The north portion of the wetland is the narrow channel with young red alder trees growing on the adjacent area of old fill material. Shrub cover is dominated by Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor) with Pacific blackberry as understory. The southern ponion around the old foundation is dominated Himalayan blackberry and creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens). Using the USFWS ·system, the wetland is palustrine, scrub/shrub, emergent, with seasonal hydrology. According to the County's wetland rating criteria, it appears the wetland is exempt from regulation because It Is less than 2,500 square leet In size. l • .• ~ -. Mr. Luay Jeudeh May 25. 2002 Page 4 In summary, this letter repert is previded to. identify the wetlands en the site and allew the Ceunty staff to. verify the areas and related wetland ratings for applicatien submittal. It there are any questions er concerns regarding this wetland report er you requira additional site specific data, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, c. Gary Schulz Wetland/Forest Ecologist 8ear4all@yahoo.com 7700 S. Lakeridge Dr. Seattle, WA 98178 (206) 772·6514 CONDITIONS OF PERMITI APPROVAL Activity Number: B03DCOOI Type: building Date: 9-4-03 SENSITIVE AREAS: WETLAND CONDITIONS OF PERMIT/APPROV AL 1. Work shall be limited to that shown on the approved plans. A copy of the approved plans, conditions, and permit must be on the job site whenever work IS III progress. 2. Except where buffer averaging has been approved, the on-site class 2 wetlands shall received a 50-foot buffer measured from the wetland edge. 3. A 15-foot building setback must be maintained from the outer perimeter of the wetland buffer. 4. Prior to commencement of any construction actives, the outer perimeter of all wetland buffers, within 150 feet of the proposed project, must be identified in a highly visible manor. 5. The wetland buffers shall be identified using permanent wetland sensitive area boundary signs, installed between the wetland sensitive area buffer and 15-foot building setback. One sign shall be posted for every 50 feet of sensitive area buffer. 6. Per the approved mitigation plans, a split-rail fence must be installed around the ~',. eastern perimeter of the wetland buffer and buffer averaged areas and on either side of the proposed trail that links recreation areas. 7. The buffer restoration plan prepared by the Jay Group (dated 12/02/03) must be installed prior to final occupancy. Contact Lisa Brandt (296-6764) for final plant installation inspection. 8. A qualified ecologist must be on-site during wetland buffer restoration activities. 9. Silt fence shall be installed downslope of all ground disturbing activities to assure sediment laden water is not released to naturally occurring watercourses. 10 . Stabilization and revegetation of disturbed areas shall be performed on an ongoing basis. Exposed soils in sensitive areas shall be immediately covered . , and protected when not being worked. Exposed soils in non-sensitive areas / -.• -, .i_ shall be covered and protected during the dry season as needed to prevent soils erosion and during the wet season immediately using best management practices and all work shall comply with the standards set forth in the King County Surface Water Design Manual.