Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Report 1
King County DDES Deeartment of Development and Environmental Services Bulldhig Services Dirision Notice of Decision BuUding Permit 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton. Washington 98055-1219 File Number: B03DC001 AI!I~licant: Karl Best La Foturna LLC P.O. Box 1790 Snohomish, WA 98291 (425) 238-9831 Project Location: GeneraUy 150 feet south of SE 172 Dd Street and east of I2ib Ave SE. Pro ject Descril!tion: Construction of a 41 unit residential development with associated parking and landscaping. Permits Requested: Building Permit (B03DC001) Del!artment Decision: Issue the permit subject to conditions and corrections contained in permit approved July 11, 2005 SEP A Determination of Non-Significance: May 18,2004 Mailing Date. of Notice of Decision: July 11,2005 .. The Department of Development and EnvIronmental Services (DOES) has made a decIsion to approve the building pennit referenced above. A building pennit is a non-appealable administrative decision made by the Director or his or her designee. The SEPA threshold determination is the only portion of the building permit that is appealable to the Hearing Examiner. For the purposes of appealing a decision to Superior Court, this decision is considered [mal because any associate SEPA ajJJJeals have been decided by the Hearing Examiner. Any person wishing additional information on this permit should contact DOES at the address and/or telephone number listed below. NOTE: If you require this material in Braille, audio cassette, or large print, please call 296-7217 CITY). bnod.dot 7/1012005 2;54 PM King County DDES Department of Development and Environmental Services, Building Services Division -Permit Service Center 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest· Renton, WA 98055-1219 (206) 296 -6600 @ King County Department of Development and Environmental Services OAK-DE-OIOO 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, WA 98055 .. _ 143270 1 1801l303DC001 NELSON CLARENCE R 12541 SE 172ND ST RENTON WA 98055 ~"I!;~~:5 H~f'g --~ N.:rX~E 9S0 .l .0;1. . 07/ l5/ 05 RETURN TO SENDER ATTEMPTED -NOT KNOWN UNASLE TO FORWARD SC, 9S055;l.2;l999 *.20.2S-0;l4S4-Hl-37 II, I" I, ,1.11"" I, I., I, I"" II" I, I '" III, I" I, I" I, I"" I," ---- ~ County DDES Department ofDeveiopment and Environmental Services Bu1lding Services Division Notice of Decision Building Permit 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, Washington 98055-1219 File Number: B03DCOOI Al!l!licant: Karl Best La Foturna LLC P.O. Box 1790 Snohomish, W A (425) 238-9831 98291 Project Location: Generally 150 feet south of SE 172 Dd Street and east of 127'b Ave SE. Project Descril!tion: Construction of a 41 unit residential development with associated parking and landscaping. Permits Requested: Building Permit (B03DC001) Dmartment Decision: Issue the permit subject to conditions and corrections contained in permit approved July 11,2005 SEPA Determination of Non-Significance: May 18, 2004 Mailing Date. of Notice of Decision: JUly 11,2005 .. The Department of DeVelopment and EnVIronmental ServIces (DOES) has made a decIsiOn to approve the building permit referenced above. A building permit is a non-appealable administrative decision made by the Director or his or her designee. The SEPA threshold determination is the only portion of the building permit that is appealable to the Hearing Examiner. For the purposes of appealing a decision to Superior Court, this decision is considered final because any associate SEPA appeals have been decided by the Hearin~ Examiner. Any person wishing additional information on this permit should contact DOES at the address and/or telephone number listed below. NOTE: If you require this material in Braille, audio cassette, or large print, please call 296-7217 (TTY). bnod.do' 7/1012005 2:54 PM King County ODES Department of Development and Environmental Services, Building Services Division -Permit Service Center 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest· Renton, WA 98055-1219 (206) 296 -6600 @ King County Department of Development and Environmental Services OAK·DE-0100 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, WA 98055 , \4330000 \ OIB0 3DCOO \ ELLIS loNA THAN M \ 2604 sE \ 72ND ST RENTON WA 98058 ~e.&i&t;"s~H~ "N :XX:X,EO .51E'0 02--1)\-_ ... ~OO-;379 0004356909 JUL 12 2005 MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 98055 ;J. 0;1. D,7/_i.5/0$ RETURN TO SENDER ATTEMPTED -NOT KNO~N UNABLE TO FOR~ARD Be: 99055i<2;1999 *<2<225-0'3292-i<2-37 11,1"1,,1,11,,,,1,1, ,I, 1""11"1,1,,,111,1,,1,1,, I, I"" I, II King County DOES Der,artment of Development and Environmental Services Budding Services Division Notice of Decision Building Permit 900 Oakesdale A venue Southwest Renton, Washington 98055-1219 File Number: B03DCOOI AI!I~licant: Karl Best La Foturna LLC P.O. Box 1790 Snohomish, W A (425) 238-9831 98291 Project Location: Generally ISO feet south of SE 172 Dd Street and cast of 1271h A,'e SE. Project Dcscril!tion: Construction of a 41 unit residential development with associated parking and landscaping. Permits Requested: Building Permit (B03DCOOl) Department Decision: Issne the permit subject to conditions and corrections contained in permit approved July 11,2005 SEPA Determination of Non-Significance: May 18,2004 Mailing Date. of Notice of Decision: July 11,2005 .. The Department of Development and EnVIronmental Services (DOES) has made a deCISIOn to approve the building penni! referenced above. A building permit is a non-appealable administrative decision made by the Director or his or her designee. The SEPA threshold determination is the only portion of the building pennit that is appealable to the Hearing Examiner. For the purposes of appealing a decision to Superior Court, this decision is considered final because any associate SEPA appeals have been decided by the Hearing Examiner. Any person wishing additional information on this permit should. contact DOES at the address and/or telephone number listed below. NOTE: If you require this material in Braille, audio cassette, or large print, please eaIl296-7217 (n'Y). bnod.dot 7/10/2005 2:54 PM King County Dl>leS Department of DeveloJlment and lenvironmental Sen'ices, Building Services nivisinn -I'crmit Service Center 900 Oakesd~llc Avenue Southwest Renton, W A 98055-1219 (206) 2% -6600 @ King County Oepa rtment of Development and Environmental Services OAK-DE-OIOO 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, WA 98055 14327013901B03DC001 RIGTRUP JACOB+CINDY 17017 127TH A V SE RENTON W A 98058 . ·;f';C;~·;·-;;·:l ;:a~aOSS7.:1~19 NIXIE .990 ~ ot .07/;15/05 RETURN TO SENDER ATTEMPTED -NOT KNOWN UNABLE TO FORWARD Be, 99055;1.21999 *24~S-;1.3331-12-37 ".',,' .. '." .... '.' .. '.' .... 11,,'.' ... "'.' .. '.',,'.' .... '." ~ CoWlty DDES Deeartment of Development and Environmental Services Bulldhig Services Division 900 OakesdaJe Avenue Southwest Rcnoon, Washington 98055-1219 File Number: B03DCOOI Applicant: Karl Best La Fotuma LLC P.O. Box 1790 Snohomish, WA 98291 (425) 238-9831 Notice of Decision Building Permit Project Location: Generally ISO feet south of SE 172 nd Street and cast of 127th Ave SE. Project Description: Construction of a 41 unit residential development with associated parking and landscaping. Permits Reguested: Building Permit (B03DC001) Department Decision: Issue the permit subject to conditions and corrections contained in permit approved July 11,2005 SEPA Determination of Non-Significance: May 18,2004 Mailing Date of Notice of Decision: July 11,2005 The Department of Development and Environmental Services (DDES) has made a decision to approve the building permit referenced above. A building permit is a non-appealable administrative decision made by the Director or his or her designee. The SEPA threshold determination is the only portion of the building permit that is appealable to the Hearing Examiner. For the purposes of appealing a decision to Superior Court, this decision is considered fmal because any associate SEP A appeals have been decided by the Hearing Examiner. AIry person wishing additional information on this permit should contact DDES at the address and/or telephone number listed below. NOTE: If you require this material in Braille, audio cassette, or large print, please call 296-7217 CITY). bnod.dot 7/1012005 2:54 PM King County DDES Department of Development and Environmental Services, Building Services Division -Permit Service Center 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, WA 98055-1219 (206) 296 -6600 @ King County Department of Development and Environmental Services OAK-DE-OIOO 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, WA 98055 ~I;>""\U' '" PM '" 12 , -. ~4~L2=tt£=::.. ~a "-I»'IP£S------" ,-'c.,. 071A-'-"--$OO~31°-'~ 0004356909 JUL 12 2005 MAILED FROM ZlPCOOE 98055 ,14330000601B03DCOO I 'FRAZIER CLARENCE TIMOTHY 12520 SE 172ND ST REl'HON W A 98058 ~~~sH~l9 Nl'X.:IE .990 .. 1 .0.1 071':15/05 RETURN TO SENDER ATTEMPTED -NOT KNOWN UNABLE TO FORWARD Be, 99055;1."';1999 ,. 19.25-01399-12-37 II, I" I" I, II"" I, I" I, I, .. , II" I, I, .. III, I" I, I .. I, I"" I, II !Un!! County DDES Deeartment of Development and Environmental Services Budding Strvices Division 900 Oakesdale A venue Southwest Renton, Washington 98055-1219 File Number: B03DCOOI Applicant: Karl Best La Fotuma LLC P.O. Box 1790 Snohomish, WA 98291 (425) 238-9831 Notice of Decision Building Permit Project Location: Generally 150 feet south of SE 172 nd Street and east of127'h Ave SE. Project Description: Construction of a 41 unit residential development with associated parking and landscaping. Permits Requested: Building Permit (B03DC001) Department Decision: Issue the permit subject to conditions and corrections contained in permit approved July 11, 2005 SEPA Determination of Non-Significance: May 18,2004 Mailing Date. of Notice of Decision: July 11,2005 The Department of Development and Environmental Services (DOES) has made a decision to approve the building pennit referenced above. A building pennit is a non-appealable administrative decision made by the Director or his or her designee. The SEPA threshold determination is the only portion of the building pennit that is appealable to the trearing Examiner. For the purposes of appealing a decision to Superior Court, this decision is considered fmal because any associate SEP A ap]).eals have been decided by the Hearing Examiner. Any person wishing additional information on this permit should contact DOES at the address and/or telephone number listed below. NOTE: If you require this material in Braille, audio cassette, or large print, please call 296-7217 (TTY). bnod.do' 7110/2005 2:54 PM . King County DDES Department of Development and Environmental Services, Building Services Division -Permit Service Center 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest· Renton, WA 98055-1219 (206) 296 -6600 @ King County Department of Development and Environmental Services ~J OAK-DE-OIOO 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, WA 98055 14327009701B03DCOO 1 FARMER DA VlD+ 10m L LA WRENCE 12724 NE 20TH ST RENTON W A 98058 NIXIE '<TT"1'A ;; ~:no 0004356909 JUL 12 2005 MAILED FROM ZIPCOOE 98055 9ElO 1 01 07/i8/0.5 RETURN TO SENDER NO SUCH NUM9ER UNABLE TO FORWARD 9C, 99055121999 *2428-13338-12-37 ~bSicW5ll~?9 11,'"',,',11,",',',,',',,,," "1,'",111,',,','"',',,,,1,11 ~ County DDES Der.artment of Development and Environmental Services Budding Services Divi~ioD Notice of Decision Building Permit 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, Washington 98055·1219 File Number: B03DCOOI Am~licant: Karl Best La Fotuma LLC P.O. Box 1790 Snohomish, WA (425) 238-9831 98291 Project Location: Generally 150 feet south of SE 172 nd Street and east of 127tb Ave SE. Project Descril!tion: Construction ofa 41 unit residential development with associated parking and landscaping. Permits Requested: Building Permit (B03DC001) Del!artment Decision: Issue the permit subject to conditions and corrections contained in permit approved July 11,2005 SEPA Determination of Non-Significance: May 18,2004 Mailing Date. of Notice of Decision: July 11,2005 .. The Department of Development and Envlfonmental Services (DDES) has made a declSlon to approve the building pennit referenced above. A building permit is a non-appealable administrative decision made by the Director or his or her designee. The SEPA threshold determination is the only portion of the building permit that is appealable to the Hearing Examiner. For the purposes of appealing a decision to Superior Court, this decision is considered final because any associate SEPA appeals have been decided by the Hearing Examiner. Any person wishing additional information on this permit should contact DDES at the address and/or telephone number listed below: NOTE: If you require this material in Braille, audio cassette, or large print, please call 296-72 I 7 (TTY). bnod.dot 711012005 2:54 PM King County DOES Department of Development and Environmental Services, Building Services Division -Permit Service Center 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, WA 98055-1219 (206) 296 -6600 @ King County \ ~ Department of Development and Environmental Services OAK~DE-OI00 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, WA 98055 - 0004356909 JUL 12 2005 MAIlED FROM Z1PCODE 98055 72290000 1 01B03DCOO 1 BURGESS JORDAN P+FARFAN HEIDI 17211129TH AV SE RENTON W A 98058 ~e.gli'lfs5~ t&1\ N:t.X:tE .990 .. 1 .o.~ .0.7/.3-$/0$ RETURN TO SENDER ATTEMPTED -NOT KNOWN UNABLE TO FORWARD ac , 9605.5 :1121999 ·*.1212126-03065 -:112-37 II, I, ,I" I, II"" I, I" I, I,,, ,11,,1, I", III, I" I, I, ,I, I"" I, II King CoWlty DOES Deeartmcnt ofDeve!opment and Environmental Services Budding Services Division Notice of Decision Building Permit 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, Washington 98055-1219 File Number: B03DCOOI Al!l!licaut: Karl Best La Foturna LLC P.O. Box 1790 Snohomish, WA 98291 (425) 238-9831 Project Location: Generally 150 feet south of SE 172 Dd Street and east of 127tb Ave SE. Project Descril!tion: Construction of a 41 unit residential development with associated parking and landscaping . . Permits Requested: Building Permit (B03DCOOl) Del!artment Decision: Issue the permit subject to conditions and corrections contained in permit approved July 11,2005 SEPA Determination of Non-Significance: May 18,2004 Mailing Date. of Notice of Decision: July 11,2005 .. The Department of Development and Envtronmental Services (DDES) has made a decIsIOn to approve the building pennit referenced above. A building pennit is a non-appealable administrative decision made by the Director or his or her designee. The SEPA threshold determination is the only portion of the building permit that is appealable to the Hearing Examiner. For the purposes of appealing a decision to Superior Court, this decision is considered tmal because anyassociate SEPA appeals have been decided IJy the Hearin~Examiner. Any person wishing additional infonnation on this permit should contact DDES at the address and/or telephone number listed below. NOTE: If yO\:i require this material in Braille, audio cassette, or large print, please call 296-7217 (TrY). bnod.dot 711012005 2:54 PM King County DDES Department of Development and Environmental Services, Building Services Division -Permit Service Center 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, W A 98055-1219 (206) 296 -6600 @ King County -Department"f ---------- Development and Environmental Services OAK-DE-OIOO 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, WA 98055 -!Vis: KSC-TR-0431 Gary Kriedt . Planning KC Metro EnVlffi. ":4-f'f J ... ~ --'.... ul ~. -mr ,I \ ".4,,, .. IUI\ ·· .... (~--..,-I ~ '.':' (0" ,r JI "1",';1-, '. . v-. ~ hooD.;". ~:SJ--~ ", V'I'" .;~;' :\'miTER:;'~\}\, ,p;},t!! I .. ,c· Z,.-:.V ';!.ao'ios/ \.'?~'? t.--~._ .. =~=_ : ... KC27 c;}"'¢Pos,.~ fffd..r.~ ," '::l ~ ~ PllW£Y BOWES 02 1A $ 00.310 0004356909 JUL 12 2005 MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 98055 ::...:. ~- 3:r -.. IT1_~:j ::.~ i..--; r IJ ': .. "\ Ci i C -0 :' "'( i·, 1-' ~ \6",I,--;:i ... ,' n i j J i il I; U i H.J. H I a .4"11'iijj~1 i!: i !ii'l::f: iUiti I! 1 ! j i :d.h:§tl.-j].i:l-;ii:jili':!ii -~ . ". ~. ;":' ..... ,-, f'j' - ~ County DDES De{lartmcnt ofDevelo~ment and Environmental Services Butldhig Services Division 900 Oakesdale A venue Southwest Renton, Washington 98055-1219 File Number: B03DCOOI Applicant: Karl Best La Foturna LLC P.O. Box 1790 Snohomish, W A 98291 (425) 238-9831 Notice of Decision Building Permit . Project Location: GeneraUy 150 feet south of SE 172 nd Street and east of 127 1b Ave SE. Project Description: Construction of a 41 unit residential development with associated parking and landscaping. Permits Reguested: Building Permit (B03DCOOl) Department Decision: Issue the permit subject to conditions and corrections contained in permit approved July 11,2005 SEPA Determination of Non-Significance: May 18, 2004 Mailing Date. of Notice of Decision: July 11, 2005 . -The Department of DeVelopment and Envlfonmental Services (DDES) has made a deCISIon to approve the building permit referenced above. A building permit is a non-appealable administrative decision made by the Director or his or her designee. The SEPA threshold determination is the only portion of the building pennit that is appealable to the Hearing Examiner. For the purposes of appealing a decision to Superior Court, this decision is considered fmal because any associate SEPA appeals have been decided by the Hearing Examiner. Any person wishing additional information on this permit should contact DDES at the address and/or telephone number listed below. NOTE: If you require this material in Braille, audio cassette, or large print, please call 296-7217 (ITY). bnod.dot 7/1012005 2:54 PM King County DDES Departmeut of Development and Environmental Services, Building Services Division -Permit Service Center 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, WA 98055-1219 (206) 296 -6600 @ King County Department of Development and Environmental Services OAK·DE·Ol0Q 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, WA 98055 ~ ( 4.-: r';-,~ 'l.,<:.J~ . -. '< -.... ~-";." , !~ ..... / ...... :( /. ",~<:, ",:.- I, _ . - U .;:.,.~ ,_, ''bI.J-.c:-.,";-" ~;o "(, . . ~~ ,-' , " ----------~~--::- 02 0004356909 MAILED FROM ZlPCODE 98055 , tq::';;:";;;-;~;:~'~~\:'''.l'''·''''l·''' '." '. '," "'. ','.' .... I / .. 11111 ~ :r-1'r..-:;;;k;;:~J'·"'-"'·;~ ~l.::. : ....... 11.1(l1111.,11'11-,111IlJ ... luI11.1 1 "',t,j.ul,Jru,II"J, tulff, ,I1,.JII , rJ I tI ",!'l King County DDES Deeartment of Development and Environmental Services BUilding Services Division 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton. Washington 98055-1219 File Number: B03DCOOI Applicant: Karl Best La Fotuma LLC P.O. Box 1790 Snohomish, WA 98291 (425) 238-9831 Notice of Decision Building Permit Project Location: Generally 150 feet south ofSE 172 nd Street and east of 127'b Ave SE. Project Description: Construction of a 41 unit residential development with associated parking and landscaping. Permits Requested: Building Permit (B03DC001) Department Decision: Issue the permit subject to conditions and corrections contained in permit approved July 11,2005 SEPA Determination of Non-Significance: May 18,2004 Mailing Date. of Notice of Decision: July 11,2005 The Department of Development and Environmental Services (DOES) has made a decision to approve the building penni! referenced above. A building pennit is a non-appealable administrative decision made by the Director or his or her designee. The SEPA threshold determination is the only portion of the building pennit that is appealable to the Hearing Examiner. For the purposes of appealing a decision to Superior Court, this decision is considered final because any associate SEP A appeals have been decided by the Hearing Examiner. Any person wishing additional information on this permit should contact DOES at the address and/or telephone number listed below. NOTE: If you require this material in Braille, audio cassette, or large print, please call 296-7217 (TIY). bnod.dot 711012005 2:54 PM King Connty DDES Department of Development and Environmental Services, Building Services Division -Permit Service Center 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest· Renton, WA 98055-1219 (206) 296 -6600 @ King County Department of Development and Environmental Services OAK-OE-0100 . .. .?¢l~-fq. -§~~~"=== • Z ~~...c:::=r 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, WA 98055 ::l ~ IPU.lY BO'\I'IIES , 02 1A $ 00.31° 0004356909 JUL 12 2005 • MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 98055 :;:,~. 0739000110/B03DCOOI &A-q't,O;-~';" ',' JONES LORAINE ''!.:i'' c<I O~, ' ' :j><~O<" CIO PETERSON PA TRICIA <';:~ >. _ CE' .,.~~-~ ~~, ""ci~;;Y6nm;;9:.:."~"::%"i:'-0"", , ".,-L ... ,{,;, _ • -./.1 (" . -,..," '", _ ;:;;;...-;" _."L ___ -_.L <;. • r,-~_.j§~z~~ii':?! 11 ,J..l, ;":11 ;';, ,1,1, ,4.1;; ;1I~ I' .;, :4;1. li.1 11 ... ; II .. l;j ... /11 ;1 .. 1; Jj ,I ,I .. 1,I,ilI? Denis Law Mayor De~artmerit of Community and Economic Development , C.E,"Chip"~incent, Administrator November 14; 2013 lee Brannam Habitat for Humanity 1631S,NE 87 th ST ,Ste.'B-S ,PO Bcix 817, ' Redmond, WA98073-0817 ." '. , Subject: Receipt of 2~t Annual Monitoring Rep'art La Fortuna Wetland Mitigation , ,City of,Renton File No, l.UA09-066 " Dear Mr.B:rarlnam: -". , This letter islo inform youl received the'Z" Annual maintenance and monitoring report for the' La Fortuna mitigation project on November 19, 2012. It appears the mainten~nce a~d, monitoring project' is in compliance. ' , " ' ',., ' A~ a reminder,-if at any time' in then~xt fbur years th'e mitigation proj~ct does not meet the established p~rfbr~ance sta'nda;ds, the mo'nitgring 'period, will ,be put on',hold until compliance is' achieved: Subsequently, the monitoring tirlleframe ,will-be restar,ted and you ,will once again 'be required .to 'provide quar}erly reports for the first year and annual reports thereafter (for a minimum of five years). " ' . .,'. I look forward to recei~ing~he:third annual report by Jaruary 1, 201 LI, ,Please send two copies of the report tomy attention, and if you have any questions ple~se feel free to contact me at (4iS) 430,7382. '. ,! .,. ' • .-.' c ,Sillcerely; Wasser, Planner ' ht PlannirigDivision cc: City oJ Renton FiJe LUA09;066 Ryan Kahlo -The Watershed Compa.ny 'Henton City HalJ-. 1055 South Grady Way • ,Renton, Washington 98057 • .rentonwa,go'v , .. " , ' , b ; . , ~THE WATERSHED COMPANY , . ~ SCIENCE & DESIGN November 19, 2012 City 01 Aenton Planning Division Lee Brannam, Construction Manager Habitat for Humanity of East King County 16315 NE 87 th Street Ste. B-5 P.O. Box 817 Redmond, WA 98073-0817 NOIJ 1 \) 2012 Re: La Fortuna Townhomes, Year Two Monitoring Report The Watershed Company Reference Number: 100809 Dear Lee: On October 19, 2012, Ecologist Mike Foster and I visited the La Fortuna Habitat for Humanity townhome development on 127th Avenue SE in Renton. The purpose of our visit was to conduct the year two late-season monitoring inspection for the wetland and buffer mitigation site. This letter describes the results of our inspection and provides recommendations to help the site progress towards satisfying the goals and performance standards required in the approved mitigation plan. Project History The project was initiated as compensatory mitigation for 393 square feet of unavoidable wetland impacts and 8,784 square feet of buffer impacts resulting from road construction and site development. To mitigate for these impacts, The Jay Group, LLC developed a mitigation plan in January 2003. The approved plan calls for the creation 396 square feet of wetland creation, 17,853 of buffer enhancement, and 9,062 square feet of buffer addition. During project installation, the area along the utility easement, which is not included in the mitigation area, was inadvertently cleared of previously existing grasses. The area was subsequently restored with a native grass seed mix. The remainder of the project was successfully installed in April 2011, with the subsequent as- built report submitted in May 2011. The project is currently in year two of a five-year monitoring program. Goals and Performance Standards The following goals and performance standards are provided in the approved mitigation plan and will be used to gauge the success of the project over time. 1. Create 396 square feet of scrub-shrub wetland adjacent to the impacted wetland. 750 Sixth Street South I Kirkland, WA 98033 P 425.822.5242 1 .r 425.827.8136 I watetsh~dco.com Year /0 Monitoring Report Lee Brannam, Habitat for Humanity November 19, 2012 Page 2 2. Enhance 17,853 square feet of buffer to compensate for the loss of 8,784 square feet of existing buffer. 3. Expand approximately 9,062 square feet additional buffer adjacent to existing Class 2 wetland. Performance Standards 1. Invasive and exotic species shall be represented by less than 10% coverage in the created wetland and enhancedlcreated buffer areas. 2. Wetland and buffer planting areas acceptable cover standards shall be: Table 1: Native Vegetation Cover Standards J : ' ". Vegetation ' -. ' . , . " : )", .. , . - " .' '" Area . Year 1 Year 3 ·YearS Coin,muNty, -.' '. " , " , , , ' , - Shrub/sapling NA >60%* >85%* Wetland Emergent 60%* 80%* 90%* Buffer ;. " "Shl1!b/sapling 1 ". "N1\: .. .N·A '>60%* Ii :: ~;" , l , ~' I :,.' " .'-~ , , - *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 canarygrass, Scot's broom, English ivy, morning glory, etc is permissible in OIly monitoring year. Bond holders are encouraged to maintain mitigatioll sites within these standards throughout the monitoring period, to avoid corrective measures. 3. Survival of planted and volunteer native vegetation shall be 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. **The time required for development of hydric soils indicators can vary. We assume that if confirmed wetland hydrology is present, hydric soils will develop over time even if hydric soil indicators are not present within five years. Yeal .w Monitoring Report Lee Brannam, Habitat for Humanity November 19, 2012 Page 3 5. There shall be nO significant topographic or hydrologic difference between the created wetland areas and the adjacent existing wetland areas. Methods The site was evaluated for survival, native and invasive cover, and general site conditions. Survival of the installed plants was assessed by conducting a complete plant census. Since the site was proactively planted with higher quantities of native plants than required under the approved mitigation plan, the total number of live plants was divided by the number specified on the plan to arrive at a percent survival. Native and invasive cover was assessed using the line-intercept method along four permanent monitoring transects that were established during the as-built inspections. Of the monitoring transects located in the wetland buffer, two measure 100 feet in length, and one measures 60 feet in length. Since the transects are of varying length, a weighted average of the buffer transects was used to arrive at a site-wide average for the buffer areas. Due to the limited area available, the monitoring transect located in the wetland creation area measures 30 feet in length. The success of the wetland creation area is measured against separate performance standards from the buffer areas. Therefore, the data collected along the 3D-foot transect is presented independently from the other three. General site conditions were observed and recorded site-wide. Photographs were taken from both ends of each monitoring transect and at three permanently established photopoints to provide visual documentation of changes in site conditions over time. Results The site is currently in very good condition and has experienced substantial improvement since the project was installed. Survival, native cover, and invasive cover are all at appropriate levels for year two. Regular maintenance activities have been very successful at limiting competition from invasive and other competing weeds. The installed vegetation is generally healthy, robust, and exhibiting vigorous growth. Site-wide, survival is exceeding 95 percent, as compared to the approved plan. As described in the as-built report, the site was overplanted, since the approved plan was not dense enough to achieve the required native cover standard for year five. The site has satisfied the year two interim survival standard (~80 percent). However, localized areas within the site should receive additional plantings to help ensure that the entire site satisfies the final native cover standards required in the approved plan. See the attached Year 2 Maintenance Figure for locations. Native woody cover in the buffer areas averages approximately 33 percent, a substantial increase from year one (13 percent). Native woody cover in the wetland creation area is approximately seven percent. These measurements represent a typica'l amount of cover Year _ NO Monitoring Report Lee Brannam, Habitat for Humanity November 19, 2012 Page 4 for year one. Plants typically do not experience substantial growth until three years after installation. The native emergent cover in the wetland creation area is approximately five percent. This measurement is slightly skewed, as the monitoring transect is located in a portion of the wetland creation area where emergent establishment has been less successful. Areas outside the monitoring transect have fared somewhat better. However, it is apparent that, despite doubling the number of emergent plantings specified in the approved plan, the wetland creation area will require additional emergent plantings to satisfy the year five emergent cover standard (~90 percent). Invasive species cover is very low site-wide, with no occurrences intersecting the monitoring transects. The isolated patches of reed canary grass observed during the year one inspection have successfully controlled. Morning glory bindweed is present in limited quantities in the northeast corner of the site. On-going hand removal of bindweed and Himalayan blackberry sprouts should continue to limit their establishment in the planting area. However, invasive species do not currently pose a substantial threat to the overall success of the mitigation area. Table 2: Percent Survival by Individual Species .. CommoriName .. " Thuja plicata western red cedar 21 16 i . Ps~udotsugomenzil'!sii Dauglas-fir 29. ' 17 , Acer mocrophyllum bigleaf maple 19 5 '.Piceasitchensis Sitka~pruc~", " , .... 1 2 , ',,' "!', ' , , , ." "I .... Fraxinus loti/olia Oregon ash 1 3 ~:A'c/tirCihatum,i."'>· . '.'::, "virie'm~pl~" '"ii", ' .': " " "24 ' , .... ;. ' '22 , Corylus corn uta beaked hazelnut 20 17 i,Holodiscu5 discolor . , .¥ :' 10 12 , oceanspray , Roso nutkana Nootka rose 21 29 iSympharicarpos albus . , snowberfY ... 21 33 Cornus sericea red-osier dogwood 18 22 ,tonicera involucratd>,: . 'black.twinberry .. · .. :·. ,. "",.:'i ',].4 . ::.,1 . ' '" ' 23 i Carex obnupto slough sedge 17 32 i.Total' . , .. '." . '1"" ".,'., ' ' ",' .. ".: . '" , 216 ' . " , .' 227 ' , Yeat ,';0 Monitoring Report Lee Brannam, Habitat for Humanity November 19, 2012 PageS Table 3: Native Woody and Invasive Cover by Individual Transect " ',~oc:atiqn, .;;: ..•. 3;;,~.~~iye·cOv!!r., • Invasive co,verl ' . , r~; .", , ! : , ., " <" .. '"' L i '" ." " , , . , .. , . T-l (100 feet) Buffer 46% ·0% ; , Tel (100 feet) Buffer' 22% 0% \ \"' i i .\. , i T-3 (30 feet) Wetland Creation Area 7% 0% , T-4(60feetl Buffer 30%' 0% .! ! , . I .. ' '. ! , " I Average* Buffer 33% 0% 'Wetland creation area IS measured separately and not Included In site-wide average. Recommendations 1. Continue regular maintenance to remove all invasive species in the planting area. 2. Weeds of particular concern include Himalayan blackberry, morning glory bindweed, and reed canarygrass. When removing weeds, make sure to grub out the roots. See attached maintenance figure for areas of focus. Install replacement plants in the following quantities: a. Area A: t. 3 bigleaf maple (1 gallon) ii. 3 Nootka rose (1 gallon) iii. 3 snowberry (1 gallon) b. Area B: i. 3 bigleaf maple (1 gallon) ii. 2 Douglas-fir (1 gallon) iii. 10 Nootka rose (1 gallon) tv. 10 snowberry (1 gallon) c. AreaC i. S bigleaf maple (1 gallon) u. S Douglas-fir (1 gallon) iii. 10 Nootka rose (1 gallon) iv. 10 snowberry (1 gallon) d. Area D 1. 2 Western red cedar (1 gallon) ii. 5 Pacific ninebark (1 gallon) iii. 5 salmonberry (1 gallon) iv. 40 slough sedge (1 gallon) e. Area E i. 5 Douglas-fir (1 gallon) Yea, NO Monitoring Report Lee Brannam, Habitat for Humanity November 19, 2012 Page 6 See attached maintenance figure for planting areas. When installing plants, dig the planting pit to at least twice the diameter of the rootball. Rough up the rootball to loosen all the roots prior to planting. Backfill the planting pit with native topsoil. After installation, saturate the planting pit to remove all air pockets. Install plants during the dormant season (prior to March 1"). Following plant installation, refresh coarse woodchip mulch so that a four-inch thick mulch ring is present around each plant to a radius of 12 inches. 3. In Area D only, top dress the area with a two-inch thick layer of vegetable compost following plant installation. 4. Continue manual irrigation, ensuring that at least two inches of water is delivered to the entire site each week from June 1" through September 30 th• Please call if you have any questions or if we can provide you with any additional information. Sincerely, Ryan Kahlo, WPIT Ecologist Enclosures Transect 1, facing west Transect 1, facing east 750 Sixth Street South 1 Kirkland. WA 98033 P <125.822.52042 If 425.827.8136 ) watershedc.o.com Transect 2, facing south Transect 2, facing north Transect 3 (wetland creation area), facing northeast Transect 3 (wetland creation area), facing northeast Transect 4, facing southeast Transect 4, facing northwest Photopoint 1, facing northwest Photopoint 2, facing northeast. Wetland creation area in center of photo. 750 Sixth Street South ! Kirkland. WA 98033 l' 425.822.5242 ! 1425,827~8136 1 watershedco,com • Area A: ear 2 Maintenance Figure 3 bigleaf maple 3 Nootka rose 3 snowberry Area B: 3 bigleaf maple 2 Douglas-fir 10 snowberry 10 Nootka rose Area c: 5 Douglas fir 5 bigleaf maple 10 snow berry 10 Nootka rose Area D: 2 western red cedar 5 Pacific ninebark 5 salmonberry 60 slough sedge (plugs) E: 5 Douglas-fir ..---. ~~ o 15 30 60 1" = 30' &v.tua:all)les j, N 90 ill Ib\i.i~ef pm$shcllbt.:kftasrttUdfvpb'l~ u.lm ;t;:n\lUt!~ u;knt5J1V' 1"-IlC7~r ~~j "-~ i~ ~ 1r'~f '-. '-'"\,' ,1~L~11 IA~M E: I I'Id&olingN.,l~c' .... tru..I~ ..... ub. 10 hot P"""<'d~'. ,,",p,II-Jl'" hlQIv"-111M fhi t..wl 'IIA' l1'Iqo"U~~,"IIIt_W'T ,.u.~.....: #11M' ,_ knor7U'( .... __ '"Yeo"«'''''' " .... _II i>c f ...... I I'O\II'(COOpn,¥Cd t.\I flll ~ "rthil", Pf"(Ir 10 dc~~. ~~ =~t:::~~;~=:~'i~~'::~~~~i~·bof-. ...... aIItd iRth.CJIIIrOIII<"". _""._ ""SI<lI1o.d",,, .... ' ... at '2. !' ... I .. I>I~I_ ..... ~1""'!'Ir ... _~.;t ........... .;w"I.I,;. ......... , ..... """'....-' J_..,.. ............ '1/ .... -. •• _"',~I' •. dd, "ltr .......... . Ita uuuwr fo ,n 1w1" IIIcII bf; naJoU 'rtt itokt:. ",it! bf "IIMI:" tumI:d ~ .. ,.... ......... t> .. ~I ........... IQ .......... ( ''''' 9"1"'1 ..... I&rool .. '" be l·'·~k·.INI<lilt:d per ",_ffluul"Ct"', SJ«I.I,(I,_ CA5CADt: V!!::d"'A NO, 'j I , D' U'IA.tN lIt« m.:E , \ \, III ~THE WATERSHED COMPANY / SCIENCE & DESIGN" January 2, 2012 Lee Brannam, Construction Manager Habitat for Humanity of East King County 16315 NE 871h Street Ste. B-5 P.O. Box 817 Redmond, WA 98073-0817 / / Re: La Fortuna Townhomes, Year One Monitoring Report The Watershed Company Reference Number: 100809 Dear Lee: On October 20, 2011, Biologist Sarah Sandstrom and I visited the La Fortuna townhome development on 1271h Avenue SE in Renton. The purpose of our visit was to conduct the as-built inspection for the wetland and buffer mitigation site. This letter describes the results of our inspection. Project History The project was initiated as compensatory mitigation for 393 square feet of unavoidable wetland impacts and 8,784 square feet of buffer impacts resulting from road construction and site development. To mitigate for these impacts, The Jay Group, LLC developed a mitigation plan in January 2003. The approved plan calls for the creation 396 square feet of wetland creation, 17,853 of buffer enhancement, and 9,062 square feet of buffer addition. The project was successfully installed in April 2011, with the subsequent as-built report submitted in May 2011. The project is currently in year one of a five-year monitoring program. Goals and Performance Standards The following goals and performance standards are provided in the approved mitigation plan and will be used to gauge the success of the project over time. 1. Create 396 square feet of scrub-shrub wetland adjacent to the impacted wetland. 2. Enhance 17,853 square feet of buffer to compensate for the/ass of8,784 square feet of existing buffer. 750 Sixth Street South I Kirkland. WA. 98033 P 425,822.5242 I f 425.827.8136 I watershedco.com ", , ... r Year One Monitoring Report Lee Brannam, Habitat for Humanity January 2, 2012 Page 2 . , 3:" Expand approximately 9,062 square feet additional buffer adjacent to existing Class 2 wetland. 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: Table 1: Native Vegetation Cover Standards Area Vegetation Year 1 Year 3 YearS Community Shrub/sapling NA >60%* >85%* Wetland Emergent 60%* 80%* 90%* Buffer Shrub/sapling NA NA >60%* *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 canarygrass, Scot's 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. 3. Survival of planted and volunteer native vegetation shall be 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. **The time required for development of hydric soils indicators can vary. We assume that if confirmed wetland hydrology is present, hydric soils will develop over time even if hydric soil indicators are not present within five years. 5. There shall be no significant topographic or hydrologic difference between the created wetland areas and the adjacent existing wetland areas. Methods Year One Monitoring Report Lee Brannam, Habitat for Humanity January 2, 2012 Page 3 The site was evaluated for survival, native and invasive cover, and general site conditions. Survival of the installed plants was assessed by conducting a complete plant census. Since the site was proactively planted with higher quantities of native plants than required under the approved mitigation plan, the total number of live plants was divided by the number specified on the plan to arrive at a percent survival. Native and invasive cover was assessed using the line-intercept method along four permanent monitoring transects that were established during the as-built inspections. Of the monitoring transects located in the wetland buffer, two measure 100 feet in length, and one measures 60 feet in length. Since the transects are of varying length, a weighted average of the buffer transects was used to arrive at a site-wide average for the buffer areas. Due to the limited area available, the monitoring transect located in the wetland . creation area measures 30 feet in length. The success of the wetland creation area is measured against separate performance standards from the buffer areas. Therefore, the data collected along the 30-foot transect is presented independently from the other three. General site conditions were observed and recorded site-wide. Photographs were taken from both ends of each monitoring transect and at three permanently established photopoints to provide visual documentation of changes in site conditions over time. Results The site is currently in very good condition and has seen substantial improvement since the project was installed. Survival, native cover, and invasive cover are all at appropriate levels for year one. The bare soil areas present during the as-built inspection have filled in with native and naturalized grasses. The hydroseeding along the utility easement has been successful, resulting in a dense, native grass cover. Site-wide, survival remains more than 100 percent, as compared to the approved plan, due mostly to installation of more plants than specified. However, Area A (see maintenance figure) east and southeast of the wetland area has experience higher than normal mortality. The tree species, in particular western red cedar, Douglas-fir, and bigleaf maple, have experienced the greatest mortality. Replacement plants in targeted areas will benefit the site long term and will help achieve future native cover standards. The shrub species, in general, are thriving throughout the site. Snowberry, twinberry, and Nootka rose are all flourishing. In the wetland creation area, nearly twice the number of slough sedge plantings was installed then what was called for on the plan. All of the installed slough sedge is alive and growing. Native woody cover in the buffer areas averages approximately 13 percent. Native woody cover in the wetland creation area is approximately ten percent. These measurements represent a typical amount of cover for year one. Plants typically do not • Year One Monitoring Report Lee Brannam, Habitat for Humanity January 2, 2012 Page 4 experience substantial growth until three years after installation. The native emergent cover in the wetland creation area is approximately five percent. The performance standards call for 60 percent emergent cover in the wetland creation area at the end of year one. In our experience, achieving 60 percent cover in one growing season was an overly-ambitious standard, even with the voluntary doubling of the number of emergent plantings that occurred on-site. Invasive species cover is very low site-wide. Small, isolated patches of reed canarygrass, along with some Himalayan blackberry sprouts are present in the wetland buffer areas. Morning glory bindweed is also climbing on some of the plantings in Area A (see maintenance figure). Invasive species do not currently pose a substantial threat to the overall success of the mitigation area. However, reed canarygrass was fairly dense in some areas prior to installation, and morning glory bindweed can be very aggressive. Per standard mitigation protocol, invasive weeds and their roots should be removed as part of the regular site maintenance. Table 2: Percent Survival by Individual Species I Species Name Common Name Plan Quantity Live Count I Thuja plicata western red cedar 21 10 , Pseudatsuga menziesii Douglas-fir 29 17 Acer macrophyllum big leaf maple 19 5 : Picea sitchensis Sitka spruce 1 2 Fraxinus lati/olia Oregon ash 1 3 . Ace clrcinatum vine maple 24 22 : Corylus comuta beaked hazelnut 20 17 . Holodiscus discolor oceanspray 10 12 Rosa nutkana Nootka rose 21 29 Symphoricarpos albus snowberry 21 33 Comus sericea red-osier dogwood 18 22 I Lanicera involucrata black twinberry 14 23 . Carex obnupta slough sedge 17 32 [ Total 216 227 ; Year One Monitoring Report Lee Brannam, Habitat for Humanity January 2, 2012 PageS Table 3: Native Woody and Invasive Cover by Individual Transect , Transect (length) location Native Cover Invasive Cover T-1 (100 feet) Buffer 12% 0% I T-1 (100 feet) Buffer 12% 2% ; , I T-3 (30 feet) Wetland Creation Area 10% 0% I T -4 (60 feet) Buffer 17% 1% I , I Average" Buffer 13% 1% 'Wetland crealion area IS measured separately and not Included In slle-wlde average. Recommendations 1. Remove all invasive species in the planting area. Weeds of particular concern include Himalayan blackberry, morning glory bindweed, and reed canarygrass. When removing weeds, make sure to grub out the roots. See attached maintenance figure for areas of focus. 2. Install replacement plants in the following quantities: a. Area A: i. 2 Douglas-fir (1 gallon) ii. 2 western red cedar (1 gallon) iii. 4 black cottonwood (1 gallon) iv. 5 snowberry (1 gallon) v. 5 Nootka rose (1 gallon) vi. S twinberry (1 gallon) b. Area B: i. S Nootka rose (1 gallon) ii. S snowberry (1 gallon) See attached maintenance figure for planting areas. When installing plants, dig the planting pit to at least twice the diameter of the rootball. Rough up the rootball prior to planting. Backfill the planting pit with native topsoil. After I Year One Monitoring Report Lee Brannam, Habitat for Humanity January 2, 2012 Page 6 installation, saturate the planting pit to remove all air pockets. Install plants during the dormant season (prior to March 1"). Following plant installation, apply coarse wood chip mulch so that a four-inch thick mulch ring is present around each plant to a radius of 12 inches. Please call if you have any questions or if we can provide you with any additional information. Sincerely, Ryan Kahlo, WPIT Ecologist Enclosures 7S0 Sheth Scrnt Sourn I KIrkland. WA 9903) ,425 .821 .5242 I f 425 .827.8136 1 watersMdco.com Transect 1, facing west Transect 1, facing east .:'~', ... .,; ; .... . ~ '~ .~ ~ Transect 2, facing south Transect 2, facing north Transect 3 (wetland creation area), facing southwest Transect 3 (wetland creation area), facing northeast Transect 4, facing southeast Transect 4, facing northwest Photo point 1, facing northwest Photopoint 2, facing northeast. Wetland creation area in center of photo. 750 SbnII S ..... _ 1 KIrtdand. WI>. 98033 ,425 .822 .S142 '/425 .827.8136 1 .... _o.com J ~ bO '8 .t'l '" -.6 8. .e o if: · . Ii! 0 <'l II o • ... ,. .. ~. ~THE WATERSHED COMPANY May 6, 2011 Lee Brannam, Construction Manager Habitat for Humanity of East King County 16315 NE 87th Street Ste. B-5 P.O. Box 817 Redmond, WA 98073-0817 Re: La Fortuna Townhomes, As-built Inspection The Watershed Company Reference Number: 100809 Dear Lee: SCIENCE & DESIGN On April 26, 2011, I visited the La Fortuna townhome development on 127th Avenue SE in Renton. The purpose of my visit was to conduct the as-built inspection for the wetland and buffer mitigation site. This letter describes the results of my inspection. Project History The project was initiated as compensatory mitigation for 393 square feet of unavoidable wetland impacts and 8,784 square feet of buffer impacts resulting from road construction and site development. To mitigate for these impacts, The Jay Group, LLC developed the mitigation plan in January 2003. The approved plan calls for the creation 396 square feet of wetland creation, 17,853 of buffer enhancement, and 9,062 square feet of buffer addition. Goals and Performance Standards The following goals and performance standards are provided in the approved mitigation plan and will be used to gauge the success of the project over time. 1. Create 396 square feet of scrub-shrub wetland adjacent to the impacted wetland. 2. Enhance 17,853 square feet of buffer to compensate for the loss of 8,784 square feet of existing buffer. 3. Expand approximately 9,062 square feet additional buffer adjacent to existing Class 2 wetland. 750 Sixth Street South I Kirkland. WA 98033 P 425.822.5242 I f 425.827.8136 I watershedco.com Performance Standards As-built Report Lee Brannam, Habitat for Humanity May 6, 2011 Page 2 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: Table 1: Native Vegetation Cover Standards Area Vegetation Year 1 Year 3 YearS Community Shrub/sapling NA >60%* >85%* Wetland Emergent 60%* 80%* 90%* Buffer Shrub/sapling NA NA >60% 3. Survival of planted and volunteer native vegetation shall be 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. *The time required for development of hydric soils indicators can vary. We assume that if confirmed wetland hydrology is present, hydric soils will develop over time even if hydric soil indicators are not present within five years. 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 canarygrass, Scot's 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. Results As-built Report Lee Brannam, Habitat for Humanity May 6, 2011 Page 3 The site was generally installed according to the approved plan. Sorri.e discrepancies were noted related to quantities of specific species (see Table 2). Fewer Douglas-fir trees were installed compared to the quantity specified on the plan. However, more western red cedar trees were installed compared to the quantity specified on the plan. Overall, the installed tree totals were slightly less than the specified quantity, but the shrub totals greatly exceeded those provided on the approved plan. Snowberry, Nootka rose, red- osier dogwood, and oceanspray were all planted in substantially greater quantities than specified on the plan. In total, the site was planted at a density of approximately 115 percent compared to the specified quantities. The overplanting was a proactive and beneficial step by the applicant, since the specified quantities would never have achieved the native cover performance standards. Table 2: Installed Plant Quantities by Species Species Name Common Name Quantity Quantity on Installed Plan Thuja plicata western red cedar 29 21 I Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir 19 291 Acer macrophy/lum bigleaf maple 13 19 I Piceo sitchensis Sitka spruce 2 11 Froxinus loti/olio Oregon ash 1 1 I Ace circinattim vine maple 29 241 Corylus cornuto beaked hazelnut 17 20 I Holodiscus discolor oceanspray . . 19 10 I Rosa nutkana Nootka rose 28 21 I . I Symphoricarpos albus snowberry -. 33 21 I Corn us sericea red-osier dogwood 27 18 I Lonicera involucrata black twinbimy 17 141 Corex obnupta slough sedge 17 17 l Total 251 2161 The site was generally cleared of non-native and invasive vegetation. No measurable quantities of site-specific species of concern, including reed canarygrass, bamboo, and Himalayan blackberry were observed in the planting area during my inspection. The area within the utility easement, which is not a part of the planting area, was inadvertently cleared during construction. Prior to clearing, this area was mostly dominated by common naturalized grasses, with some reed canarygrass present. To As-buil t Report Lee Brannam, Habitat for Humanity May 6, 2011 Page 4 rectify the situation, the area 'was seeded with a native grass mix composed of blue wildrye, red fescue, tufted hairgrass, and redtop. The wetland creation area was cleared and excavated to an appropriate size, depth, and gradient. Evidence of soil saturation and inundation is present. A total of four vegetation monitoring transects were installed. Two 100-foot transects and one 60-foot transect were installed in various portions of the buffer enhancement area, and one 30-foot transect was installed in the wetland creation area. The transect locations were chosen in areas representative of the overall site characteristics. The ends of each transect a~e marked with a metal fence post that is wrapped in pink-and black- striped flagging. Three permanent photopoints were established to provide visual documentation of changes in site conditions over time. Photopoints are marked with metal fence posts wrapped in yellow-and black-striped flagging. We recommend that the installation be considered complete and commencement with the five-year monitoring program. The first annual monitoring inspection should occur late summer or early fall 2011, after one full growing season. Please call if you have any questions or if we can provide you with any additional information. Sincerely, Ryan Kahlo, WPIT Ecologist Enclosures As-built Report Lee Brannam, Habitat for Humanity May 6, 2011 PageS Wetland creation area. Photograph taken 3/2/2011, prior to completion of planting phase. Photopoint 1, facing northwest Photopoint 2, facing northeast. Wetland creation area in center of photo. 750 Sixth Stre.t South I Klrkt.nd . WA 9803) ,.25.822 .5241 I f 425 .827 .8136 I watenMdco.com , '. . '.~ " ': Conceptual Mitigation Plan for the La Fortuna Townhouses in King County, Washington Pre-Application #A01 PM115 Prepared For: Best Construction Karl Best 10117 _158th 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 " .,-" 4Pr.epared By: .... , .... The Jay Group, Inc, 0<-' Greta Murdoff 1927 - 5 th Street Marysville, WA 98270 Phone: (360) 659-8159 FAX: (360) 651-7252 January 17, 2003 The Jay Group, Inc. " ~ N \ ' -. 1 ' • 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 MAl NTENANCE ........................................................... : ............................................................ 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 Plan Best Construction King County The Jay Group, LLC January, 2003 Job # 202095 INTRODUCTION The subject property is located at the south end of 127'" Avenue SEat 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 Qetai/ed 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 1 I pt Group 2 2 pts Flood/ L size < 5 acres size 5-10 acres -riverine or lakeshore wetland _ mid-sloped wetland Storm Water Control -< 10% forested cover -10-30% forested cover _ unconstrained outlet ..A semi-constrained outlet X-Iocaled in lower 1/3 of drainage -located in middle 1/3 of Points 10 drainage (max 15) Base Flow/ lL size < 5 acres size 5-10 acres -riverine or lakeshore wetland _ mid-sloped wetland Groundwater Support 2L located in lower 1/3 of drainage -located in middle 1/3 of drainage _ temporarily flooded or saturated 2L seasonally or semi-pennanently flooded or saturated L no /low-sensitive fish -low /low-sensitive fish populations on-site or populations on-site or Points 8 downstrenm downstream (max 15) Erosion/ _ spnrse grass I herbs or no _ sparse wood or vegetation along vegetation along OHWM OHWM Shoreline wetland extends < 30 m from wetland extends 30 -60m from -- Protection OHWM OHWM _ highly developed shoreline or _ moderately developed shoreline subcatchment or subcatchment Points n/a (max9) Water Quality _ rapid flow through sile .A moderate flow through site < 50% vegetative cover _ 50 -80% vegetative cover Improvement = upstream in bnsin from wetland _ .::: 50% ofbnsin upstream from is undeveloped wetland is developed Points -1l -holds < 25% overland runoff -holds 2; -50% overland runoff (max 12) -N/A = Not Applicable, Nil -No Informalion Available La Fortuna Detailed Mitigation Plan Best Construction King County 2 Group 3 3 pts size> 10 acres -.-ik depressions. headwaters. bogs. flats -X > 30% fo(ested cover -culvert / benned outlet _ located in upper 1/3 of drainage size> -I 0 acres -..A depressions. hCD.dwaters. bogs. flms _ located in upper 1/3 ofdraillage _ pemlanently flooded or saturated. or intermittently exposed _ high flow-sensitive fish populations contiguolls with site in highly permeable Slraln -dense wood or vegetation along OHWM -wetland extends> 200 III from OHWM _ undeveloped shoreline or subC31chment _ slow now through site .-X > 80% vegetative COver .-X > 50010 of basin upstream from wetland is developed ..A holds > 50% overland runoff The Jay Group, LLC January, 2003 Job #202095 Figure 1 Cont.: Wetland A (forested) and Associated Quantitative Performance Assessment Buffer Functions and Semi- Function Group I I pt Group 2 2pt Group 3 3pts Natural Biological Support Points 27 (max 36) Overall Habitat Functions Points 6 (max 9) Specific Habitat Functions Points -'1 (max 15) Cultural/ Socio- economic Points 10 ~max 21) Noise and Visual Screening Points ..1 (max 9) 2L size < 5 acres _ ng land. low vegetative structure 2L seasonal surface water _ one habitnllype PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST _ low plnnt diversity « 6 species) _ > 50% invasive species _ low primmy productivity _ low organic accumulation _ low organic export _ few habitat features _ buffer very disturbed _ isolated from upland habitats 2L size < 5 Dcres _ low habitat diversity _ low sanctuary or refuge _ low invertebrate habitat _ low amphibian habitat ...K low fish hanitD! _ low mammal habitat _ low bird habitat _ low ~ducational opportunities _ low aesthetic vDlue x.. hIcks commercial fisheries. agriculture. renewable resources x.. lacks historical or archeological resources _ lacks passive and active recreational opportunities 1L privately owned lL not nenr (lpen space ..1i buffer < required width _ no shrub layer _ one vegetative layer size .5 10 acres _ 2 vegetative levels _ permanent surface water -.2i two habitat types PAB POW PEM PSS J:EQ EST _ moderate plant diversity ( 7· 15 species) _ 10 -50% invasive species .-X mode:rnte primal)' productivity ....x moderate organic accumulation ~ moderate organic export some habitat fe<ltures ....x buffers slightly disturbed _ partially connected to upland habitats size 5 -10 acres ~ moderate habitat diversity _ moderate sanctuary or refuge _ moderate invertebrate habitat ..1i moderate amphibian habitat moderate fish habitat ..1i moderate mammal habitat moderate bird habitat ..1i moderate educational opportunities -.X modemte neslhetic value _ moderate commercial fisheries. agriculture. renewable resources _ historicDI or archeological site --X some passive and active recreationnlopportunities _ privately owned. some public access _ not neDr open space _ butTer -required width _ sparse shrub layer _ two vegetative lnyers N/A = Not Applicable, Nil = No Information Available La Fortuna Detailed Mitigation Plan Best Construction King County 3 _ size> 10 acres ..1i high vegetative structure _ open waler pools through summer _ .?: 3 habitat types PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST ~ high plant diversity ( > J 5 species) ~ < [0% invasive species _ high primary productivity _ high organic accumulation _ high organic export 3 many habitat features _ buffers not distu"rbed ~ well connected to upland habitats _ size> 10 acres _ high habitat diversity ..1i high sanctuary or refuge ..1i high invertebrate habitat _ high amphibian habitat _ high fish habitat _ high mammal habitat ...K high bird habitat _ high educational opportunities _ high aesthetic value _ high commercial tisheries, agriculture. renewable resources _ important historical or n~cheological site _ many passive and active recreational opportunities _ unrestricted public access _ directly connected to open space _ butTer> reqL1ired width 2L ample shrub layer x.. 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 I Ipt Group 2 2 pts Flood! ;L size < 5 acres -size 5-10 acres -riverine or lakeshore wetland _ mid-sloped wetland Storm Water Control 1L < 10% forested coveT -10 -30% forested covet unconstrnined outlet ..A semi-constrained outlet tL located in lower 1/3 of drainage -located in middle 1/3 of Points 8 dminage (max 15) Base Flow! x.. size < 5 acres -size 5-10 acres -riverine or lakeshore wetland _ mid-sloped wetland Groundwater Support L located in lower 1/3 of drainage -locnled in middle 1/3 of drainage _ temporarily flooded or saturated A-seasonally or semi-permanently tlooded or snturated ...A no flow-sensitive fish _ low flow-sensitive· fish populations on-site or populations on-site or Points 8 downSlrenm downstream (max 15) Erosion! _ sparse grass I herbs or no . _ sparse wood or vegetation along vegetation along OHWM OHWM Shoreline -wetlnnd extends < 30 m from -wetland extends 30 -60m from Protection OHWM OHWM _ highly developed shoreline or _ moderately developed shoreline subcatchment or subcntchme!1t 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 bnsin from wetlnnd _ ::: 50% of basin upstream from is undeveloped wetland is developed Points ...2 L holds < 25% overland nmoff -holds 25 -50% overland runoff (max 12) N!A = Not Applicable, Nil = No Information Available La Fortuna Detailed Mitigation Plan Best Construction King County 4 Group 3 3 pts size> to acres ~ depressions, headwaters. bogs. flats -> 30% forested cover culvert I bermed oUllet -_ located in upper 1/3 of drainage -size> 10 acres -K depressions, headwaters, bogs, nats _ locnted'in upper 1/3 of drainage _ pemmnently flooded or saturated. or intermittently exposed _ high now-sensitive fish populations cOnliguous with site in highly pemleable strata -dense wood or vegetation along OHWM wetland extends > 200 m from -OHWM _ undeveloped shoreline or subcatchment -X slow tlow through site ~ > 80% vegetative cover .-X> 50% of basin tlpstream Irom - wetinnd is developed holds> 50% overland runoff The Jay Group, LLC January, 2003 Job # 202095 Figure 2 Cont.: Wetland B (scrub-shrub) and Associated Buffer based on Functions and Semi-quantitative Performance Assessment Function Group I I pt Group 2 2pt Group 3 3pts Natural Biological Support Points 20 (max 36) Overall Habitat Functions Points -.l (max 9) Specific Habitat Functions Points .ll (max IS) Cultural I Socio- economic Points ..2 (max 21) Noise and Visual Screening Points ..1 (max 9) x... size < 5 acres _ ag land. low vegetative structure _ sensol1lll surface water _ one habitDt type PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST 1:L low plant diversity « 6 species) _ > 50% invasive species 2L low primary productivity 2L low organic accumulation x... low organic export 2L few habitat features _ bufTer very disturbed _ isolated from upland hahitats 2L size < 5 acres 2L low habitat diversity 2L low sanctuary or reillge _ low invertebrate habitat 2L low amphibian habitat 2L low fish habitat 2L low mammal habitat 2L [ow bird habitat 2L low educational opportunities ~ low aesthetic value L lacks commercial tisheries. agriculture, renewable resources 2L lacks historicnl or archeological resources 2L lacks passive and active recreational opportunities K-. privately owned _ not near open space _ butTer < required width _ no shrub layer _ one vegetative layer size 5 -I 0 acres .-X 2 vegetative levels X permanent surface water ~ two habitat types PAB POW ffM ~ PFO EST _ moderule plant diversity (7 -t 5 species) _ 10-50% invosive species _ moderate primary productivity _ moderate organic accumulation _ moderate orgl1nic export some habitat features X butTers slightly disturbed _ partially connected to upland habitats size 5 -10 acres _ moderate habitat diversity _ moderate sanctuary or refuge ~ moderate invertebrate habitat _ moderate amphibian habitat modemte fish habitat _ moderate mammal habitat moderate bird habitat _ moderate educational opportunities _ moderate aesthetic value _ 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 .....x buffer -required width _ spar:se shrub layer ...x two vegetative layers NIA -Not Applicable, NIl -No Information Available La Fortuna Detailed Mitigation Plan Best Construction King County 5 _ size> [0 acres _ high vegetative structure _ open water pools through summer _ 2:: 3 habit:u types PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST _ high plant diversity ( > 15 species) ~ < 10% invasive species _ high primary productivity _ high organic accumulation _ high orgAnic export _ many habitat features _ butTers not disturbed .....x well connected to upland habitats size> 10 acres _ high habitat diversity _ high sanctuary or refuge _ high invertebrate habitat _ high amphibian habitat _ high fish habitat _ high mammal habitat _ high bird habitat _ high edllcational opportunities _ high nesthetic value _ high commercial fisheries, agriculture. renewable resources _ important historical or . archeological site _ many passive and active recreational opportunities _ unrestricted public access -X directly connected to open space _ buffer> required width ~ ample shrub layer _ three vegetl.ltive Inyers The Jay Group, LLC January, 2003 Job # 202095 Figure 3: WetlandC (emergent) and Associated Buffer based on Functions and Semi- quantitative Performance Assessment, Cooke (1996) Criteria Function Group 1 Ipt Group 2 2 pts Flood/ 2L size < 5 acres -size 5-10 acres -riverine or lakeshore wetland _ mid-sloped wetland Storm Water Control 2L < 10% forested cover 10 -30% forested cover _ unconstrained outlet ~ semi-constrained outlet 2L located in lower 1/3 of drainage -located in middle 113 of Points 8 drainage (max 15) Base Flow/ 2L sizc:,< 5 acres size 5-10 acres -riverine or lakc:shore wetland _ mid-sloped wetland Groundwater Support L located in lower 1/3 of drainage -located ill middle 1/3 of drainage 2L temporarily flooded or saturated _ seasonnlly or semi-permanentiy flooded or saturated lL no tlow-sensitive fish -low flow-sensitive fish Points 7 populations on-site or populations on-site or (max 15) downstream downstream Erosion/ sparse grass I herbs or no -sparse wood or vegetation along -vegetation along OHWM OHWM Shoreline -wetland extends < 30 m from -wetland extends 30 -60m from Protection OHWM OHWM _ highly developed shoreline or _ moderately developed shoreline subcatchment or subcatchment Points nla (max 9) Water Quality _ rapid How through site ....x moderote now through site _ < 50"10 vegetative cover -X 50 -80% vegetative cover Improvement _ upstream in basin from wellrmd _ ~ 50% of basin upstream from is undeveloped wetland is developed Points ~ ....x holds < 25% overland runon-' -holds 25 -50% overland runoff (max 12) N/A -Not Applicable, N/I = No Information Available' La Fortuna Detailed Mitigation Plan Best Construction King County 6 Group 3 3 pts size> 10 acres ....x depressions. headwaters. bogs. flats > 30% forested cover --culvert I bermed oullet _ located in upper 1/3 of drainage -size: > 10 acres -A depressions. headwaters, bogs. tlats _ located in upper 1/3 of drainage _ permanently flooded or saturated_ or intenninently exposed _ high now-sensitive fish populations contiguous with site in highly pemleable stmta -dense wood or vegetntion along OHWM wetland extends> 200 m from -OHWM _ undeveloped shoreline or subcatchment _ slow tlow through site _ > 80% vegetative cover .A. > 50% of basin upstream from - wetland is developed holds > 50% overland runoff The Jay Group, LLC January, 2003 Job #202095 Figure 3 Cont.: Wetland C (emergent) and Associated quantitatIve Perfonnance Assessment Buffer Functions and Semi- Function Group 1 1 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 6 (max 15) Cultural I Socio- economic Points 9 (max 2j) Noise and Visual Screening Points --.2 (max 9) 2L. size < 5 acres _ ag land, low vegt!tative structure L seasollni surface water 2L one habitat type PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST L low plant diversity « 6 species) _ > 50% invasive species 2L low priliuuy productivity ~_ low organic accumulation _ low organic export X lew habitnt features X bUff'er'very disturhed _ isolated from upland habitats x... size < 5 acres . 2L low habitat diversity L low snllctuary or refuge _ low invertebrate habitat L low amphibian habitat 1L low tish habitat L low mamlllal habitat L low bird habitat L low educational opportunities 2L low aesthetic value 2l lacks commercial fisheries. agriculture, renewable resources L lacks historical or archeological resources x... lacks passive and active recreational opportunities 2L privately owned _ not near open space X. buffer < required width _ no shrub layer _ one vegetative layer _ size 5 -10 acres ~ 2 vegetative levels _ pennanent surface wnter _ two habitat types PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST _ modt:rnte plant diversity ( 7 • 15 species) ....x 10-50% invasive species _ moderate primary productivity _ moderate organic accumulation ~ moderate organic export some habitat fenlures _ butTers sliglllly disturbed _ partially connected to upland habitats _ size 5 10 acres _ modernte habitat diversity _ moderate sanctuary or refuge ~ moderate invertebrate habitat _ modernte amphibian habitat _ moderate fish habiult _ moderate mammal habitat _ moderate bird habitat _ moderate educational opportunities moderate aesthetic value _ moderate commercial fisheries, agriculture. renewable resources _ historical or archeological site _ some passive and active . recreational opportunities _ privntely owned. some public access _ not near open spnce _ buffer -required width _ sparse shrub layer ~ two vegetntive layers N/A = Not Applicable, NIl -No Information Available La Fortuna Detailed Mffigation Plan Best Construction King County 7 _ size> 10 acres _ high vegetative struclUre _ open water pools through summer -.X :: 3 habitat types PAS POW PEM fSi PFO EST -.X high plant diversity ( > 15 species) _ < 10% invasive species _ high primnry productivity _ high organic accumulation _ high organic export _ many hahitat leatures _ buffers nol disturbed 21 well connected to upland habitats _ size> 10 acres _ high habitat diversity _ high sanctuary or refuge _ high invertebrate habitat _ high amphibinn habitat _ high fish habitat _ high maJllmal 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 _ lmrestricled public access 3 directly connected to open space _ buffer> required width ~ nmple 5hmb 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 shrub 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. Flood/Storm Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Water Control Base Flowl Groundwater Support Erosion/Shoreline Protection Moderate N/A N/A N/A Water Quality High Moderate Improvement Natural Biological Moderate / Moderate Support High Overall/Specific. Moderate Moderate Habitat Functions Noise and Visual Moderate / High Screening High Moderate N/A N/A N/A Moderate/ Moderate High Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Lowl Moderate N/A Moderate Moderate Low N/A N/A Moderate Moderate Low Moderate / Moderate / Moderate Moderate High High Cultural! Socio- economic Moderate Moderate Moderate / Moderate Moderate / Low Overall Functions and Values Moderate / High La Fortuna Detailed Mitigation Plan Best Construction King County Low Moderate Moderate 10 Moderate 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 (ft\ 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 tei 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 concliJded 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 11 The Jay GrouP. LL C January, 2003 Job # 202095 • wetlands. Creation projeGts 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 ft2 of Wetland B. The proposed mitigation includes creation of approximately 396 ft2 along the southern boundary of Wetland B. Associated buffer impacts to Wetland B amounts to approximately 8,784 ft2, and will be mitigated for by the enhancement of 17,853 ft2 and the creation of 9,062 ft2 additional buffer around the buffer to Wetland A and Wetland B. Table 1: Impacted vs. Mitigated areas Impacted Wetland' Impacted Buffers Mitigation Area Mitigation Area Buffers W 393 8,784 396 26,915 overall Moderate Moderate Moderate High functions vegetation Comus sericea, Alnus rubra, Rubus Fraxinus latifofia, Acer macrophylfum, Lonicera involucrata, discolor Picea sitchensis, Thuja plicata, pteridium aquifinum Carex obnupta, Pseudotsuga Lonicera involucrata menziesii, Corylus comuta 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 Jay 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/ Moderate Groundwater SUIlP_ort Erosion/Shoreline N/A Protection Water Quality Moderate/High Improvement Natural Biological Moderate Support Overall/Specific Low Habitat Functions Noise and Visual' Moderate/High Screening Cultural/ Socio-Moderate/Low economic Overall Functions Moderate and Values 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- • MITIGA nON GOALS Goals of the mitigation plan are three-fold: 1. Create 396 ft2 of scrub-shrub wetland adjacenl 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 ff 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 ft2 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 Mitigation Plan Best Construction King County 14 Tho 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 ft2 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 ft2 of created wetland will be planted with native vegetation. Trees may include, but are not limited to: Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) and Oregon ash (Fraxinus /atifo/ia). 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 !winberry (Lonicera invo/ucrata), 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 macrophyllum). 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 cornuta), 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 plicata) and big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum). 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 cornuta), 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 techniques 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 correspond 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 (northwest/southeast) in the buffer. The permanent transects in the wetland creation area shall be approximately 30 feet La Fortuna 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 pond 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 arid 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 /XM..'~1 ""I ll/V\IWIA.Attt 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 A 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 Def~iled 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 c)v\JVl-t\e-~ClN~ In general a performance bond or other Cancial 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, AJ., C. Conolly, M. Emers, ED. 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. Castelle, AJ., C. Conolly, M. Emers, ED. 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. Biofiltration 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. FW.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 Detailad Mitigation Plan Best Construction King County 23. The 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 May 25, 2002 Mr. I<amail Johal c/o Mr. Luay R. Joudeh, P.E. D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers. Inc. 10604 N. E. 38th Piace, Suite 101 Kirkland, WA 98033 Fle: Weiland investigation for La Fortuna Townhouses, King County: PreAppliellllon /lAOl PM115. Dear Mr. Johal: Per your request. 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 parcels its total size is approximately 4.51 acres. A Boundary Une Adjustment will be included in the project proposa/. The subiect property is located at 12632 Patrevilsky Roael on the north side of the eXisting homes that front on the Road (see atlac:hed vicinity map). The project site is moslly devaloped and surrounded by single· family residences. BDth parceis have existing houses. The weSiern parcel includes an active nurser}' business and specializes in growing aquatic plants. The eastern parcel includes a hDuse, lawn, old pasture, and manmade pond. The pond and house areas, and the plant nursery are not included in this project. Both homss and the plant nursery will remain and are adjaoent tD the proposed La Fortuna TownhDuse residential project. Purpose/Method The purpDse of this letter report is tD identify the extent of the wetland area on the project property and the regUlatory implications of wetland management currently administered by King County. The County's sensitive areas regulatiDns are founel in KCC Chapter 21A.24. A pre· application meeting was conducted with King County on i 18102 to present the project and gather related information lor detailed planning. Wetlands exist on the site. and this letter describes Ihose conditions for County verification. In accordance with current Slate requirements, the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineatio~ Manual (Ecology Pub. #96·94) was used for wetland determination. ihe State Manual is 9. rev;sElci varsiDn to the 1987 US Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Dalinaation Manual (F1CWD 1987). The intent of the Stata Manual is to reflect regional conditions but result in Ihs S6ma determination and delineation as the 1987 Corps Manual. Wetlands are determined whare vegetation, SOilS, and hydrology all reflect that hydric conditions are present on a site. Sir., weiland dat" pl~ts were installed throughout the site and marked with pink plBStic flagging. The enclosed sita map shows locations of wetland data piOlS, and the data plot forms are attached to this letter. , ' Mr. Luay Joudeh May 25,2002 Page 2 • Public natural resource documents were reviewed lor the site. King County's Sensitive Areas Map Folio (1990) has identified one wetland area on the project site (Soos Creek #104). 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 percent slopes (AmC), and Seattle mucll (Sk). The Arents, Alderwood soil type consists of soils that have been so disturbed by urbanization Ihat they can no longer be classified with the Alderwood series. The Seal1le muck is a poorly drained organic soil formed in material primarily derived from sedges. The SeaUle muck soil mapping is directly associated with the Soos Creek # 1 04 wetland area. Weiland Investigation The site area was initially investigated on 6/25/01 to delineate wetlands on the western parcel. Additi.onal site visit work occurred on 1/25102 to assess conditions on the eastern parcel. In addition to weiland descriptions, a brief overview of the property is included. Three wetlands were identified on the project sile. Two of the wetlands are very small, less than 2,500 square feet, and may not be regulated by King County within the Urban Growth Area. Wetland A Wetland 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 to Norma sandy loam. Tree cover includes red alder (Alnus rubrs), Oregon ash (Fraxinus lalilolia), black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera), and Pacific willow (Salix lasiandrs). Western red cedar (Thujs plicala), western crabapple (Mslus (uscs), and western hemlock (Tsuga he/erophylla) trees were observed on the wetland edge. The shrub component has salmonberry (Rubus specfabi/is), red osier dogwood (Comus sto/onifers). black !winberry (Lonicera involucra/a), and spirea (Spiraea douglasii) with western hazelnut (Corylus cornula) and vine maple (Acer cireina/um) occurring mostly on the wetland/upland edge. Emergent vegetation Includes slough sedge (CS'8X obnupta), creeping buttercup (Ranuneulus ,epans), lady fern (Athy,ium felix-temina). and mannagrass (Gfyceria sp.) with some skunk cabbage (Lysichilon americanum) and yellow iris (Iris pssudocorus). The wetland area appears to be isolated but past channelization activities, within the wetland, direct surface water flows south inlo Ihe Pertrovitsky Road storm drainage system. In addition. a small detention pond area has been constructed by King County at the north end of tile 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 (O.R. Strong Engineers 11/01), the on-sile portion of wetland is approximately 54,000 square feet. , ' Mr. Luay Joudeh May 25,2002 Page 3 Using the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) classification system (Cowardin et al 1979), the wetland is palustrine, forested, scrub/shrub, persistent and non-persistent emergent, with seasonally flooded conditions.. According to the County's wetland rating criteria (KeC 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 buffer setback distance is 50 feet and has been provided as part of the project. Wetlsnd S Wetland 8 is a very small depression (1,636 square teet) 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, mannsgrass, and lady fern. Hydric mineral soils are present. Seasonal hydrology overflows into a pipe localed under old fill material. Using the USFWS system, the wetland is palustrine, scrub/shrub, 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 feet in size. Wetland C Wetland C is a very disturbed area adjacent to the eastern boundary of the project site. Like Wetland S, the area is very small (t ,047 square feet) bur active hydrology was observed as groundwarer discharging at the north point of the wetland. Due to the amount of past filling and grading in this area, a natural source of hydrology was not determined. Because the surrounding ereas have been developed, the water flows could be related to piped or other artificial conditions. The adjacent pasturelfield area appears to also have been graded and filled. Water 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 olf-site manmade pond. However, most of the flows from this wetland drain to the west through a concrete culvert. These surface water flows have bean ulilized by the adjacent nursery for Ihe aquatic pfant 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 portiOn around the old foundation is dominated Himalayan blackberry and creeping buttercup (Ranunculus rapens). Using the USFWSsystem, 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 Ills less lhan 2,500 square feet In size. Mr. Luay Joudeh May 25,2002 Page 4 In summary, this letter report is provided to identify the wetlands on the site and allow the County staff to verify the areas and related wetland ratings for application submittal. If there are any questions or concerns regarding this wetland report or you require additional site specific data, please lee/ tree to contact me .. Sincerely, C. Gary Schulz Wetland/Forest Ecologist Bear4all@yahoo.com 7700 S. lakeridge Dr. Saallla, WA 98178 (206) 772-6514 CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM Date: December 29, 2009 To: City Clerk's Office From: City Of Renton Subject: Land Use File Closeout Please complete the following information to facilitate project closeout and indexing by the City Clerk's Office Project Name: La Fortuna Townhouses LUA (file) Number: LUA-09-066 Cross-References: King Co. File #B03DCOOl AKA's: Project Manager: Acceptance Date: February 20, 2003 Applicant: Karl Best Owner: Same as applicant Contact: Same as applicant PID Number: 0739000015, 0739000020 ERC Decision Date: May 18, 2004 , ERC Appeal Date: June 14, 2004 I Administrative Approval: July 11, 2005 Appeal Period Ends: Public Hearing Date: Date Appealed to HEX: By Whom: HEX Decision: Date: I Date Appealed to Council: :1 By Whom: ;1 Council Decision: Date: !j Mylar Recording Number: II Project Description: Construction of a 41-unit residential development with associated parking I and landscaping. Location: Generally 150 feet south of SE 172"0 Street and east of 127th Avenue SE; 12632 SE Petrovitsky Rd I ., Comments: IL Laureen M. Nicolay From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Laureen M. Nicolay Thursday, September 17, 20091:24 PM Stacy Tucker; Jennifer T. Henning; Kayren K. Kittrick Laureen M. Nicolay; Chip Vincent LUA09-066, La Fortuna Townhomes (unbuilt) transferred from KC after SEPA and most utlilty and road improvements complete. Needs Planner assigned (to look into wetland mitigation/monitoring) and Plan Reviewer ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMPLETED BY KING CO. FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 41 UNITTOWNHOM DEVELOPMENT WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND LANDSCAPING ON A 4.5 ACRE SITE. WETLAND MITIGATION AND MONITORING IS REQUIRED BUT WE HAVE NO PLANS. WE DO HAVE SOME BONDS (NOT WETLAND-RELATED THOUGH) - -' see (!.In lUI 03 cr Q6 'i I 7 "'/ c jUVl ~ ROAD AND UTILITIES ARE MOSTLY INSTALLED UNDER KC COMMERCIAL SITE DEVElOPMENT PERMIT--BOX IS NEAR KAYREN. NO BUILDING PERMIT HAS BEEN SUBMITIED YET. 1,640 SQ FEET OF CLASS 3 WETLANDS TO BE FILLED. 41,005 SQ FEET OF CLASS 2 WETLANDS. SPLIT RAIL FENCE AND SIGNAGE REQUIRED. 50 FOOT BUFFER. BUFFER RESTORATION. CITY HAS NO MITIGATION PLAN OR REPORT FOR THIS MITIGATION. UNSURE OF IMPACTS TO CRITICAL AREAS THAT MAY HAVE ALREADY OCCURRED THROUGH THE GRADING, PAVING AND UTILITY INSTALLATION ALREADY ACCOMPLISHED. 12,112 SF RECREATION AREA. REQUIRES INSTALLATION OF PICNIC TABLES, PLAY STRUCTURE, BENCHES AND GRILL UNDER KC BLA RECORDED KC PERMITS B03DC001, L05S1114, X0001279 Laureen Nicolay, Senior Planner City of Renton Development Planning 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 (425) 430-7294 phone (425) 430-7231 fax Inicolay@rentonwa.gov WAOq ()(&~ ~~~ L 1 Parcel Number: 0739000020 Taxpayer: BRODKA HELMUT+LOURDES Annexation: N/A Jurisdiction: Unincorporated King Thursday. Feb 13. 2003 01:27 PM King County -DDES ® King County Department of Development and Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, WA 98055-1219 June 29, 2005 B03DC001, La Fortuna, Permit Condjtions: The Commercial Site Development Permit for townhouse development is hereby APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. All site development shall be in accordance with approved Commercial Site Development Permit (CSDP) B03DC001. . 2. Approval of the commercial site development permit shall not provide the applicant with a vested right to build without regard to subsequent revisions in building and fire codes regulating construction listed in KCC 16.04 and 17.04. Building permits for any approved building envelopes are vested for all site issues and non-building codes at the time the CSDP application was deemed complete. 3. Subsequent building permit applications may contain minor site modifications to the approved CSDP, KCC 21A.41.110. Exceeding revision limits or conditions of approval will require a new commercial site development permit for the entire site. 4. All future buildings approved for this CSDP within the R-B zoned portion of the site must be a townhouse configuration type only (KCC21A.06.370). Stacked flat units (apartments, KCe 21A.06.355) shall not be allowed within this area. Failure to meet this requirement may result in a substantial reduction in site density, (Kee 21A.OB.030 5.b.). 5. This CSDP permit is valid for three (3) years from date of issuance. All subsequent building permit applications corresponding to structures identified within the building envelopes must be received by DOES and deemed complete within this three-year window. Dave Baugh, AICP, Program Manager III KC Dept of Development and Environmental Services 900 Oaksdale Avenue SW . Renton WA 98055-1219 Phone: (206) 296-7281 FAX: (206) 296-7225 E-Mail: david.baugh@metrokc.gov <mailto:david.baugh@metrokc.gov> , ) King County '_ J Department of Development and Environmental Services Date of Issuance: Project: Location: King County Permits: SEP A Contact: Permit Contact: Proponent: Zoning: ComlJlunity Plan: Drainage Basin: State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Mitiga ted Determination of Non-Significance F{)r La Fortuna Townhouses -B03DCOOI May 19,2004 Construction of a 41-unit residential development with associated parking and landscaping. Generally 150 feet south of SE In"d Street and east of 12ih Avenue SE. Commercial Site Development Permit B03DCOOI Angelica Velasquez Building Permit Center Karl Best La Fortuna LLC PO Box 1790 Snohomish, W A 98291 R-8-S0 & R-12~SO Soos Creek (206) 296-7136 (206) 296-6600 (425) 238-9831 Section/Township/Range: Soos CreeklWRlA 9 SE 28-23-05 Notes: A. This flnding is based on review of the revised project site plan dated January 16,2003 environmental checklist dated February 12,2003, geotechnical engineering study dated April 15,2003, trarnc impact analysis dated April 25, 2003, technical information report dated January 13, 2003, and other documents in the flle. B. Issuance of this threshold determination does not constitute approval of the permit. This proposal will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable King County codes which regulate development activities, including the Uniform Fire and Building Codes, Road Standards, Surface Water Design Manual, and the Sensitive Areas Regulations. Threshold Determination The responsible orncial flnds that the above described proposal does not pose a probable signiflcant adverse impact to the environment, provided the mitigation measures listed below are applied as conditions of permit issuance. This flnding is made pursuant to RCW 43.21 C, KCC 20.44 and WAC 197-11 after re'viewing the environmental checklist and other information on me with the lead agency and considering mitigation measures which the agency or the applicant will implement as part of the proposal. The responsible omcial flnds this information reasonably sufncient to evaluate the environmental impact of this proposal. MAIN FILE COPY La Fortuna Townhouses -b"~D[JI Date of issuance: May 19, 2004 Page 2 Mitigation List j The following mitigation measures shall be attached as conditions of pennit issuance. These mitigation measures are consistent with policies, plans, rules or regulations designated by KCC 20.44.080 as a basis for the exercise of substantive authority and in effect when this threshold detennination is issued. Key sources of substantive authority for each mitigation measure are in parentheses; however, other sources of substantive authority may exist but are not expressly listed. The increase in pedestrian and vehicular activity on the stub street proposed to serve the development will have an adverse impact on safety for pedestrians walking along the existing section of roadway to the location where paved shoulders exist along SE 1nnd Street [KCC 14.80.030B]. The applicant shall either: a) extend the urban improvements required for the interior access road to the north, to the southeast corner ofthe-intersection of 127'h Avenue SE at SE 172nd Street, including concrete curb, gutters' and sidewalks along the easterly side of 127'h Avenue SE, or b) construct a paved walkway with a minimum paved width of five (5) feet, with an extruded curb separating pedestrian traffic from vehicle traffic. Plans for the off-site walkway improvements shall be submitted to King County DOT for review and approval. Comments and Appeals This Mitigated Detennination of Non-significance (MONS) is issued under Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal until after June 14, 2004. Comments must be submitted to the Department of Development and Environmental Services by, June 14, 2004. Since this MONS is for a Type 1 Permit, there is not a King County Administrative SEPA appeal, according to King County Ordinance 14449. Any appeals to this project must be submitted to King County Superior Court. Comment deadline: Address for comment: Responsible Official: Greg Borba, Current Planning Supervisor Current Planning Section Land Use Services Division Date Mailed: May 19,2004 JUlie 14,2004 King County Land Use Services Division 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 ATTN: Current Planning Section Date Signed ® K.C. D.D.E.S. King County Department of Development and Environmental Services Building Services Division 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW RenlOn, WA 98055·1219 (206) 296-6600 This worksheet will assist you in correctly applying specific p0l1ions of the zoning code related to allowable density and will be used to determine if a proposal meets the density provisions of the King County Zoning Code (Title 2IA). NOTE: Use this worksheet ONLY if your proposal is for a residential development on an existing legal lot or for a residential development associated with a residential condominium binding site plan. A separate density worksheet is available for residential subdivision proposals. This worksheet is prepared to assist applicants. and does not replace compliance with adopted local. state and federal laws. A pre-application conference is required for all Type I development proposals if the property will have 5.000 square feet of development site or right-of-way improvements. the property is in a critical drainage basin. or the propelty has a wetland. steep slope, landslide hazard, erosion hazard, or coal mine on site. A pre-application conference is required for all Type 2, 3 or 4 development proposals. Exempt from the requirement for a pre-application conference are I) single family residences and their accessolY buildings; and 2) other structures where all work is in an existing building and no parking is required or added. You may call 296-6600 to find alit if a pre-application conference is needed for your proposal and how a pre-application conference can be arranged. DATE: /-/s-Oz... NAME OF DEVELOPMENT: _=L:::a~h-,I7:..:r/-----,--,-:-u...:."'-,--O\...:...., ____ FILE NO. ___ _ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: __________ _ ZONING DESIGNATION(S): fr-e-SO R-/2 -SO COMMUNITY OR SUBAREA PLAN: ________________ _ I f more than one zone designation exists on the property, the architectural site plan must show the boundary between the zones and the area within each. In such cases. the transferring of density across zones on the lot may be pennitted subject to the provisions of K.C.C. 2IA.12.200. Please complete only the applicable portions of the form. I. Site Area (K.c.c. 2IA.06.1I72): Site area (in square feet) is the gross liorizontal area of the project site, less submerged lands as defined by K.C.C. 2IA.06.1265. less areas which are required to be dedicated on theperimeter ofa project site for public rights-of-way. + _____ square feet in submerged land (any land below the ordinary high water mark -see K.C.C. 21 A.06.1265 and 21A.06.825.J _____ square feet in perimeter rights-of-way which will be required to be dedicated (area 30 feet from center line of road) Total Calculation: /9 ~S? 4-gross horizontal area of the project site _---'--¢ ___ Total submerged lands and rights-olCway 144(3q~( R-g),:. 5Z,13C: (R~/2.)-;' J,3/-j Al., I. I "t t Ac. . \ /96, ,24 Site area in square feet NOTE: To continue calculations, convert site area in square feet to acres by dividing by 43,560 4,s12-Site area in acres &:>d IP-r-ODeS' GI S Info h>r -z./J,Ile houI1Jar;e-i. II. Base Density (K.c.c. 21A. 12.030 -.040 tables): pe r Gearje f!"rrlil1j The base density is detelmined by the zone designation(s) for the l.ot. R -g ~ __ 8 __ du/acre R -1"2 : April 22, 1997 Page lof4 " III. Allowable Dwelling Units, Floor Area and Rounding I K.C.C. 21A.12.070): I The base number of dwelling units is calculated by multiplying the site area by the base density in dwelling units per acre (from K.C.c. 2IA.12.030· .040 tables). 1(,8'. 3, '31'0 8 R./z: 1,191 R·g = R'IL: site area in acres (see Section I.) X / z. base density (see Section II.) z.~.5'2 allowable dwelling units > 4-(J, '38 -:;, 41 14-,3 (" The allowed floor area, which excludes stlUchned or underground parking areas and areas housing mechanical equipment, is calculated by'multiplying the site area by the floor to lot area ratio (from K.C.C. 2IA.12.040). _____ site area in square feet (see Section /.) X ____ floor to lot area ratio (K.C.C. 21A.12.040) _____ allowed floor area in square feet When calculations result in a fraction, the fraction is rounded to the nearest whole number as follows: I. Fractions of .50 or above shall be ronnded up; and '--n . s I {.' ,wIvV'-""--" 2. Fractions below .50 shall be rounded down. 'It'L-i,'., ,. ~-'-' . (l..R.,,-v IV. Required On-site Recreation Space (K.c.c. 2IA.I4.l80): f!.. .1;e .j,(:.; -e"e rJ.{(. it I .(?() ?-"~' I '-( I '8 C> /.J-u. When more than four dwelling units are proposed in any residential development in the UR and R zones, stand,alone l5YL- townhouses in the NB zone on property designated Commercial Outside of Center in the urban area, Of within any f,',1 mixed use development, then the proposal is required to provide recreation space. When recreation space is required, ,0· ( recreation space must be computed by multiplying the recreation space requirement per unit type by the proposed number of such dwelling units (K.C.C. 2IA.14.IBO). NOTE: King County has the discretion to accept a fee in lieu of all or a portion of the required recreation space per K.C.C. 2IA.14.185. Apartments and townhouses developed at a density greater than eight units per acre, and mixed use must provide recreational space as follows: 4/fu n ;fs / '.9. I ',~J. 4,;;1 tiC -.• j.. (AR'rSjac.. I 90 square feet X __ proposed number of studio and one bedroom units 130 square feet X __ proposed number of two bedroom units 170 square feet X .±L proposed number of three or more bedroom units Recreation space requirement + Townhouses and single family detached proposals developed at a density of eight units or less per acre must provide recreational space as follows: 390 square feet X __ proposed number of units Mobile home parks shall provide recreational space as follows: 260 square feet X __ proposed number of units V. Net Buildable Area (K.C.C. 21A.06.797): The l1et buildable area is the site area (see Section I.) less the following areas: ft areas within a project site which are required to be dedicated for public rights~of-way in excess of sixty feet (60') of width + q Vol B sensitive areas and their buffers, to the extent they are required by King County to remain undeveloped + __ E' ___ areas required for above ground stormwater conh·ol facilities including, but not limited to, retention/detention ponds, biofiItration swales and setbacks from such ponds and swales + 6 z 9 0 areas required by King County to be dedicated or reserved as on-site recreation areas (see Section IV.) + _____ regional utility corridors, and + _____ other areas, excluding setbacks, required by King County to remain undeveloped Calculation: April 22, 1997 Page 2 of4 Total reductions 19 b,5 24 site area in square feet (see Section I.) q 7'108 Total reductions = 980/ G2 net buildable area in square feet NOTE: convert site area in square . feet to acres by dividing by 43,560 =Z.2..G 3. net buildable area in aCfes VI. Minimum Urban Residential Density (K.c.c. 21A.I2.060): The minimum density requirement applies only to the R-4 through R-48 zones. Minimum density is detel1nined by multiplying the base density in dwelling units per acre (from K.C.C. 21 A.12.030 table) by the net buildable area of the site in acres and then 111ultiplying the resulting product by the minimum density percentage from the K.C,C. 21 A.12.030 table. The minimum density requirements may be phased or waived by King County in certain cases. See K.C.C. 2IA.12.060(A-B). 8 '/ '!.,31~XZ;2,b3 ~ 13 '3 Calculation: 'I .4·5'1/ . I R-8: 8 . 12)( 1./'i7 'I. Z,Zl:i3 -:: J, z.. R-,21 12. base density in dulac (see Section 11.) X .iF.5ii· net buildable area in acres (see Section V.) . SS201 X minimum density % set forth in K.C.C. 21 A.12.030 or as adjusted in Section VlI. R-8 ; /3:3 minimum dwelling units required> 5 -. -L r: '...J 7,2--20. 111m, U1117'S Il..t q R.-/2 . A proposal to locate a single residential unit on a lot is exempt from the minimum density requirements if the residential unit is located within 15 feet of one or more interior lot lines or the site is pre-planned to demonstrate that the proposed residential unit is compatible with future division of the site to meet the minimum density requirements. ' ,''-intcrio lot line Residence within 15 feet of interior line -15 fee! proposed residential unit Pre-planned site proposed residential f--!idllre lot line unit future residential unit VII. Minimum Density Adjustments For Modernte Slopes (K.c.c. 2IA.12.062): Residential developments in the R-4, R-6 and R-8 zones may modify the minimum density factor in K.C.C. 2IA.12.030 based on the weighted average slope of the net buildable area of the site (see Section V.). To determine the weighted average slope, a topographic survey is required to calculate the net buildable area(s) within each of the following slope increments and then multiplying t,he number. of square feet in each slope increment by the median slope value of each slope increment as follows; _____ sq. ft 0 -5% slope increment X 2.5% median slope value = + sq. ft 5 -10% slope increment X 7.5% median slope value = _____ + + sq. ft 10 -15% slope increment X 12.5% median slope value = + + sq. ft 15 -20% slope increment X 17.5% median slope value = + + sq. ft 20 -25% slope increment X 22.5% median slope value = + + sq. ft 25 -30% slope increment X 27.5% median slope value = + + sq. ft 30 -35% slope increment X 32.5% median slope value = + + sq. ft 35 -40% slope increment X 37.5% median slope value = + _____ Total square feet in net buildable area Calculation: _____ Total square feet adjusted for slope _____ total square feet adjusted for slope divided by total square feet in net buildable area _____ weighted average slope of net buildable area _____ % (Note: multiply by 100 to convert to percent -round up to nearest whole percent) Use the table below to determine the minimum density factor. This density is substituted for the minimum density factor in K.C.C. 21 A.12.030 table when calculating the minimum density as shown in Section VI. of this worksheet. Weighted Average Slope of Net Buildable Area(s) of Site: Minimum Density Factor: 0% -less than 5% 85% 5% -less than 15% 83%, less 1.5% for each I % of average slope in excess of 5% 15% -less than 40% 66%, less 2.0% for each I % of average slope in excess of 15% EXAMPLE CALCULATION FOR MINIMUM DENSITY ADJUSTMENTS FOR MODERA TE SLOPES: April 22. 1997 Page3 of4 · . -:--::-::-:-:-__ sq. ft 0 -5% slope increment X 2.5% median slope value = + 10,000 sq. ft 5 -10% slope increment X 7.5% median slope value = 750 + + .. 20,000 sq. ft 10 -15% slope increment X 12.5% median slope value = _-,2~,5,-,0,-,0,-_ + + _____ sq. ft 15 -20% slope increment X 17.5% median slope value = + + sq. ft 20 -25% slope increment X 22.5% median slope value = + + sq. ft 25 -30% slope increment X 27.5% median slope value = + + sq. ft 30 -35% slope increment X 32.5% median slope value = + + sq. ft 35 -40% slope increment X 37.5% median slope value = + _~3,-,0"-,0",0,,,0~_ Total square feet 3.250 Total square feet in net buildable area adjusted for slope 3,250 total square feet adjusted for slope divided by 30,000 total square feet in net buildable area .108333 weighted average slope of net buildable area. II % (Note: multiply by 100 to convert to percent -round up to nearest whole percent) Using the table above, a1111% weighted average slope of net buildable area falls within the 5% -less than 15% range which has a minimum density factor of 83%, less 1.5% for each 1 % of average slope in excess of 5%. Since 11% is 6% above 5%, multiply 6 times 1.5 which would equal 9%. Subtract 9% from 83% for an adjusted minimum density factor of74%. This replaces the minimum density factor in K.C.C. 21A.12.030 table. VIII, Maximulll Dwelling Units Allowed IK,c'c' 2IA.12.030 -.040): This section should be completed only if the proposal includes application of residential density incentives (K.C.C. 2IA.34) or transfer of density credit (K.C.C. 21A.36). Maximum density is calculated by adding the bonus or transfer units authorized to the base units calculated in Section Ill. of this worksheet. The maximum density permitted through residential density incentives is 150 percent of the base density (see Section II.) of the underlying zoning of the development or 200 percent of the base density for proposals with 100 percent affordable units. The maximum density permitted through transfer of density credit is 150 percent of the base density (see Section II.) of the underlying zoning of the development. ____ base density in dwelling units per acre (see Section II.) X 150% maximum density _-.,. __ maximum density in dwelling units per acre X site area in acres = ___ _ maximum dwelling units allowed utilizing density incentives (K.C.C. 21A.34) ____ base density in dwelling units per acre (see Section II.) X 200% = maximum density _-:-__ maximum density in dwelling units per acre X site area in acres =,.-;::-:::-c:::-: maximum dwelling units allowed utilizing density incentives with 100 percent affordable units(K.C.C. 2IA.34) ____ base density in dwelling units per acre (see Section 11.) X 150% = maximum density maximum density in dwelling units per acre X site area in acres-------------maximum dwelling units allowed utilizing density transfers (K.C.C. 2IA.36) . Calculation: ____ base allowable dwelling units calculated in Section Ill. + bonus units authorized by K.C.C. 21A.34 + transfer units authorized by K.C.C. 21A.36 ____ total dwelling units (carulOt exceed maximums calculated above) April 22, 1997 Page4of4 r~ ~----------------------~, ------------------------- ~THE ,WATERSHED COMPANY r /cg~~lr-tJ-~_qJ " / SCI ENe e 6 0 E S I G N "-...._. //~ // "''',,- January 2, 2012 / / Lee'Brannam, Construction Manager Habitat for Humanity of East King County 16315 NE 87th Street Ste. B-5 p.o, Box 817 Redmond, WA 98073-0817 / Re: La Fortuna Townhomes, Year One Monitoring Report The Watershed Company Reference Number: 100809 Dear Lee: On October 20, 2011, Biologist Sarah Sandstrom and I visited the La Fortuna townhome development on 127th Avenue SE in Renton. The purpose of our visit was to conduct the as-built inspection for the wetland and buffer mitigation site. This letter describes the results of our inspection. Project History The project was initiated as compensatory mitigation for 393 square feet of unavoidable wetland impacts and 8,784 square feet of buffer impacts resulting from road construction and site development. To mitigate for these impacts, The Jay Group, LLC developed a mitigation plan in January 2003. The approved plan calls for the creation 396 square feet of wetland creation, 17,853 of buffer enhancement, and 9,062 square feet of buffer addition. The project was successfully installed in April 2011, with the subsequent as-built report submitted in May 2011. The project is currently in year one of a five-year monitoring program, Goals and Performance Standards The following goals and performance standards are provided in the approved mitigation plan and will be used to gauge the success of the project over time. 1. Create 396 square feet of scrub-shrub wetland adjacent to the impacted litlj!iffd. . CitY of Ren 2. Enhance 17,853 square feet of buffer to compensate for t~\~WI§,rBlI\~ltre feet of existing buffer. JA\'l'/.. 4, 10\1 750 Sixth Street South I Kirkland. WA 98033 P 425.822.5242 I f 425.827.8136 I watershedco.com '. • ". ~ .7' .... ~('\ " \ . ' . ." ',l",.' \ '0. h\ \ ... • Year One Monitoring Report Lee Brannam, Habitat for Humanity January 2, 2012 Page 2 3. Expand approximately 9,062 square feet additional buffer adjacent to existing Class 2 wetland. Peiformance 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: Table 1: Native Vegetation Cover Standards Area Vegetation Year 1 Year 3 YearS Community Shrub/sapling NA >60%->85%- Wetland Emergent 60%-80%-90%- Buffer Shrub/sapling NA NA >60%- '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 canarygrass, Scot's 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. 3. Survival of planted and volunteer native vegetation shall be 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. "The time required for development of hydric soils indicators can vary. We assume that if confirmed wetland hydrology is present, hydric soils will develop over time even if hydric soil indicators are not present within five years. 5. There shall be no significant topographic or hydrologic difference between the created wetland areas and the adjacent existing wetland areas. Methods Year One Monitoring Report Lee Brannam, Habitat for Humanity January 2, 2012 Page 3 The site was evaluated for survival, native and invasive cover, and general site conditions. Survival of the installed plants was assessed by conducting a complete plant census. Since the site was proactively planted with higher quantities of native plants than required under the approved mitigation plan, the total number of live plants was divided by the number specified on the plan to arrive at a percent survival. Native and invasive cover was assessed using the line-intercept method along four permanent monitoring transects that were established during the as-built inspections. Of the monitoring transects located in the wetland buffer, two measure 100 feet in length, and one measures 60 feet in length. Since the transects are of varying length, a' weighted average of the buffer transects was used to arrive at a site-wide average for the buffer areas. Due to the limited area available, the monitoring transect located in the wetland creation area measures 30 feet in length. The success of the wetland creation area is measured against separate performance standards from the buffer areas. Therefore, the data collected along the 30-foot transect is presented independently from the other three. General site conditions were observed and recorded site-wide. Photographs were taken from both ends of each monitoring transect and at three permanently established photopoints to provide visual documentation of changes in site conditions over time. Results The site is currently in very good condition and has seen substantial improvement since the project was installed. Survival, native cover, and invasive cover are all at appropriate levels for year one. The bare soil areas present during the as-built inspection have filled in with native and naturalized grasses. The hydroseeding along the utility easement has been successful, resulting in a dense, native grass cover. Site-wide, survival remains more than 100 percent, as compared to the approved plan, due mostly to installation of more plants t\tan specified. However, Area A (see maintenance figure) east and southeast of the wetland area has experience higher than normal mortality. The tree species, in particular western red cedar, Douglas-fir, and bigleaf maple, have experienced the greatest mortality. Replacement plants in targeted areas will benefit the site long term and will help achieve future native cover standards. The shrub species, in general, are thriving throughout the site. Snowberry, twinberry, and Nootka rose are all flourishing. In the wetland creation area, nearly twice the number of slough sedge plantings was installed then what was called for on the plan. All of the installed slough sedge is alive and growing. Native woody cover in the buffer areas averages approximately 13 percent. Native woody cover in the wetland creation area is approximately ten percent. These measurements represent a typical amount of cover for year one. Plants typically do not Year One Monitoring Report Lee Brannam, Habitat for Humanity January 2, 2012 Page 4 experience substantial growth until three years after installation. The native emergent cover in the wetland creation area is approximately five percent. The performance standards caIl for 60 percent emergent cover in the wetland creation area at the end of year one. In our experience, achieving 60 percent cover in one growing season was an overly-ambitious standard, even with the voluntary doubling of the number of emergent plantings that occurred on-site. Invasive species cover is very low site-wide. SmaIl, isolated patches of reed canarygrass, along with some Himalayan blackberry sprouts are present in the wetland buffer areas. Morning glory bindweed is also climbing on some of the plantings in Area A (see maintenance figure). Invasive species do not currently pose a substantial threat to the overaIl success of the mitigation area. However, reed canary grass was fairly dense in some areas prior to instaIlation, and morning glory bindweed can be very aggressive. Per standard mitigation protocol, invasive weeds and their roots should be removed as part of the regular site maintenance. Table 2: Percent Survival by Individual Species Species Name Common Name Plan Quantity Uve Count Thuja plicata western red cedar 21 10 , Pseudotsugo menziesii Douglas-fir 29 17 Acer macrophyl/um big leaf maple 19 5 I Picea sitchensis Sitka spruce 1 2 . Fraxinus lati/olia Oregon ash 1 3 i Ace circinatum vine maple 24 221 Corylus com uta beaked hazelnut 20 17 . Holadiscus discolor oceanspray 10 12 : Rosa nutkana Nootka rose 21 29 ! Symphoricorpos albus snowberry 21 33 Comus sericea red-osier dogwood 18 22 : Lonicera involucrata black twinberry 14 23 Carex obnupta slough sedge 17 32 Total 216 227 Year One Monitoring Report Lee Brannam, Habitat for Humanity January 2, 2012 PageS Table 3: Native Woody and Invasive Cover by Individual Transect I Transect (length) location Native Cover Invasive Cover T-1 (100 feet) Buffer 12% 0% I T-1 (100 feet) Buffer 12% 2% I I T-3 (30 feet) Wetland Creation Area 10% 0% I T-4 (60 feet) Buffer 17% 1% I I Average' Buffer 13% 1% 'Wetland creation area IS measured separately and not Included In site-wide average. Recommendations 1. Remove all invasive species in the planting area. Weeds of particular concern include Himalayan blackberry, morning glory bindweed, and reed canarygrass. When removing weeds, make sure to grub out the roots. See attached maintenance figure for areas of focus. 2. Install replacement plants in the following quantities: a. Area A: i. 2 Douglas-fir (1 gallon) ii. 2 western red cedar (1 gallon) iii. 4 black cottonwood (1 gallon) iv. S snowberry (1 gallon) v. S Nootka rose (1 gallon) vi. S twinberry (1 gallon) b. Area B: i. S Nootka rose (1 gallon) ii. S snowberry (1 gallon) See attached maintenance figure for planting areas. When installing plants, dig the planting pit to at least twice the diameter of the rootball. Rough up the rootball prior to planting. Backfill the planting pit with native topsoil. After Year One Monitoring Report Lee Brannam, Habitat for Humanity January 2, 2012 Page 6 installation, saturate the planting pit to remove all air pockets. Install plants during the dormant season (prior to March 1"). Following plant installation, apply coarse wood chip mulch so that a four-inch thick mulch ring is present around each plant to a radius of 12 inches. Please call if you have any questions or if we can provide you with any additional information. Sincerely, Ryan Kahlo, WPIT Ecologist Enclosures 7S0 Sixth St .... t South I Kirkland . WA 98033 ,"25 .822 .52"1 I r 425 .827.8136 I watershedco .com Transect 1, facing west Transect 1, facing east r' .. · _ .' .... " ........ -' .. ' ",.. . ~ . or .,., < Transect 2, facing south Transect 2, facing north Transect 3 (wetland creation area), facing southwest Transect 3 (wetland creation area), facing northeast Transect 4, facing southeast Transect 4, facing northwest Photopoint 1, facing northwest Photopoint 2, facing northeast. Wetland creation area in cente.r of photo. 7S0 Sixth 5 .... South 1 KIrtdond . WA 980)3 ,425 .8ll.S141 [425.827.8136 1 _enhodco.com -_._--Il1l g) fOg) lUI Ire CASCADE VISTA NO.3 •. CHAINlD« I9CE \ -.. -AI ___ .. _ ............ *"""~twstt-~rtw. __ ... -...-._......,. -t -::.:a~~.:.:trC'"r:~_-.. ":'; ......... "..· n ............ ,....--... ,..,sndo1ar .. ~_ .... ... .--................ If~~... AI'CIorMCf . .......... ........-__ ............ '" Z. 00 IA o 15 30 60 1"= 30' s..-__ ~~;f ............. " ... ~ _1~ArdoO_t,.. ...... _ ............ ..-__ <Ultna_.· .................. T.-~ ..... ·&Mt:" __ ~,... ....... " ....... __ ~ n..~ __ .. .. l"-·~· .......... ,...-"_·I __ f __ --lbS-=rqrf~:lb:lII_1S1rGd1r P= aWlC!!m *-"-Fm;F ~THE WATERSHED COMPANY May 6, 2011 Lee Brannam, Construction Manager Habitat for Humanity of East King County 16315 NE 87 th Street Ste. B-5 P.O. Box 817 Redmond, WA 98073-0817 Re: La Fortuna Townhomes, As-built Inspection The Watershed Company Reference Number: 100809 Dear Lee: On April 26, 2011, I visited the La Fortuna townhome development on 127th Avenue SE in Renton. The purpose of my visit was to conduct the as-built inspection for the wetland and buffer mitigation site. This letter describes the results of my inspection. Project History The project was initiated as compensatory mitigation for 393 square feet of unavoidable wetland impacts and 8,784 square feet of buffer impacts resulting from road construction and site development. To mitigate for these impacts, The Jay Group, LLC developed the mitigation plan in January 2003. The approved plan calls for the creation ~96 square feet of wetland creation, 17,853 of buffer enhancement, and 9,062 square feet of buffer addition. Goals and Performance Standards The following goals and performance standards are provided in the approved . mitigation plan and will be used to gauge the success of the project over time. 1. Create 396 square feet of scrub-shrub wetland adjacent to the impacted wetland. 2. Enhance 17,853 square feet of buffer to compensate for the loss of 8,784 square feet of existing buffer. 3. Expand approximately 9,062 square feet additional buffer adjacent to existing Class 2 wetland. 750 Sixth Screet South 1 Kirkland. WA 98033 P -425.822.5242 I f -425.821.8136 I watershedco.com Performance Standards As-built Report Lee Brannam, Habitat for Humanity May 6, 2011 Page 2 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: Table 1: Native Vegetation Cover Standards Area Vegetation Year 1 Year 3 YearS Community Shrub/sapling NA >60%* >85%* Wetland Emergent 60%* 80%* 90%* Buffer Shrub/sapling NA NA >60% 3. Survival of planted and volunteer native vegetation shall be 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. *The time required for development of hydric soils indicators can vary. We assume that if confirmed wetland hydrology is present, hydric soils will develop over time even if hydric soil indicators are not present within five years. 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 ihvasives, e.g, Himalayan blackberry, Japanese knotweed, evergreen blackberry, reed canarygrass, Scot's 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. Results As-built Report Lee Brannam, Habitat for Humanity May 6, 2011 Page 3 The site was generally installed according to the approved plan. Some discrepancies were noted related to quantities of specific species (see Table 2). Fewer Douglas-fir trees were installed compared to the quantity specified on the plan. However, more western red cedar trees were installed compared to the quantity specified on the plan. Overall, the installed tree totals were slightly less than the specified quantity, but the shrub totals greatly exceeded those provided on the approved plan. Snowberry, Nootka rose, red- osier dogwood, and oceans pray were all planted in substantially greater quantities than specified on the plan. In total, the site was planted at a density of approximately 115 percent compared to the specified quantities. The overplanting was a proactive and beneficial step by the applicant, since the specified quantities would never have achieved the native cover performance standards. Table 2: Installed Plant Quantities by Species Species Name Common Name Quantity Quantity on I Installed Plan Thuja plicata western red cedar 29 21 : Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir 19 291 Acer macrophyllum bigleaf maple 13 19 1 Piceo sitchensis Sitka spruce 2 11 Fraxinus lati/olia Oregon ash 1 1 1 Ace circinatum vine maple 29 241 Corylus com uta beaked hazelnut 17 20 1 Holodiscus discolor oceanspray 19 10 i Rosa nutkana Nootka rose 28 21 I Symphoricarpos albus snowberry 33 211 Comus sericea red-osier dogwood 27 18 1 Lonicera involucrata black twinberry 17 141 Carex obnupta slough sedge 17 17 I Total 251 216 i The site was generally cleared of non-native and invasive vegetation. No measurable ·quantities of site-specific species of concern, including reed canarygrass, bamboo, and Himalayan blackberry were observed in the planting area during my inspection. The area within the utility easement, which is not a part of the planting area, was inadvertently cleared during construction. Prior to clearing, this area was mostly dominated by common naturalized grasses, with some reed canarygrass present. To As-built Report Lee Brannam, Habitat for Humanity May 6, 2011 Page 4 rectify the situation, the area was seeded with a native grass mix composed of blue wildrye, red fescue, tufted hairgrass, and redtop. The wetland creation area was cleared and excavated to an appropriate size, depth, and gradient. Evidence of soil saturation and inundation is present. A total of four vegetation monitoring transects were installed. Two 100-foot transects and one 60-foot transect were installed in various portions of the buffer enhancement area, and one 30-foot transect was "installed in the wetland creation area. The transect locations were chosen in areas representative of the overall site characteristics. The ends of each transect are marked with a metal fence post that is wrapped in pink-and black- striped flagging. Three permanent photopoints were established to provide visual documentation of changes in site conditions over time. Photopoints are marked with metal fence posts wrapped in yellow-and black-striped flagging. We recommend that the installation be considered complete and commencement with the five-year monitoring program. The first annual monitoring inspection should occur late summer or early fall 2011, after one full growing season. Please call if you have any questions or if we can provide you with any additional information. Sincerely, Ryan Kahlo, WPIT Ecologist Enclosures As-built Report Lee Brannam, Habitat for Humanity May 6, 2011 PageS Wetland creation area . Photograph taken 3/2/2011 , prior to completion of planting phase. Photopoint 1, facing northwest Photopoint 2, facing northeast. Wetland creation area in center of photo. 750 Sixth Street South IOrkland . WA, 98011 ,425 .822.5241 I ,<425 .827 .8136 I wat ..-.hedco.com · . La Fortuna Townhouses KING COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: K.C. D.D.E.S. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a Proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable signifi- cant adverse' impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your Proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the Proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your Proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your Proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your Proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your Proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your Proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this check- list may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. ©2003 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers, Inc. SEPA Checklist Page I ofl La Fortuna Townhouses King County, Washington A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: La Fortuna Townhouses 2. Name of applicant: K-Best Construction 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: K-Best Construction Karl Best 4801 Storm Lake Road Snohomish W A 98290 425.754.1713 4. Date checklist prepared: February 12, 2003 5. Agency requesting checklist: King County, Washington 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction will start upon the receipt of all required building and construction permits. This is estimated to occur in the summer of 2003. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this Proposal? If yes, explain. Yes. Once the site improvements are constructed, the applicant will apply for building permits for the construction of the buildings. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this Proposal. Wetland Reports -Gary Schulz. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your Proposal? If yes, explain. None. ©2003 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers, Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 2 of2 La Fortuna Townhouses King County, Washington 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your Proposal, if known. SEPA Determination King County 11. Give brief, complete description of your Proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your Proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.). The application is for providing the site improvements for 41 attached residential units on a 4.51acre site. The site development provides for protection of the designated wetlands. Access to the site would be from 127'h Avenue SE. 12. Location of the Proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a Proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal de- scription, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The property consists of one legal Parcel, 0739000020. The property address is 12632, S.E. Petrovitsky Road, in King County, Washington. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one). Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous other. The area where development will occur on-site is sloped from east to west at approximately 4-6 %. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The steepest slope is approximately 30 % and occurs near the northeast corner of Parcel No. 0739000015. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, ©2003 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers, Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 3 of3 La Fortuna Townhouses King County, Washington muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The soils on the site are mapped in the Soil Survey of King County, Washington, prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and has classified the soils on Site as Arents Alderwood (AmC), Alderwood Gravelly Loam (AgC), and Seattle Muck (Sk). d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. None to our knowledge. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. The purpose of the site grading will be to provide building pads for the attached residential units. The grading is intended to be balanced on-site, however there is a possibility of importing select fill material. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. There could be a short-term increase in the potential for on-site erosion where soils are exposed during site preparation and construction; however, the project will comply with all applicable erosion control measures, short term and long term. g. About what percent of the site' will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? ©2003 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers, Inc. SEPA Checklist Page4of4 La Fortuna Townhouses King County, Washington Approximately 42% of the site will be covered by impervious surfaces. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any. A temporary erosion control plan will be implemented at the appropriate time. Erosion control measures may include the following: hay bales, siltation fences, temporary siltation ponds, controlled surface grading and other measures which may be used in accordance with requirements of King County. 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the Proposal (i.e., dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Short-term emissions will be those associated with construction and site development activities. These will include dust and emissions from construction equipment. Long-term impacts will result from increased vehicle traffic, and will include mainly carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons and photochemical oxidants. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your Proposal? If so, generally describe. Off-site sources of emissions or odors are those that are typical of residential neighborhoods. These will include automobile emissions from traffic on adjacent roadways and fireplace emissions from nearby homes. ©2003 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers, Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 5 of5 La Fortuna Townhouses King County, Washington c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any. The Washington Clean Air Act requires the use of all known, available, and reasonable means of controlling air pollution, including dust. Construction impacts will not be significant and could be controlled by measures such as washing truck wheels before exiting the site and maintaining gravel construction entrances. In addition, dirt-driving surfaces will be watered during extended dry periods to control dust. 3. WATER a. Surface. 1. Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wet- lands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. On-site, there is a King County storm water detention pond and a Class 2 wetland. There is one unregulated Class 3 wetlands which will be filled. Offsite to the west of the Class 2 wetland, there is a creek tributary to the Big So os Creek. ii. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. The area of the proposed development will be confined to the eastern, upland, portion of the property. However, the 192003 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers, Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 60f6 La Fortuna Townhouses King County, Washington improvements are likely to occur within 200 feet of the Class 2 wetland. Development activities will be restricted by required setbacks and buffers. HI. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None. IV. Will the Proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if kllown. No, there will be no surface water withdrawals or diversions. ' v, Does the Proposal lie within a 100- year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. v!. Does the Proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No, a public sanitary sewer system will be installed to serve the ' residential units. There will be no discharge of waste materials to surface waters. b, Ground. 1. Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, ©2Q03 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers, Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 7 of7 La Fortuna Townhouses King County, Washington purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No groundwater will be withdrawn. Public water mains will be installed to serve the development. No water will be discharged to the groundwater. 11. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; in- dustrial, containing the following chemicals .... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of an- imals or humans the system( s) are expected to serve. No waste material is proposed to be discharged into the ground. The site will be served by public sanitary sewers and a public water system. c. Water Runoff (including storm water). 1. Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Storm water runoff will result from the proposed road and parking surfaces and rooftops. On-site storm water will be collected and routed to two detention facilities designed in accordance with the 1998 King ©2003 D, R. STRONG Consulting Engineers. Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 8 of8 La Fortuna Townhouses King County, Washington County Surface Water Design Manual. 11. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. The proposed storm water system will be designed to minimize or eliminate entry of waste materials or pollutants to ground water resources and/or surface waters. Oils, grease, and other pollutants from the addition of paved areas could potentially enter the groundwater or downstream surface water runoff. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any. A King County approved storm drainage system will be designed and implemented in order to mitigate any adverse impacts from storm water runoff. Temporary and permanent drainage facilities will be used to control quality and quantity of surface runoff during construction and after development. 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: --L deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other: (birch, vine maple, black cottonwood, dog- wood, l!PI!!£) --L evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other: (hemlock) --L shrubs ©2003 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers. Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 9 of9 La Fortuna Townhouses King County, Washington 2L grass (orchard grass) pasture crop or grain 2L wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, other: water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other: 2L other types of vegetation (Deer fern, blackberry, holly, scotch broom) b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? The eastern half of the site is vegetated with typical residential vegetation including, lawns, ornamental vegetation and some orchard trees. Several second growth Douglas Firs are located within the sensitive area buffers. Vegetation within the development area will be removed at the time of development. Landscaping will be installed in accordance with the provisions of King County Code, Chapter 21A. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None Known. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any. The proposed landscaping will meet King County Title 21A landscape requirements. Species chosen will enhance the vegetation on the site and provide a buffer to adjacent residential areas. See attached Landscape Plan. 5. ANIMALS ~2003 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers, Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 10 of 10 La Fortuna Townhouses King County, Washington a. Circle any birds and animals, which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. birds: mammals: fish: eagle, Sparrow, dee lk beaver, ~~ID rodents, raccoo other: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No threatened or endangered species are known to be on or near the site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Western King County as well as the rest of Western Washington, is in the migration path of a wide variety of non- tropical songbirds, and waterfowl, including many species of geese. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any. Preservation of wildlife habitat will be insured by preservation of the designated wetland on-site. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity and/or natural gas will serve as the primary energy source for residential heating and cooking within the @2003 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers. Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 11 of II La Fortuna Townhouses King County, Washington development. Any wood stoves incorporated into the new residential units will comply with all local and State regulations. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this Proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any. The required measures of the Washington State Energy Code and the Uniform Building Code will be incorporated in the construction of the residential units. Energy conservation fixtures and materials are encouraged in all new construction. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this Proposal? If so, describe. There are no known on-site environmental health hazards known to exist today and none will be generated as a direct result of this proposal. 1. Describe special emergency services that might be required. No special emergency services will be required. <02003 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers, Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 12 of 12 La Fortuna Townhollses King County, Washington 11. Proposed measures to reduce or b. Noise control environmental health hazards, if any. Special measures are not anticipated. 1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? The primary source of off-site noise in the area originates from vehicular traffic present on adjacent streets. H. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Short-term impacts will result from the use of construction equipment during site development and residential construction. Construction will occur during the daylight hours, and in compliance with all noise ordinances. Construction noise is generated by heavy equipment, hand tools and the transporting of construction materials and equipment. Long-term impacts will be those associated with the increased use of the property by homeowners. HI. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any. ©2003 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers, Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 13 of 13 La Fortuna Townhouses King County, Washington Construction will be performed during normal daylight hours. Construction equipment will be equipped with noise mufflers. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The eastern half of the site is currently residential. The western half of the site is undeveloped wetland and stream. The current use of adjacent properties is Single Family Residential. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Not to our knowledge. c. Describe any structures on the site. There are no homes on the site. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Not Applicable e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The current zoning classification is Residential, R-8 and R12. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Multifamily. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not Applicable. ©2003 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers, Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 140f14 La Fortuna Townhouses King County, Washington h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. As mentioned earlier in the Checklist there are Class 2 and 3 wetlands on site. I. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately 95 individuals will reside in the completed residential development. (41 units x 2.3 persons per household) J. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any. Not Applicable. l. Proposed measures to ensure the Proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any. The proposed development is compatible with the prescribed land use codes and designations for this site. The development is consistent with the density requirements and land use of this property. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. The completed project will provide 41 attached residential homes. Homes will be priced with a market orientation to the middle-income level homebuyer. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. ©2003 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers. Inc. SEPA Checklist Page IS of IS La Fortuna Townhouses King County, Washington • None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any. None. 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure( s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The maximum building height is 60 feet (per K.C. Standards). The exterior building materials are anticipated to be horizontal and/or shingle type siding. b. What view in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Views in the vicinity are not likely to be enhanced, extended or obstructed by development of this project. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any? The location of the buildings adheres to or exceeds the minimum setback requirements of the zoning district. Buildings will be stepped down the slope, where necessary. In addition, the building facades will be modulated and have an attractive exterior finish and color. The common open space and landscaping will be installed at the completion of building and paving construction. A Homeowners Association will maintain the landscaping and common elements. II. LIGHT AND GLARE ©2003 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers, Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 16ofl6 La Fortuna Townhouses King County, Washington a. What type of light or glare will the Proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Light and glare will be produced from building lighting. Light will also be produced from vehicles using the Site. The light and glare will occur primarily in the evening and before dawn. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Light and glare from the project will not cause hazards or interfere with views. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your Proposal? The primary off-site source of light and glare will be from vehicles traveling along the area roadways. Also, the adjacent residential uses and streetlights may create light and glare. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any. The private drive is internally oriented and will have a minimal impact on the surrounding areas. Street lighting, when deemed necessary, will be installed in a manner that directs the light downward. The proposed perimeter landscaping will create a partial visual buffer between the proposed units and the surrounding neighborhood areas. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Renton Park is located approximately one-quarter mile east of the Project. Cascade Park is located approximately one-half mile north of the Project. <02003 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers. Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 17 of 17 La Fortuna Townhouses King County, Washington b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any. The project will provide approximately 10,452 of on-site passive and active recreation area. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. None known. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, .if any. There are no known impacts. If an archeological site is found during the course of construction, the State Historic Preservation Officer will be notified. 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serVing the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, ifany. Access to the proposed project will be from 127'h Avenue SE. On-site access will be a private driveway. ©2003 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers, Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 18 of 18 La Fortuna Townhouses King County, Washington b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Public Transit is currently available on S.E. Petrovitsky Road. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The completed project will have garage and driveway parking spaces. In addition, there will be several unassigned spaces for general use. No parking spaces will be eliminated by this project. d. Will the Proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). The development road will be privately owned and maintained. It will provide vehicular access to all residential units. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Assuming 8 vehicular trips per unit per day, a total of 328 additional vehicle trips will be generated. Peak hours will generally be 7 AM -9 AM and 4 PM -6 PM. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. None at this time. ©2003 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers. Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 19 of 19 La Fortuna Townhouses King County, Washington 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Yes, the proposal will result in an increase for those services typical of a residential development of this size and nature. The need for public services such as fire and police protection will be typical for a residential development of the size. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, ifany. The proponent will mitigate the direct impacts of the proposal through the County's traffic and school mitigation programs, if required. 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: Electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and ,the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electricity ............ Puget Sound Energy Natural Gas .......... Puget Sound Energy Water & Sewer Soos Creek Sewer and Water District Telephone ..........•. Qwest ©2003 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers. Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 20 of20 La Fortuna Townhouses King County, Washington c. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: :::;:::;-""Luay R. Joudeh, P.E. Date Submitted: Z / I'y"~ ©2003 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers. Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 21 of21 La Fortuna Townhouses King County, Washington ..... "., '1 rILI-1"5L (.u) D6lf16 rill 'j 'HONS 05LI XI NOJ.L:Jnl1J.SN()~ .J.S38-)! l:l),l~~=~-:~::·: ·';.::'..::-C· :=:"oc·:g~!:b 'f~I~ '\ -~ ~:t(->-~-;·~":-·:~ :~::;:::.~..::.:;-=..:::;y-~ !, N019NIHsrM ').J/'JnO:J 9NI>I orOi:J .<>lS1I/IOIfDd 15 ;:.9;:1 N'I1d 101liNO:;J 1rlNOZIlfOH SgS.t10HNJIO.L VNflJ)iO.1 V'7 6 .. 0 r:J n3HS 19Z-IO-ON DN .. W.,a .0,".1 3"W:lS ,0-91-1 3Lva ! ! i , .. .-.;. Affidavit of Publication 1911305/2 State of Washington, Counties of King and Snohomish, Daniel S. O'Neal being duly sworn, says that he/she is the Authorized Agent of Seattle Times Company, publisher of The Seattle Times and representing the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, separate newspapers published daily in King and Snohomish Counties, State of Washington: that they are newspapers of general circulation in said Counties and State; that they have been approved as legal newspapers by orders of the Superior Court of King and Snohomish Counties; that the annexed, being a classified advertisement, was published in: Newspaper The Seattle Times 02/24/03 And not in a supplement thereof, and is a true copy of the notice as it was printed and/or . distributed in the regular and entire issue of said paper or papers during all of said period, and that said newspaper or newspapers were regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 28 m day of February, 2003 STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING} AFFIDA VIT OF P~ICA TION PUBLIC NOTICE 0"'" ~ Allison Fryer, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal AdvertiSing Representative of the ~ King County Journal a daily newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a daily newspaper in King County, Washington. The Eastside Journal has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the Eastside Journal (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a NeriCE (jE BU/U2/1Y(i j)E.tl'1lT' ,4PPL.lfAoON was published on MeN, d / ~ L/ / () .3" / r I The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $ 107, 50 at the rate of ::29.00 per inch for the first publication and N4 per inch for each subsequent insertion. .... ........... ".: _-_..... i'. \'1,\\ ~ :Lu, 7) ~ --c /'.. J"'CL-II / _ (}YJ. (' ;-~"",:_ •••••• " .... I&r 't Alii;)n Fryer t7 ~ ~ ~~::~/!,\ON E'~"i;:.:--i-'" Legal Advertising Representative, Kin County Journ" Q.,: f 00' i'<R Y _~": ~ Subscribed and swor. n jome this day .of ~ 20.-05'; I i ft, ru[~ f! \. l,CltJ / ·.~~\C .,::<S! I -v'---k:/ "--G lJ~ / Ql ". 1-1 ;\)~.. {j:.;' Michelle A. Jackson I l",~i-"F"'~S"'~: Notary Pubhc for the State of Was~in t , Residing in Sam;,\~~~~1igton P.O. No. ___________ _ Cost of publishing this notice includes an affidavit surcharge. 'Applicant: La Fortuna LLC 'Attn: Karl Best Location: 12832 BE Petrori.ky Rd Proposal: Construct 41 future town homes w/road, drainage, grading &: other utilities. Project Planner: . Angelica Velasquez Phone (206) 296-7136 : . COMMENT pROCEIll!RF.S' DDES will issue an environmental deter- inination ·on this application follow- ing a 21-day comment period end- ing on March 31, 2003. Written comments and additional infor- mation can be obtainecfby contact- ing DDES at the address above or by phoning 206·296·6600. Published in the King County Journal February ~24, 2003. #842739 h. '3 ~ -IJ.. ~ ;c:{. ~ • '" /, , "" SEPAISPR DOCUMENT TRANSMiTTAL FORM File Name' ~O £2]) (Loo I -----r:)\ h> c\Y.)'S'N S; File ~~O! Date ~d, ,()~ Staff Name \\~ b L Document N gO Q no Use GRP codes on the master mailing list to The agencies listed below receive the docu-~ indicate additional organizations/agencies below ments checked unless otherwise indicated' "''''Jc'-which are to receive the documents checked' BIG 9 c-...._ Metro Env Planning Ecology FishIWildlife (Mill Cr) FishIWildlife (Oly) SUMMARY King Co Agen (KC) Council (13) Health (Env Health) Historic Preservation Housing/Econ Dev Parks Planning/Comm Dev Public Safety PW/Roads PW/Solid Waste PW/SWM libraries (LI) King Co System Seattle Public (Govt) Newspapers (NP) Daily Jour of Comm Issaquah Press Journal-American Morning News Trib Northshore Citizen Seattle P-I Seattle Times Snoqualmie Val Rep Valley Daily News Woodinville Weekly Eastside Week Beachcomber -..-..§um '"", X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X x x x TO EeL Plan pili' I.U. IN '':l( X X ..J.... X --.....x X I' X X' ,x i' X X x ...... I ..... '1- State Agencies (ST) r-:-:--,...--,...--,...--,...--, ~=;~~al Res,ources I ~ I I I I I Transportation , L, -,X"'-.L. _-L. _--,-._--,,_--'. Tribes (TR) Muckleshoot Puyallup Snoqualmie Tulalip X X X X X . 'X x',,-\ x X X X x " X X , X x \X X ~ x, x '{ ). NOD 'I. f-Pla Comm Grps (CG) Fire Districts (FD) Federal Agen (FE) /\ \ King Co Agen (KC) f--l-..:..'-l/iI: too •• 'I"'r--+--t---l ~'t' Libraries (LI) Newspapers (NP) Planning (PL) Regional (RE) School Dlst (SD) Sewer Dist (SE) State (ST) Utilities (UT) Water Dlst(WD) DDES Staff ~~~ ~ No, of SOO-foot labels (attached)0) ~C03,Q~\Jl 'cj{' No, of PORs (attached): r:,! { B. ! ~~. ,,ll ~ n \ 3 -0 !o-'0:' ~~~l.2LMl~_~(--,-L-:...i ,~' =f-JP-~J..=!...V----- Date of Mailing Staff Member FORMS/F96/SPRS/SEPA.TRANSMITIAL,OOC 4/9/99 ele (E Renton) FD25 (Spring Glen) FD40 Fire Protection Dist #25 Fire Protection Dist #40 P.O. Box 2~5 ., 10828 SE 176th St Renton W A 98056-0925 Renton W A 98055 MS: KSC-TR-043I KC27 Documents Dept. Librarian LI24 Gary Kriedt King County Library System KC Metro Envirn. Planning 960 Newport Way NW Issaquah, W A 98027 ATTN: Edward White PLI8 I'Ll 9 Kent Engineering Dept Kent Planning Dept 220 -4th Av S 220 -4th Av S Kent W A 98032 Kent WA 98032 City of Renton pL33 Clinton G. Marsh, Director Fac. & Const. Dept SD9 Economic Development Dept. Kent School District # 415 1055 S. Grady Way 12033 SE 256th St. Bldg B Renton W A 98055 Kent WA 98031-6643 R. Stracke, Facilities & PIng SDI3 Administrator SE5 Renton School Dist # 403 Kent Sewer Utility 1220 N 4th St 220 -Ath Av S Renton W A 98055 Kent W A 98032 Environmental Review Section STI7 Habitat Biologist, Rod Malcom TRI W A State Dept of Ecology Muckleshoot Indian Tribe l' 0 Box 47703 39015 -172nd Av SE Olympia W A 98504-7703 Auburn W A 98002 Russ Ladley, Fisheries Biologist TR2· TR3 Puyallup Tribe Snoqualmie Tribe 6824 Pioneer Wy E PO Box 280 Puyallup W A 98371 Carnation WA 98014-0280 Fisheries Habitat/Environment TR5 Richard Young TR4 Suquamish Indian Tribe Tulalip Tribe PO Box 498 7615 Totem Beach Rd Suquamish W A 98392 Marysville W A 98271 WDI2 Public Works Dtr WD23 Cedar River Water/Sewer Dist Kent Water Dis! 18300 SE Lk Youngs Rd 220 -4th Av S Renton W A 8058-9799 Kent W A 98032 City of Renton, Public Works Dept. WD32 WD41 Development Services Div. Soos Creek Water/Sewer Dist q (fJ0\ 1055 South Grady Way PO Box 58039 Ib" Renton W A 98055 R,"'"" WA 9805&-,"~~ ~/3TJ Water Dist #90 15606 SE l,:lSth sf Rento~' W A 98059-8522 Water Dist #111 27224 -144th Av SE Kent WA 98042-9058 WA State Dept. of Wildlife Habitat Mgmt. Division P.O. Box 43155 Olympia, WA 98504-3155 WD55 WD58 Coal Creek Utility District 6801 132nd Place SE Newcastle, W A 98059 WA State Dept. of Wildlife 16018 Mill Creek Blvd. Mill Creek, W A 98012 WD57 3 864800050/B03DCOO I 3864800 1301B03DCOO I 38648000701B03DCOOI .' 3864800100/B03DCOOI 3864800090iB03DCOO I 3864800080iB03DCOOI 3864800 I 2011303 DCOO I 3864800060/B03DCOO I 3864800110iB03DCOOI 3864800 140iB03DCOO I 3864800040iB03DCOOI 3864800030iB03DCOO I 3864800020iB03DCOO I 3864807777iB03DCOOI 38648000 I OiB03DCOO I 1432700930/B03DCOO I 1432701170/B03DCOOI 7229000090/B03DCOO I ALLEN WILLIAM A JR ASH WILLIAM H BAGBY MAXWELL E 17114 I 27TH AV SE 12549 SE I 72ND ST 17236 128TH SE RENTON W A 98058 RENTON W A 98055 RENTON W A 98055 7229000005/BOmCOO I 1432701030iB03DCOOI 1432701310/B03DCOOI BECK DONALD J BERRYSMITH CONNIE L BLAIR LINDA L 15928 55TH PL W 17035 128TH AV SE 17112 125TH AV SE EDMONDS W A 98026 RENTON W A 98058 RENTON WA 98058 14327009101B03DCOOI 07390000301B03DCOO I 143270 13201B03DCOO I BOX RICHARD D+L YNETTE J BRAUN RUFO F JR+ZENAIDA S+ BRENNAN MR+MRS 12723 SE 171STPL ANTOLlN,FRANCISCO J+JOSEFINA A 17120 125TH AV SE RENTON W A 98058 17048 SE 257TH PL RENTON W A 98055 KENT WA 98042 0739000025/B03DCOO I 07390000201B03DCOOI 143270 I0201B03DCOO 1 BRODKA HELMUT BRODKA HELMUT+LOURDES L BROWN VERNON O+LAURIE A 12602 SE PETROVITSKY RD 12602 SE PETROVITSKY RD 17043 I 28TH AV SE RENTON W A 98058 RENTON W A 98058 RENTON W A 98058 1432700820fBOmCOOI 1432700920IB03DCOO I 0739000 I 00/B03DCOO I BUCHANAN JOHN A BUCHANAN JOHN A BUCK HELENR 12715 SE 171STPL 12715 SE 171STPL 12615 SE PETROVITSKY RD RENTON W A 98058 RENTON W A 98058 RENTON W A 98058 72290000 I 01B03DCOO I BURGESS JORDAN P+FARFAN HEIDI 17211 I 29TH A V SE' RENTON W A 98058 PL33/B03DCOOI CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY RENTON WA 98055 72290000801B03DCOO I CLAYTON JAMES M III 17252 128TH AV SE RENTON W A 98058 07390000371B03DCOO I DANG DATT+MARY VU 11330 SE 269TH ST KENT WA 98031 07390000 I 01B03DCOO I DIVINE PEACE EVANG LUTH CH 17251 128TH AV SE RENTON W A 98055 07390000421B03DCOO I DO HIENETAL 2508 17TH ST SE AUBURN WA 98002 1432701150/B03DCOOI DRONEN JERRY A 12705 SE I72ND ST RENTON W A 98055 14330000 I 0/B03DCOO I ELLIS JONATHAN M 12604 SE I72ND ST RENTON W A 98058 I 4330000601B03DCOO I FRAZIER CLARENCE TIMOTHY 12520 SE 172ND ST RENTON W A 98058 72290000251B03DCOOI GRANT PHYLLIS J 17237 129TH AV SE RENTON W A 98058 143270 I 0401B03DCOOI CARTER KENNETH A 17029 128TH A V SE RENTON W A 98058 PL501B03DCOOI CITY OF RENTON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY RENTON W A 98055 143270 13701B03DCOO I COLEMAN GERALD & MARY 17113 127TH SE RENTON WA 98055 143270 13801B03DCOO 1 DEGUZMAN KATHLEEN G 17105127THAVSE RENTON W A 98058 07390000071B03 DCOO I DIVINE PEACE EV ANG LUTH CH 17251 128TH A V SE RENTON W A 98055 07390000361B03DCOOI DOAN RANG D+DO,HAI T 17409 126TH A V SE RENTON W A 98055 143270 12601B03DCOO 1 DUPPENTHALER RONALD A 12535 SE 170TH PL RENTON W A 98055 14327009001B03DCOOI ELLISON ADAIR 12729 SE 171ST PL RENTON W A 98058 14327008101B03DCOOI GAL VIS JOHNNY 17014 127TH AV SE RENTON W A 98058 7229000020/B03DCOOI GRESS KANDICE K+DONALD A 17227 129TH A V SE RENTON W A 98058 143270 12801B03DCOO I CHEEK MICHAEL SHANNON+BARHA 12521 SE 170nI PL RENTON W A 98058 14327009901B03DCOO 1 CLANTON DARREN M+JUDY L 12734 SE 172ND ST RENTON W A 98058 72290000401B03DCOO I COUCH LAUREN 17413 129TH AV SE RENTON WA 98058 I 432700830/B03DCOO I DIEP QUANG M+PHIMPHILA VONG 12722 SE 171ST PL RENTON W A 98058 07390000061B03 DCOO I DIVINE PEACE EV ANG LUTH CH 17251128THAVSE RENTON WA 98055 143270 I 0501B03DCOO 1 DOYLE JODI L 17021 128TH AV SE RENTON W A 98058 I 4327008401B03DCOO I EGLETBENC 26508 132ND A V SE KENT W A 98042 1432700970/B03DCOO I FARMER DAVID+JODI L LAWRENCE 12724 NE 20TH ST RENTON W A 98058 07390000401B03DCOO I GRAN JOHN W+ROSE MARIE 17310 125TH AV SE RENTON W A 98058 07390000351B03DCOOI HAHN DAVID J 6311 139TH PL SE BELLEVUE W A 98006 0739000008/B03DCOO I 14327009501B03DCOO I 72290000601B03DCOO I HALFORD BRUCE F HANSEN MICHAEL R & JEANNETT HOBEN KENNETH 12720 PETROVITSKY RD 17130 127TH AV SE 17434 128TH A V SE RENTON W A 98055 RENTON W A 98058 RENTON WA 98058 07390000271B03DCOOI 14327008701B03DCOOI 07390000851B03DCOOI HOCKETT VIRGINIA A HOPLAND JOHAN HUBER ALBERT J 12520 SE PETROVITSKY RD 12748 SE 171STPL 12727 SE PETROVISTKY RD RENTON WA 98058 RENTON W AA 98058 RENTON W A 98058 07 390000951B03DCOO I 1432701130/B03DCOOI 7229000045/B03DCOOI HUllER JAKOll HUDSON N H IBARRA MARY L+ELVIRA PO 1l0X 101 12721 SE 172ND 17419129THAVSE RENTON W A 98055 RENTON W A 98055 RENTON W A 98058 14327013601B03DCOOI 07390000 151B03DCOO I 72290001 001B03DCOO I JANSEN THEODORE A JOHAL NILAKUMARI &KARNAIL S JOHNSON WILLIAM A 17121 I 27TH AVSE YELKIN GRIGORY & TATYANA 17218 128TH SE RENTON W A 98058 17818 NE II 6TH ST RENTON W A 98058 REDMOND WA 98052 07390001101B03DCOOI 07390000901B03DCOO I 72290000651B03DCOOI JONES LORAINE JONES LORAINE KEYSER WE ClO PETERSON PATRICIA C/O PETERSON PA TRJCIA 17432 I28TH AV SE 5401 SHANGRILA LN 5401 SHANGRILA LN RENTON W A 98058 CAMINO CA 95709 CAMINO CA 95709 72291 00020/B03DCOO I I 4330000501B03DCOO I 72290000 151B03DCOO I KOCH ROBERT A+JACKIE L KRASSER JOAN I KRATZER EVANS R 17040 128TH AV SE 16002 TIGER MT RD SE 17221 129TH AV SE RENTON W A 98058 ISSAQUAH W A 98027 RENTON W A 98058 0739000 I 051B03DCOO I 07390000381B03DCOO I 143270 1240/B03DCOO I LELUU LE LUUDINH LEE WILLIAM E+THERESA V 426 SW 113TH PL 12601 SE PETROVITSKY RD 17007 127TH AV SE SEATTLE WA 98146 RENTON W A 98058 RENTON W A 98055 143270 1090/ll03DCOO 1 143270 11901B03DCOO I 72290000951B03DC001 LIANG MAY XIU WEI LIPP FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST MAY RUTHANN 19319 143RD PL SE 12535 SE 172ND ST AL 5-3251 17228 128TH AV SE RENTON W A 98058 RENTON W A 98058 RENTON WA 98058 72290001101B03DCOOI 72291 000301B03DCOO 1 1432701 1 001B03DCOO 1 MCCULLOCH ANDREW J MEFFORD ODELL N MENESES JOSE 17204 128TH A V SE 17032 128TH A VENUE SOUTHEAST 12741 SE 172ND ST RENTON W A 98058 RENTON W A 98058 RENTON W A 98058 14327012201l303DCOO I 143270 11801B03DCOO I 1432701 290/B03DCOOI NAZARIAN A VEDIS NELSON CLARENCE R NORRIS CAROLYN K 14327 SE 259TH PL 12541 SE 172ND ST 12515 SE 171ST KENT WA 98042 RENTON W A 98055 RENTON WA 98058 07390000121B03DCOOI 14330000301B03DCOO I 143270 13001B03DCOO I OBENCHAIN JOHN V OLSEN KEVIN DEAN+CONNIE FAY PALMER G R 12710 PETROVISK)' RD 17110 125TH PL SE 17104125THAVSE RENTON W A 98055 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON W A 98055 14327011201B03DCOOI 72290000701B03DCOOI I 4327008501B03DCOO I PELLEGRINI DINO+KARALYN POOLE JANET PRADO YOCABY 12727 SE 172ND ST 17414 128TH AV SE 12736 SE 171ST PL RENTON W A 98058 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON W A 98058 1432701210lB03DCOOI SDI31B03DCOOI 143270 11601B03DCOO I PROSZEK DANETTE M R. STRACKE, FACILITIES & RESENDIZ VINCENTE 12521 SE 172NDST PLANNING C+CRECENCIANA G RENTON W A 98058 RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT #403 12555 SE 172ND ST 1220 N 4TH ST RENTON W A 98058 RENTON W A 98055 14327012701B03DCOOI 143270 I 070/B03DCOO I 143270 13901B03DCOO 1 RETZ R E RIGNIER ROBERT W RIGTRUP JACOB+CINDY 12529 SE 170TH 17207 128TH AV SE 17017 127TH AV SE RENTON WA 98055 RENTON W A 98055 RENTON WA 98058 14327011 I 011303 DCOO I 143270098011303DCOO 1 1432701 080/B03DCOO 1 SAARI M G I SCHAEFER KENNETH W SCHAUBEL FRANCIS M 12735 SE 172ND 12728 SE 172ND ST 12755 SE 172ND ST RENTON W A 98055 RENTON W A 98055 RENTON W A 98055 I 4327009401B03DCOO I 143270 I 0 I 0/1303DCOO 1 143270 12301B03DCOO 1 SHAPLAND ROBIN N G SIMPSON THOMAS S SLOAN KATHRYN M 3627 WELLS A V N 12746 SE 172ND ST 12505 SE 172ND ST RENTON W A 98056 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 07390000041B03DCOO I 14330000201B03DCOOI 1432701 0001B03DCOO I SNELL JEFFREY R+KERILEE M STANDISH MICHAEL+LENA13URG SWEEN TY F+KARIANN 17415128THAVSE ELIZABETH 12740 SE 172ND ST RENTON WA 98058 17116125THPLSE RENTONWA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 72291000 I 011303DCOO I 72290001 051B03DCOO 1 72290000751B03DCOOI THIEL TIMOTHY J THIEL TOM THOMAS LEWIS E+NANCY 12804 SE 172ND ST 17212 128TH SE 17406 128TH A V SE RENTON W A 98055 RENTON W A 98058 RENTON WA 98058 143270 1250lB03DCOO 1 72290000501B03DCOO 1 1432700890lB03DCOO 1 THOMPSON JOHN E+PAMELA G TIERNEY LISA COURTNEY TOMLINSON LLOYD R 12543 SE 170TH PL 17423 129TH AV SE 14227 SE 1871'H ST RENTON W A 98058 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 143270 1200/B03DCOO 1 1432701140/B03DCOOl 14330000401B03DCOO 1 WELLER MARY E WHITACRE LOUIS M WHITMAN DON SCOTT 12527 SE 172ND 12713 SE 172ND ST 17117 125TH PL SE RENTON WA 98058 RENTON W A 98058 RENTON W A 98058 1432700860/B03DCOO 1 WILBUR VIRGIL W+ROSEMARY E 11611 SE 20llTH Sl' KENT W A 98031 1432700880/B03DCOO 1 WILLIAMS MELISSA C 12741 SE 171STPL RENTON \V 1\ 98058 1 4330000701B03DCOO 1 ZANDER JEFFREY 12514 SE 172ND ST RENTON W A 98055 72290000301B03DCOO 1 WILES ZACHARY A 17245 129TH A V SE RENTON W A 98058 7229000085/B03DCOO 1 WINKEL GEOFFREY M+KATHRYN D 17244 128TH AV SE RENTON W A 98058 72290000351B03DCOOI WILLIAMS MARK 17405 129TH AV SE RENTON W A 98058 14327009601B03DCOO 1 YI WILLIAM UNG CHAE 12716 SE 172ND ST RENTON W A 98058 . LANDSCAPE BOND QUANT·'1'\' WORKSHEET FORM KING COUNTY Dept. of Development PROJECTNAME: LaFortuna Commercial Site Develo 'andEnvironmental Services DOES PROJECT #: B03DC001 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, WA 98055-1219 ADDRESS: 12632 SE Petrovsky Road. KING COUNTY PREPARED BY: THE JAY GROUP Bonds are based upon required landscaping only and will be posted for performance andlor maintenance. Required landscaping includes perimeter landacaping, surface parking area landscaping, (KCC 21A 16) and any landscaping required by SEPA environmental review. Tbe maintenance period is for tbe life of tbe project, however, after posting for maintenance, the performance bond' will be reduced to 30% ($1,000.00 minimwn) and be held for a two year period. Upon re-inspection of the site the bond will be released if the site has been properly maintained (21A 16.180). A landscape maintenance inspection deposit of $316.80 is required prior to permit issuance to cover the costs of the 2-ycaf maintenance inspection. Landscape inspections are billed at the current hourly rate once the initial deposit is exhausted If the project has not been maintained and there are dead trees, shrubs, ground cover, or other deficiencies noted in the required landscaping, the bond will be held until the deficiencies are corrected. UNIT PRICE UNITTVPE QUANTITY PRICE SOD LAWN AREAS $500.00 MSF (1000 SQ. IT) NA HYDRO SEEDING $50.00 MSF (1000 SQ. FT) 9.61 $480.00 SOIL PREPARATION A TOPSOIL (6 INCHES DEEP) $25.00 CY (CUBIC YARD) 548 CY $13,700.00 B. MULCH (2 INCHES DEEP) $4.00 SY (SQUARE Y ARDl 165 SY $660.00 C. PEAT MOSS (TWO INCHES DEEP) $2.30 SY (SQUARE Y ARDl NA D. COMPOST (3 INCHES DEEP & TILLING $26.00 SY (SQUARE Y ARDl NA E. FERTILIZER $6.67 CY (CUBIC YARD) NA PLANT MATERIALS A DECIDUOUS TREES 1.75 -2.00" CALIPER (minimwn height 10') $250.00 EACH COST & LABOR 33 $8,250.00 PERIMETER & PARKING AREAS 1.5 -1.75" CALIPER (MIN. HI. 10') $225.00 EACH COST & LABOR 63 . $14,175.00 . INTERIOR LANDSCAPING OR OTHER . B. EVERGREEN TREES FIVE (5) FEET OR ABOVE $150.00 EACH COST & LABOR 50 $7,500.00 C. SHRUBS $35.00 EACH COST & LABOR 873 $30,555.00 BOND AMOUNT SUB TOTAL: SUB TOTAL BOND AMOUNT $ $74.661.16 I ~74,66l.16.00 UNIT PRICE UNITTVPE QUANTITY PRICE D. GROUND COVER $4.00 EACH COST & LABOR . 946 $3,784.00 MISCELLANEOUS TREE STAKES 3fffiEE $2.65 EACH PER STAKE & 292 $773.80 LABOR --._-~ FENCING: LINEAR FOOT SOLID WOOD CEDAR $28.50 INCLUDES LABOR BERMING $17.50 LINEAR FOOT INCLUDES LABOR IRRIGATION 80¢ SQUARE FOOT 29,610 SF $23,688.00 ADDmONAL ITEMS Play Structure $10,755.00 EACH $13,981.50 1 $13,981.00 Deluxe Park Grill $115.00 EACH $149.50 2 $299.00 Permaneut Augle Leg Bench $295.00 EACH $383.50 1 $383.50 Standard Picnic Table $409.00 EACH $531.70 4 $2,126.80 SUB TOTAL BOND AMOUNT BOND SUB TOTAL: $119,697.76 Add 30% of the Bond Sub-Total for Contingency in accordance with 30 % CONTINGENCY: Financial Guarantee Ordinance 120220, Section 13. $ 35,909.33 TOTAL BOND PRICE TOTAL BOND PRICE: . $155,607.09 RevIsed LBQW 8/29/2001 - Nit '\l~1 fWO _u CA ... " "AT",N m·'Qu.... "'''''' "':::\~ $10,755 CHALLENGERS® $12,694 PLAYMAKERS® 350-0103 500-0103 13 Play Events CllPllcity: Size: Challengers Up to 40 children ages 5 10 12 yrs. Playmukcl's Up to 46 children ages.5 to 12 yrs. Challengers 22' x 31' x \1' (6.71 m x 9,45m x 3,35m) Plnym':lkers 24' x 32' x 12' (7,32111 x 9,75[11 x 3.66111) "'""'~-~k-( ~., ",." .. Usc Zone: CIHlllengcrs 35' x 44' , 10,67111 x 13,41 ill) Playmakcrs 36' x 44' ( I (l,97m x 13.41111) [)~sil!n Note: A,.I C~h'lkngc~:: .rl~~:'~[_"~~U1" CUM' .~, 23 Bunll:r Timbers 23-6' (23-1,83ml Weight: Installation: Snlr! ~(~narately all page 75. Challengers 2006 1hs. (909,92kg) Playmllkers 266610s. (l209.29kg) Approx. 5~ hours All play equipment must be instalkd over an impact-absorbing surface. S1IE1E1I. !$~1l«1E IFi!~CIl« Model St~le O~eninE:s Size Weight Price ZZXXl641 Portable 8 5' (I,52m) 77.72 lbs. (35,25kg) $269 ZZXXl642 Allachable 8 5' (152m) 80.361"'. (J6,45kg) $269 ZZXXl643 Portable 18 lIT (Jm) 142.09lbs. (64,4Skg) $475 ZZXXl644 . Attachable 18 10' (3m) 144.73 Ib,. (65.65kg) $475 These attractive, ca~y-to·u.~scmhlf: hike mcks CUll be p0l1abie or Jagged onto existing hard sunaees. Main fmmework is 1-5/8" 0.0. galvanized pipe with 1-1116" 0.0. galvanized pipe. All fasteners are plated. Available in your choice of paint color (see page 145). Model ZZXXI641 shown in Seafoarn. II.I1IlIDlfPJ 18~1K{1E IfRlCIl« $219 ZZx)(1353 11M-GROUND Style: 78'" ('1,98m) Weight: 87.41 Ibs. (39,64kg) S209 ZZ)()(1353S SURFACE MOUNT Style: Weight: 78" (\,98m) 791hs. r35,80kg) Ea,Y-lo-install unit features five openings and is made of3' 0.0. galvanized-steel tubing. Available in your-choice of paint color (sre page 145). Mode! ZZXXl353 shown in Red. IDJIELIUlIIE IPA~1l( (!l1lR! ~ U S115 ZZ)(X1451 Style: Pcrm:.U\cnt Weight: 82.7llhs. (37,52kg) Tough ~nollgh 10 l<lst for ycar.~! Fire box is made of3116" sted plme and swivels ]60~ for dr:Jft mlllroL Cooking grate is mnde of 112' and 5/8" !;Icel bars with 2tJ3 .~quarc inches ofcookillg surface and is 4-w:ly :ldjumable for cooking t:OntroL Fe:tlures a 2-3/8" 0.0. galvanized pipe Ihcn-rcsi.~tanl suppOrt pos!. ,.. ... Model ZZXX9030 shown wilh Beige fnunc. S359 PORTABLE STRAIGHT LEG BENCH RECYCLED PLASTIC Size: Weight: ZZXX9030 6' X 2' (1 ,83m x O,60m) 105.771b,. (47,98kg) Model ZZXX9010 shown with Platinulll fr.mle. S295 PERMANENT ANGLE LEG BENCH RECYCLED PLASTIC Size: Weight: ZZXX9010 6' X 2' (1,8301 x 0,60m) 105.72 1b,. (47,95kg) PJayworld Sy~tems'"' durable Park Benches require very little maintenance, making them ideul additions to any park or playground site. Seats arc made of Recycled Plastic planks. All frnmes are 2-3/8" 0.0. galvanized pipe with Aluminum end cnps and are available in your choice of paint color (see page 145). S325 STYLEX I BENCH RECYCLED PLASTIC ZZXX9020 Size: 6' (l,83m) Weight: 117.78 Ib,. (53,43kgJ The open design of Ihe Stylex J <Jllows for Oexibilily in pl<Jcement nnd "c<Jling. Legs arc 3" OD. galv<Jnized pipe nnd 1/4" 3" x 3" ungle iron finished in supertollgh powder coating. BEl ~ 6' Stylex J Benches can be shipred viu UPS. S399 KINGSWOOD BENCH RECYCLED PLASTIC ZZXX1540 Size: 6' n.83m) Weight: 178.14 Ibs. (80,SOkg) This tradition-style bench features six 4' x~' Recycled Plastic planks for back and seat. making it as durable and weather-re,<,istant as il 'is beautiful. IHIlEln-lIDllD1l1f IP~IG:INI~IG: lAIBU S465 ZZ){){9110 Size: Weight: 6' x 2'6" (l,83m x a,76m) 247.5 lbs. (l12,27kg) These highly durable tables feature one-piece end frames made of 2-3/8" 0.0. galvanized pipe with 3116" x 4" x ]" fonned steel board-mounting brackets. 1-1/16" 0.0. galvanized pipe cross braces provide extra strength and rigidity. Wheelchair-accessible tables are designed to accommodate wheelchairs with tabletops extending an extra [oat beyond the frame at both ends. Seats and tabletop planks are Recycled Plastic. Frame available in your choice of paint color (see page 145).6' Heavy-Duty Picnic Table shown in Recycled Plastic with Ruby Frame. $1l'~~[OJA[ffilID lP>~IG:~~© 1l'bl.~U S409 ZZ){X9100 Size: Weight: 6' x 2'6" (l,83m x O,76m) 2l6.5Ibs. (98,20kg) OUf Standard Picnic Tables feature one-piece end frames made of 1-5/8" 0.0. galvanized pipe with 3116" x 4" x \" fanned steel board-mounting bruckets. H/16" O.D. galvanized pipe croSs bruces provide strength und rigidity. Seats and tabletop plunks are Recycled Plastic. Frame available in your choice of paint color (see page 145). Shown in Recycled Plristic with Azure frame. • , UnlE[ffi IRlECIEf?lACllE PERMANENT . S265 ZZ){){8020 Volume: Slats: Weight: 32.gul. (121,10 lilm) Recycled Plastic 92.741bs. (42,07kgi REPLACEMENT CONTAINER S20 ZZXX8060 Volume: Slats: Weight: 32 gal. (!21.I01il~rsl Plastic Sibs. r:UOkg) Steel frame wilh 2 x 4 slats in Recycled Pb~tic. AV;lilab1e in clther penmmenl 01" freestanding models. All receptacles shipped complete \\'ilh 32-gnllon bind: piilstic comaincr and lid. , .-."t:·""""=_"""_.=-"·,~_~"".,,.=,"·'.;M ... ,.,,,,,"""""''''_''' ·1 ( Landscape Architects. Civil En~ineers and Environmenhl Consulhnts . . WATER BUDGET CALCULATIONS Date: Project: For: 5/21103 La Fortuna Townhouses Karl Best (425) 397-0739 Total Lawn Area: Total Shrub Area: Total NativeiBuffer Area: Total Area: Shrub Plant Factor: 9,650 SF 8,910 SF 11,050 SF 29,610 SF .04 I .25 Drought tolerant NW Native shrubs were used in buffer areas and a mix of ornamental trees, shrubs and groundcover using low to medium water requirements were planted in parks and COmmon areas. Irrigation zones have taken local exposure factors into account. Irrigation Water Budget WB= (ETO) (AF) (LA) (CF) WB= 14.49 x.8 x 29,610 x 0.62 = 212,808 Gallons per growing season. Estimated Water Use EWO= (TO) (PF) (RA) (CF) I (IE) Lawn EWU= 14.49 x.7 x 9,650 x 0.62 I 0.625 = 97,097 GIS Shrub EWU= 14.49 x .04 x 8,910 x 0.62 / 0.625 = 5,123 GIS Native EWU= 14.49 x .25 x 11,050 x 0.62 I 0.625 = 39,708 GIS Prepared By: George Kaage Paul Jay EWU = 141,928 Gal. Per growing season WB = 212,808 Gal. Per growing season . Washington Registered Landscape Architect 1927 -5th Sireel • Marysville, WA 98270 • (360) 659-8159 • lax: (360) 651-7252 • e-mail: mail@jay~roupll[.com King County Department of Development and Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, WA 98055-1219 June 29, 2005 B03DC001! La Fortuna, Permit Conditions: The Commercial Site Development Permit for townhouse development is hereby APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. All site development shall be in accordance with approved Commercial Site Development Permit (CSDP) B03DC001. 2. Approval of the commercial site development permit shall not provide the applicant with a vested right to build without regard to subsequent revisions in building and fire codes regulating construction listed in KCC 16.04 and 17.04. Building permits for any approved building envelopes are vested for all site issues and non-building codes at the time the CSDP application was deemed complete. 3. Subsequent building permit applications may contain minor site modifications to the approved CSDP, KCC 21A.41.110. Exceeding revision limits or conditions of approval will require a new commercial site development permit for the entire site. 4. All future buildings approved for this CSDP within the R-8 zoned portion of the site must be a townhouse configuration type only (KCC 21A.06.370). Stacked fiat units (apartments, KCC 21A.06.355) shall not be allowed within this area. Failure to meet this requirement may result in a substantial reduction in site density, (KCC 21A.08.030 5.b.). 5. This csDP permit is valid for three (3) years from date of issuance. All subsequent building permit applications corresponding to structures identified within the building envelopes must be received by DDES and deemed complete within this three-year window. Dave Baugh, AICP, Program Manager III KC Dept of Development and Environmental Services 900 Oaksdale Avenue SW Renton WA 98055-1219 Phone: (206) 296-7281 FAX: (206) 296-7225 E-Mail: david.baugh@metrokc.gov <mailto:david.baugh@metrokc.gov> lOng County "':~. , Department of Dc"clopment ilml Environlncntol Services Building Sen-ices Division 900 Oakesdale A venue SW Remon, \VA 98055-1219 (206) 296·6600 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY CALClJ LATION ..•. WORKSFiEET" This worksheet will assist you in correctly applymg specific pOI'lions oflhe zoning code related to allowable density and will be used to delermine if a proposal meets the denSity provisions ofthe King County Zoning Code (Title 2IA). NOTE: Use tillS worksheet ONLY if your proposal is for a reSidenlial development on an exisling iegallot or for a residential development associated with a residentml condominium binding site plan, A separate density worksheet IS availabie for residential subdivision proposals. This worksheet is prep3red to assist applicants. and does not replace compliance with adopted local, state and federal laws. A pre-application conference IS reqUIred for all Type I development proposals iflhe propel1y will have 5,000 square feet of development site or right-or-way improvements, the property is in a critical drainage baSin. or the property has a wetland, steep slope, landslide hazard, erosion hazard, or coal mine on site, A pre-applicalion conference is required for all Type 2, 3 or 4 development proposals. Exempt from the requirement for a pre-application conference are I) singie fnmily residences and thell' accessory buildings; and 2) other structures where all work is in nn existing building nnd no parking is reqUired or odded, You may call 296-6600 to find out if a pre-application conference is needed for your proposal and how a pre-application conference can be arranged. DATE: /-/5:-0 Z- NAME OF DEVELOPMENT: La t:Or/-UI'1O\. FILE NO, ___ _ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: _________ _ ZONINGDESIGNATION(S): R-6-$0 &-/2-S0 COMMUNITY OR SUBAREA PLAN: _______________ _ lfmore than one zone designation exISts on the property, the archllectural sIle pian musl show the boundary between the zones and the area within eoch. In such cases, the transferring of density across zones on the lot may be pemlitted subject to the provisions of K,C,C, 21A.12,200. Please complete only the applicable pOI-tions of the form. I. Site Area (K.C.C. 2IA,06.ll721: Site area (in squnre feet) is Ihe gross hOflzontal area of the proJecl site, less submerged lands as defined by K,C,C, 21 A.06.1265, less areas which are required to be dedicaled on the perimeter of a project Site for public nghts-of-wny. + = ____ square feet in submerged land (any Innd below the ordinary IlIgh water mark -see K.C.C, 2IA.06, 1265 and 2IA.06.825,) ____ ·squnre feet in perimeter rights-of-way which will be required to be dedicated (area 30 feel from center line of road) Total \ Calculation: /9 (". S" 2-4-gross horizontal area of ihe project site _-,(]J,-__ Totai submerged iands and flghts-of-way 144{3'l~( R-g)", 5Z,13'Z: (R~/2.)-;' 7,3/5' A,-, 1.1 '1'1 Ac. .• '\ /96, 5"~4 Site area m square feet NOTE: To continue calculallons, convert site area in square feet to m:res by dividing by 43.560 4,S/2 Siteareamaeres &::;zd4l'-T' DDe:S"GIS,iJfo H>r'ZMe i:JoUtldane.f, II. Base Density (K.e.e. 21A.I2.030 -.040 tables): The base density is detennined by the zone designation!s) for the lot. f(-g ~ 8 R-12 '. /7. .. April 22, t 997 l'ngc \ or4 du/acre d ..... ja. c..r.e.. ./': \ ® King County DOES Deeartment of Development and Environmental Services Building Services Division 900 Oak"esdale A venue Southwest Renton, Washington 98055-1219 File Number: B03DCOOI Applicant: Karl Best La Foturna LLC P.O. Box 1790 Snohomish, W A 98291 (425) 238-9831 Notice ()f )ecision Building Permit Project Location: Generally 150 feet south of SE 172 nd Street and east of 127'h Ave SE. Project Description: Construction of a 41 unit residential development with associated parking and landscaping. Permits Reguested: Building Permit (B03DCOOl) Department Decision: Issue the permit subject to conditions and corrections contained in permit approved July 11,2005 SEPA Determination of Non-Significance: May 18,2004 Mailing Date of Notice of Decision: July 11,2005 The Department of Development and Environmental Services (DDES) has made a decision to approve the building pennit referenced above. A building pennit is a non-appealable administrative decision made by the Director or his or her designee. The SEP A threshold detennination is the only portion of the building pennit that is appealable to the Hearing Examiner. For the purposes of appealing a decision to Superior Court, this decision is considered final because any associate SEPA appeals have been decided by the Hearing Examiner. Any person wishing additional infonnation on this pennit should contact ODES at the address and/or telephone number listed below. NOTE: If you require this material in Braille, audio cassette, or large print, please call 296-72 I 7 (TTY). bnod.do' 7/1012005 2:54 PM King County DDES Department of Development and Environmental Services, Building Services Division -Permit Service Center 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, WA 98055-1219 (206) 296 -6600 JI' J ) .\ , . Derartment of Development and Environmental Services L:.md Usc ScrvicfS Division . Notice (Q)~ [)~cision 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Remon, Washington 98055·1219 (SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION) File No.: B03DCOOI La Fortuna Townhouses DOES SEPA Planner: Angelica Velasquez Telephone No.: 206-296-7136 Applicant: Karl Best La Fortuna LLC PO Box 1790 Snohomish, W A 98291 425-238-9831 Project Location: Generally 150 feet south of SE 172nd Street and east of 1271h Ave SE. Project Description: Permits Requested: Construction of a 41-unit residential development with associated parking and landscaping. Commercial Building Permit SEPA Threshold Determination: Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) issued May 19, 2004 Comment! Appeal Procedure: This Mitigated Determination of Non-significance (MONS) is issued under Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal until after June 14, 2004. Comments must be submitted to the Department of Development and Environmental Services by June 14, 2004, at the address below. Any appeals to this project must be submitted to King County Superior Court. Since this MONS is for' a Type 1 Permit, there is no King County Administrative SEPA appeal, according to King County Ordinance 14449. May 19. 2004 Dale Mailed DDES--Land Use Services Division Attn: Permit Center 900 Oakesdale A venue Southwest Renton, Washington 98055-1219 If you have any questions regarding the appeal procedures, please contact the planner at the phone number listed above. If you require this material in braille, audio cassette, or large print, call (206) 296-6600 (voice) or (206) 296-7217 (TTY). MAnN fUllE COI?V (E Renton) I Fire Protection Dist #25 ' I I p.o. Box 2925 l Renton W A 98056-0925 ( -MS: KSC-TR-0431 I Gary Kriedt I KC Metro Envirn. Planning ! , ATTN: Edward White Kent Engineering Dept 220 -4th Av S Kent W A 98032 City of Renton Economic Development Dept. lOSS S. Grady Way Renton WA 98055 ( R. Stracke, Facilities & Ping I Renton School Dist # 403 1220 N 4th St Renton W A 98055 Environmental Review Section W A State Dept of Ecology POBox 47703 Olympia WA 98504-7703 Russ Ladley, Fisheries-Biologist Puyallup Tribe 6824 Pioneer Wy E Puyallup W A 98371 Fisheries Habitat/Environment Suquamish Indian Tribe PO Box 498 Suquamish W A 98392 Cedar River Water/Sewer Dist 18300 SE Lk Youngs Rd Renton W A 8058-9799 City of Renton, Public Works Dept. Development Services Div. lOSS South Grady Way Renton W A 98055 FD25 KC27 PL18 PL33 SDI3 ST17 TR2 TR5 -Wo12 WD32 (Spring Glen) Fire Protection Dist #40 10828 SE 176th St Renton W A 98055 · Documents Dept. Librarian King County Library System 960 Newport Way NW Issaquah, W A 98027 Kent Planning Dept 220 -4th Av S Kent W A 98032 · Clinton G. Marsh, Director Fac. & Const. Dept Kent School District # 415 12033 SE 256th St. Bldg B Kent W A 98031-6643 Administrator Kent Sewer Utility 220 -4th Av S Kent W A 98032 · Habitat Biologist, Rod Malcom Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 39015 -172nd Av SE Auburn W A 98002 Snoqualmie Tribe PO Box 280 Carnation WA 98014-0280 Richard Young Tulalip Tribe 7615 Totem Beach Rd Marysville W A 98271 Public Works Dtr Kent Water Dist 220 -4th Av S Kent W A 98032 Soos Creek Water/Sewer Dist PO Box 58039 Renton W A 98058-1039 FD40 LI24 PU9 SD9 SE5 TRI TR3 TR4 WD23 WD41 l " Water Dist #90 15606 SE 128th St Renton W A 98059-8522 I (water Dist #111 27224 -144th Av SE : Kent W A 98042-9058 I 1 "WA'State Dept. of Wildlife Habitat Mgmt. Division I I P,O, Box 43155 I Olympia, WA 98504-3155 I WD55 WD58 \ Coal Creek Utility District 6801 I 32nd Place SE Newcastle, W A 98059 ('WA State Dept. of Wildlife 16018 Mill Creek Blvd, i MillCreek, WA98012 WD57 HANSEN, MICHAEL & JEANNETTE 17130 I 27TH AVESE RENTON, WA 98058 K BEST CONSTRUCTION INC PO BOX 1790 SNOHOMISH \VA 98291 LA FORTUNA LLC C/O KARL BEST P. O. BOX 1790 SNOHOMISH, \VA LA FORTUNA LLC CIO KARL BEST P. O. BOX 1790 SNOHOMISH, WA LIND, REBECCA 1055S.GRADYWAY RENTON, \VA 98055 PELLEGRINII, DINO 12727 SE InND 5T RENTON, \VA 98058 SAARI, MICHAEL G. 12735 SE InND $1' RENTON \V A 98058 SODS CREEK GARDENS ATTN, HELMUT & LOURDES 8RODKA 12602 SE PETRQVITSKY RD RENTON, WA 98058·6705 VEBERES, RONALD 16808 I06TI~ AVE SE RENTON. WA 98055 8030Cool 1303DC001 803DCOOI 80)DCOOI B03DC001 8030COOI B03DCool 8030COOI 1303DCOOI ZIMMERMAN, GREGG P.E. CITY OF RENTON 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY RENTON, WA 98055 B03DCOOI 3864800050/B03DCOO 1 3864800 130/B03DCOO 1 38648000701B03DCOO 1 38648001 OO/B03DCOO 1 38648000901B03DCOOI 38648000801B03DCOO 1 38648001201B03DCOOI 38648000601B03DCOO 1 386480011 01B03DCOO 1 3864800140/B03DCOO 1 38648000401B03DCOO 1 38648000301B03DCOO 1 38648000201B03DCOO 1 38648077771B03DCOO 1 386480001 01B03DCOO 1 14327009301B03DCOO 1 14327011701B03DCOOI 72290000901B03DCOO 1 ALLEN WILLIAM A JR ASH WILLIAM H BAGBY MAXWELL E 17114 127TH A V SE 12549 SE 172ND ST 17236 128TH SE RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON W A 98055 7229000005/B03DCOO 1 143270 10301B03DCOO 1 14327013101B03DCOOI BECK DONALD J BERRYSMITH CONNIE L BLAIR LINDA L 15928 55TH PL W 17035 128TH A V SE 17112125THAVSE EDMONDS W A 98026 RENTON W A 98058 RENTON WA 98058 143270091 OIB03DCOO 1 07390000301B03DCOOI 14327013201B03DCOOI BOX RICHARD D+L YNETTE J BRAUN RUFO F JR+ZENAlDA S+ BRENNAN MR+MRS 12723 SE 171ST PL ANTOLIN,FRANCISCO 1+ JOSEFINA A 17120 125TH AV SE RENTON W A 98058 17048 SE 257TH PL RENTON W A 98055 KENT W A 98042 07390000251B03DCOO 1 07390000201B03DCOO 1 1432701 0201B03DCOO 1 BRODKA HELMUT BRODKA HELMUT+LOURDES L BROWN VERNON O+LAURIE A 12602 SE PETROVITSKY RD 12602 SE PETROVITSKY RD 17043 128TH A V SE RENTON W A 98058 RENTON W A 98058 RENTON WA 98058 14327008201B03DCOO 1 14327009201B03DCOO 1 07390001001B03DCOOI BUCHANAN JOHN A BUCHANAN JOHN A BUCKHELENR 12715 SE 171ST PL 12715 SE 171STPL 12615 SE PETROV1TSKY RD RENTON W A 98058 RENTON W A 98058 RENTON WA 98058 72290000 101B03DCOO 1 BURGESS JORDAN P+FARFAN HEIDI 17211 129TI1 AV SE RENTON W A 98058 PL331B03DCOOI CITY OF RENTON , ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION . lOSS SOUTH GRADY WAY RENTON W A 98055 7229000080/B03DCOO I CLA YTON JAMES M 1lI 17252 128TH AV SE RENTON W A 98058 07390000371B03DCOO I DANG DAT T+MARY VU 11330 SE 269TI1 ST KENT W A 98031 073900001 01B03DCOO 1 DIVINE PEACE EV ANG LUTH CH 17251128TH AV SE RENTON W A 98055 0739000042/B03DCOO I DOHlEN ETAL 2508 17TH ST SE AUBURN WA. 98002 143270 II 501B03DCOO I DRONEN JERRY A 12705 SE 172ND ST RENTON WA 98055 14330000101B03DCOOI ELLIS JONATIIAN M 12604 SE 172ND ST RENTON WA 98058 14330000601B03DCOO I FRAZIER CLARENCE TIMOTHY 12520 SE 172ND ST RENTON WA 98058 7229000025/B03DCOO I GRANT PHYLLIS J 17237 129TH AV SE ~ RENmNWA ""'" 1~J170 I 0401B03DCOOI CARTER KENNETH A 17029 128TI1 A V SE RENTON WA 98058 PL501B03DCOOI CITY OF RENTON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION 1055 SOUTH GRADY WA Y RENTON W A 98055 143270 I370/B03DCOO I COLEMAN GERALD & MARY 171 I3 127TH SE RENTON W A 98055 143270 13801B03DCOO I DEGUZMAN KATIlLEEN G 17105127THAVSE RENTON WA 98058 07390000071B03DCOO I DIVINE PEACE EV ANG LUTH CH 17251 128TH AV SE RENTON W A 98055 07390000361B03DCOOI DOAN RANG D+DO,HAI l' 17409 I 26TH AV SE RENTON W A 98055 143270 I 2601B03DCOO I DUPPENTHALER RONALD A 12535 SE I 70TH PL RENTON W A 98055 14327009001B03DCOOI ELLISON ADAIR 12729 SE 171ST PL RENTON W A 98058 143270081 01B03DCOO 1 GALVIS JOHNNY 17014127TI1AVSE RENTON WA 98058 72290000201B03DCOO 1 GRESS KANDICE K+DONALD A 17227 129TH A V SE RENTON W A 98058 ANNON+BARHA 14327009901B03DCOO I CLANTON DARREN M+ruDY L 12734 SE 172ND ST RENTON W A 98058 72290000401B03DCOOI COUCH LAUREN 17413129TI1AVSE RENTON W A 98058 14327008301B03DCOOI DlEP QUANG M+PHlMPHILA VONG 12722 SE 171ST PL RENTON W A 98058 0739000006/B03DCOO I DIVINE PEACE EV ANG LUTII CH 17251 128TH AV SE RENTON W A 98055 143270 1050/B03DCOO I DOYLE JODI L 17021 128TI1 AV SE RENTON WA 98058 1432700840/B03DCOO I EGLETBENC 26508 132ND A V SE KENT W A 98042 14327009701B03DCOO I FARMER DA VID+ JODI L LAWRENCE 12724 NE 20TH ST RENTON W A 98058 07390000401B03DCOO 1 GRAN JOHN W+ROSE MARIE 17310 125TH AV SE RENTON WA 98058 m390000351B03DCOOI HAHNDAVIDJ 6311 139TI1 PL SE BELLEVUE W A 98006 0739000008IB03DCOO 1 1 Qj27009501B03DCOO 1 ", "L90000601B03DCOO 1 HALFORD BRUCE F HANSEN MICHAEL R & JEANNETI HOBEN KENNETH 12720 PETROVITSKY RD ~ 17130 127TH AV SE 17434 128TH AV SE RENTON W A 98055 RENTON W A 98058 RENTON W A 98058 0739000027/B03DCOO 1 14327008701B03DCOOI 07390000851B03DCOOI HOCKETI VIRGINIA A HOPLAND JOHAN HUBER ALBERT J 12520 SE PETROVITSKY RD 12748 SE 171STPL 12727 SE PETROVISTKY RD RENTON W A 98058 RENTON W AA 98058 RENTON W A 98058 07390000951B03DCOOI 1432701l301B03DCOOI 72290000451803 DCOO 1 HUBER JAKOB HUDSONNH IBARRA MARY L+ELVIRA PO BOX 101 12721 SE I72ND 17419 1 29TH AV SE RENTON W A 98055 RENTON W A 98055 RENTON W A 98058 14327013601B03DCOO 1 07390000 151B03DCOO 1 72290001 001B03DCOO 1 JANSEN THEODORE A JOHAL NILAKUMARI &KARNAIL S JOHNSON WILLIAM A 17121127THAVSE YELKINGRIGORY & TATYANA 17218 128TH SE . RENTON W A 98058 17818 NE 1l6TH ST RENTON W A 98058 REDMOND W A 98052 0739000110/B03DCOOI 07390000901B03DCOO 1 72290000651B03DCOOI JONES LORAiNE JONES LORAINE KEYSER W E CIO PETERSON PATRICIA CIO PETERSON PATRICIA 17432128THAVSE 5401 SHANGRILA LN 5401 SHANGRILA LN RENTON WA 98058 CAMINO CA 95709 CAMINO CA 95709 . 7229100020/B03DCOOl 14330000501B03DCOO 1 72290000 151B03DCOO 1 KOCH ROBERT A+JACKIE L KRASSER JOAN I KRATZER EVANS R 17040 128TH AV SE 16002 TIGER MT RD SE 17221 129TH AV SE RENTON WA 98058 ISSAQUAH WA 98027 RENTON WA 98058 07390001051B03~ 07390000381B03DCOO 1 143270 1240/B03DCOO 1 LE~ LELUUDINH LEE WILLIAM E+THERESA V 426 I 12601 SE PETROVITSKY RD 17007 I 27TH AV SE SEA E A 98 46 RENTON W A 98058 RENTON W A 98055 1432701090/B~ 143270 11901B03DCOO 1 72290000951B03DCOOI LIA G M Y WEI LIPP FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST MAY RUTHANN 19319 P 12535 SE 172ND ST AL 5-3251 17228 128TH AV SE RENTO A 98058 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON W A 98058 72290001 1 01B03DCOO 1 7229 IO00301B03DCOO 1 1432701100IB03DCOOI MCCULLOCH ANDREW J MEFFORD ODELL N MENESES JOSE 17204 128TH AV SE 17032 128TH A VENUE SOUTHEAST 12741 SE I72ND ST RENTON WA 98058 RENTON W A 98058 RENTON WA 98058 14327012201B0~ 1432701 1 801B03DCOO 1 143270 12901B03DCOO 1 NAZ~ IS NELSON CLARENCE R NORRIS CAROLYN K 14327 12541 SE I72NDST 12515 SE 171ST KENT 8042 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 07390000 1'21B03DCOO 1 Iqj30000301B03DCOOI ! Iq327013001B03DCOOI , OBENCHAIN JOHN V : OLSEN KEVIN DEAN+CONNIE FAY PALMERGR 12710 PETROVISKY RD 17110 125TH PL SE 17104 125TH A V SE RENTON W A 98055 RENTON W A 98058 RENTON W A 98055 1432701 1 201B03DCOO 1 72290000701B03DCOO I 14327008501B03DCOO I PELLEGRINI DINO+KARAL YN POOLE JANET PRADO YOCABY 12727 SE 172ND ST 17414128THAVSE ! 12736 SE 171ST PL RENTON W A 98058 RENTON W A 98058 . RENTON W A 98058 1432701210/B03DCOOI SDI3/B03DCOOI 14327011601B03DCOOI PROSZEK DANETTE M R. STRACKE, FACILITIES & RESENDIZ VINCENTE 12521 SE 172NDST PLANNING C+CRECENCIANA G RENTON WA 98058 RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT #403 12555 SE 172ND ST 1220 N 4TH ST RENTON WA 98058 RENTON W A 98055 iI4327012701B03DCOOI 1432701 0701B03DCOO 1 143270 1 3901B03DCOO 1 iRETZRE RIGNIER ROBERT W RIGTRUP JACOB+CINDY ! 12529 SE 170TH 17207 128TH AV SE 17017 127TH AV SE i RENTON W A 98055 RENTON W A 98055 RENTON W A 98058 ! I 1432701 1 101B03DCOOI 14327009801B03DCOOI 1432701 0801B03DCOO 1 , SAARlMGI SCHAEFER KENNETH W SCHAUBEL FRANCIS M ! 12735 SE 172ND 12728 SE 172ND ST 12755 SE 172ND ST tRENTON WA 98055 , RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 l ! 14327009401B03DCOOI 14327010101B03DCOOI 143270 12301B03DCOO 1 i SHAPLAND ROBIN N G SIMPSON THOMAS S SLOAN KA THR YN M I 3627 WELLS A V N 12746 SE 172ND ST 12505 SE 172ND ST ! RENTON W A 98056 RENTON W A 98058' RENTON WA 98058 i : 0739000004/B03DCOO 1 14330000201B03DCOO 1 1432701 0001B03DCOO 1 I SNELL JEFFREY R+KERILEE M STANDISH MICHAEL+LENABURG SWEEN TY F+KARIANN 17415 128TH AV SE ELIZABETH 12740 SE 172ND ST , RENTON W A 98058 17116 125TH PL SE RENTON W A 98058 RENTON W A 98058 722910001 01B03DCOO 1 72290001 051B03DCOO 1 72290000751B03DCOOI THIEL TIMOTHY J THIEL TOM THOMAS LEWIS E+NANCY . 12804 SE 172ND ST 17212 128TH SE 17406 128TH AV SE . RENTON W A 98055 RENTON W A 98058 RENTON WA 98058 143270 12501B03DCOO 1 72290000501B03DCOO 1 14327008901B03DCOO 1 THOMPSON JOHN E+PAMELA G TIERNEY LISA COURTNEY TOMLINSON LLOYD R 12543 SE 170TH PL 17423 1 29TH AV SE 14227 SE 1 87TH ST RENTON WA 98058 . RENTONWA 98058 RENTON W A 98058 1432701200/B03DCOO 1 1432701 1 401B03DCOO 1 14330000401B03DCOO 1 WELLER MARY E WHITACRE LOUIS M WHITMAN DON SCOTT 12527 SE 172ND 12713 SE 172ND ST 17117125THPLSE RENTON W A 98058 RENTON W A 98058 RENTON W A 98058 . , . , 14327008601B03D~ :,' WILB~R I IL ROS ARY E 111611 S i KENT 8031 ! i 14327008801B03DCOOI • WILLIAMS MELISSA C '12741 SE 171STPL ! RENTON W A 98058 i 14330000701B03DCOOI : ZANDER JEFFREY 1 12514 SE 172ND ST RENTON WA 98055 I I "Ll90000301B03DCOO 1 WILES ZACHARY A 17245 1 29TH A V SE RENTON W A 98058 72290000851B03DCOO 1 WINKEL GEOFFREY M+KA THRYN D 17244 128TH A V SE RENTON WA 98058 i "Ll90000351B03DCOO 1 , WILLIAMS MARK , 17405 129TH AV SE RENTON W A 98058 , 1432700960IB03DCOOI i YI WILLIAM UNG CHAE i 12716 SE 172ND ST , RENTON W A 98058 r;" ~mit File Number: A01PM115· La Fortuna Townhouses compiled by: Dave Sandstrom ~"Meeting: January 8, 2002 -:;/ I Major issues needing Redesign or Resolution I ~·loc·I' Ie e u; fi: VI ~ iii: DOES staff responsible .g ..!!! ~ ..= .!!! Site 1 The site is zoned R-6 with a Special District Overlay for significant Trees-This will require a significant tree survey to be part of the BP ptan set Nancy Hopkins Zoning identifying all significant trees per KeG 21A.38. 2 The height limit in the R-8 zone is 35 feet -the EeL indicates that the buildings will be over 60 feet in height -redesign to comply with the R-8 zoning 3 Complete a Residential Density Calculation worksheet -at this time it is not possible to determine if the site meets base density or how the split zone of the site affects density 4 See KeC 21A.12.200 DensitY Blending when a site is divided by varying zones -cannot exceed max. density (150% ) in blending density 5 All drive aisles, parking, and other site features must be identified and dimensioned -parkill.9 aisles required width is 24 feet 6 Need 2 stalls per townhouse unit per KCC 21A.18 -if tandem parking in front of garage is proposed -must meet full stall dimension of either standard or compact -tandem apron parking cannot intrude into sidewalk or drive aisles drive aisles must be clear and unobstructed 7 All public areas, rec. space sidewalks, mail kiosk, recyclable storage and garbage areas must be ADA accessible 8 Landscape buffer required is 10 feet of type II around entire perimeter of site per KCC 21A.16 -the site plan shows 5 feet in some areas - redesign to comply with 10 foot buffer 9 Need to address the new standards for on-site recreational space-see KCC 21A.14.180 10 Need to address the sight triangle at the driveway per KCG 21A.12.210 11 Sidewalks need to be provide from the street through the development measuring at least 48 inches wide-with a curb section elevated above the access road 12 Provide recyclable storage for curbside pick up per KCC 21A.14.210 13 Provide for bike storage in each garage and place notes on plans -per KCG 21A 18.030 E 14 Provide on site illumination to comply with KGG 21A.18.110 H 15 Parking must be provide for the recreation space area, all public features (mail kiosks, central recyclable/garbage collection points) 16 Provide Landscape Bond Quantity Worksheet and Water Budget per KCG 21A 16.300 17 Provide project summary block on title sheet outlining parking, zoning, Max impervious, adjacent land zoning and land uses 18 If any units are Type A handicap units -provide details of the units-show accessible route of travel on the site plan -all residents must have accessibility to common areas -entrances to building must be accessible 19 See written comments from Nancy Hopkins provided at the pre-app meeting Sensitive 1 Need to submit a Sensitive Areas report for the subject parcels as required by King County Code (KCC 21A. 24.110 and 21A.96.1395) Bill Kerschke Areas 2 All sensitive areas within 165 feet of the proposed site should be delineated, described and classified per KeC 21A.06.1415 3 You propose to fill two wetlands and impact associated buffers -a Sensitive Areas study is required to determine whether or not the subject wetlands can be atteredJfilJed under King County Code 4 RID Vaults are not permitted within wetland buffers or BSBL's -roads are not permitted within wetland buffers but may be allowed within the 15 foot BSBL -need to relocate the R/D Vault and road outside of the sensitive area buffer and 15 foot BSBL 5 Per Public Rules 21A-24-016 King County may approve buffer width averaging jf you can demonstrate that the total area contained in the buffer on the site does not decrease and that the proposal will provide additional protection to the sensitive area -the minimum buffer width can not be less than 65% of the standard buffer width -if buffer width averaging can not be completed you may apply for a Sensitive Areas Variance 6 Based on the site plan you propose to discharge stormwater to a wetland -this may be allowed if the discharge does not increase the rate of flow, change the plant composition in forested wetlands or decrease water quality -to satisfy code you will need to provide a hydrologic assessment to measure or estimate elements of wetlarid hydrolperiods under existing pre-development and anticipated post-development conditions by a qualified hydrologist 7 Project site plans must depict all sensitive areas, associated buffers, and 15 foot BSBL in relation to all proposed project developments -site plans must also show the extent of all dearing limits in relation to the sensitive areas and associated buffers SEPA 1 Need to provide 12 copies of the Environmental Checklist and plans and 1 copy of any special studies submitted with the building permit Angelica Velasquez application , Platting 1 The Boundary Line Adjustment can be processed concurrently with the building permit appllcation -the Boundary Line Adjustment will need to be Patrick Simmons approved prior to final zoning review of the building permit . i . ., 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: 6/2/2005 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.! Benson Heights Add. 12632 SE Petrovitsky Road Concrete Detention & Water Quality Vault The following conditions apply to the above referenced penni!: 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 quite 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 LB.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 106.3.43 LB.C. as amended by King County Code C. Provide the following special inspections (to comply with Section 1709, I.B.C.): 2003 IRe short jobs condition items Last saved by brevhcho 06/0212005 . 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, I.B.C. The following items shall have .special inspection: I) Excavation and foundation subgrade 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 06/0212005 Page 2 of3 I ,I, ' I I I' '", I I '. I '. I I I' I I I I I,· " • . I, I, , , , . , ' '.~' , . ,,' LA FORTUNA COMMERCIAL SITE " .~ DEVELO~MEN1 , , , , . \ .. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, . " KING COUNTY . "., \ : " Pr~pared for, D.R~STRONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC .. , ,th 10604 N.E.38 PI., #101 , . , '. Kirkland, WA .98033 ' .. , . , " , : '" ,\ , ' , , . " , " . " , ~, '2223, 112thAvenue N.E.; Suite 101 ' , . Believue, Washington 98004-2952' . ,'. Telephone: (425) 455-5320 ., \D),lE © lE il VJ lE \Q). Facsimile: (425) 453-5759:. lfil MAY 2 9 Z003,', '.' , , '. ' '; . 'K.C. D.D.E.S:, " . , 1 ~ . " , " I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I lA FORTUNA COMMERCiAL SITE DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC 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. 2223 112th Ave. N.E., Suite 101 Bellevue, WA 98004-2952 425.455.5320 Fax 425.453.5759 April 25, 2003 I EXPIRES 9/15/ 0<{ 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, Poe. Prslldenl OAVID H. ENGER, P.E. Vice President 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. 38 th 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. 172 nd St. at 127'h Ave. S.E. in unincorporated King County. Access to the site will be via 127'h 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 127 1h Ave. Southeast.. Access is proposed via the extension of 1271h 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 TlON 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 n I Il. m 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 Condominiumrrownhouse (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 Ih < Ave. Southeast. The intersection of S.E. 172 nd St.l1271h 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 nd 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. 172nd St.l127 1h 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. 1281h Ave. S.E. S.E. 172nd 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 1h Ave. S.E. or S.E. 172nd Street. Pedestrians would use the existing paved shoulder or marked bicycle lane on S.E. 172nd 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 1h St. and 1281h Ave. S.E. and connects to Pelrovilsky 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 CONO/TIONS 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. 172nd St.l127 th 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 D 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 0 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 D 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. 1720d S1.I127'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 .dualleft- turns and a right turn for each leg of the intersection. Other irnprovements include the addition of bike lanes from 140th Ave SE to 143rd Ave SE and frorn Petrovitsky Road to Pipeline Rd, illumination, drainage and curb, gutter and sidewalk improvernents. 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 Estirnate 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 analysis 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 f· 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'h 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 MITIGATION 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~ ca~:PE 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 Condominiumffownhouse (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) 127th 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:\-ProjectsIK0431503\K043fSOJ Traffic Impact Analysis,doc I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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. 172no St.! 0 1 1 2 1281h Ave. S.E. 1281h Ave. S.E.t 2 1 5 8 Petrovitsky Rd. C:l~ProjeclsV<043150J\K04Jf503 Traffic Impact Analysis.doc I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 65TIl ~ ST ' c , , ~'-'~-.>, , , ___ ••• _~ .. __ ' ••• 0 •• __ '_' • "'?>l.-..q.>-...j ._=- fll T Pl. . . PL I ~ CIIARLES A I!:l LINDBERGH HS S1 1715 5\ "Reproduced with permission granted by lHOMAS BROS. MAPS~. This mop is copyrighted by mOMAS BROS. MAPse. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resoie, without permission. All 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 ------_.--_. ... .--_ .. -_. --" .. -.-.--... ----. ____ . ____ .~ .... _~+-.. "{\---,-+--.. -... --.-------.. -.-"."O;.'''· .. ,=. __ e......... . .. _ ...... _. _ ...... _ ... _ .. 0'_ "------~.---.-.---•. '::::~,-;:'-,::[:";i=-.. --~."'-•• --.=-.~---_ ... _-----------. '.:::::::~ ~ ~~ ~ \ ~ \ >~~e·( ~ ~ \ ~ \I,-,!1I"""" ':: :::::::::: ~:::::::::: :\:: :~.:'·/:d!l..l')( 'if"' ___ .-.... , ........ -.-... -.: .... : · . . . . . . . . . . ." ~ . · : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : -:r:~~'~ :.; . . ~ ............. -::.'.' ....... , • • -• • •• ..".. I . -. . . .. ... .. ,' • • • • • _ • . • • -• J :::::::::::" .'.::::. ~:.:.···'t. r I i -" .. , SITE PLAN \ . -..... . ~... , LA FORTUNA TOWNHOUSES -KING COUNTY TRAFFIC IMP ACT ANALYSIS FIGURE 2 I •• I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10% ill OUT TOTAL 15 7 22 petrovitsl<.Y Rd. w vi ai > « .r: ~ r-- ~ N 0 ~ ~ ~ _12 2_ ~t( ~o<O 50% w vi ai > « ~ lD .r: ~ <Xl N ~ ~ 80% ) 1-~ 5_ ~ I LEGEND I I I x --PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume & Direction SITE GENERATED PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES LA FORTUNA TOWNHOUSES -KING COUNTY TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS j N not to scale 25% FIGURE 3 I I 1 w w N I vi vi not to scale ~ oi > « « I .r: .r: ~ ~ I' OJ N N I I S.E. 172nd St. 25 mph 4 2L P I Traffic island in I middle of intersection -.J N If) N I I I I petrovitsky Rd. 35 m 4L I I LEGEND I 0 Traffic Control Signal c{ Stop Sign I XX mph Posted Speed Limit -Approach Lane & Direction XL Number of Roadway 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 petrovitskY Rd. w ui <Ii > « Wednesday 4-16-03 4: 45-5: 45 PM w ui ~ « I LEGEND I I I x --PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume & Direction EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES LA FORTUNA TOWNHOUSES -KING COUNTY TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 1 N not to scale FIGURE 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I E. 172nd St. petrovitskY Rd. w vi tU > <t: w vi I LEGEND I I I x -PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume & Direction PROJECTED 2005 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT LA FORTUNA TOWNHOUSES -KING COUNTY TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ! N not to scale FIGURE 6 I .1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I S.E. 172nd SL petrovits\<.Y Rd. LEGEND X -PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume & Direction w vi ai > « PROJECTED 2005 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH PROJECT LA FORTUNA TOWNHOUSES -KING COUNTY TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS , N not to scole FIGURE 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II , ;. I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: SE 172nd St & 127th Ave SE l:X157>;\J4 Zoo.3 4/25/2003 -<> <>-t Mo~efi1,~ritr;,if,1i~~I;Y:7l:'!i]!1~El3l!!;j:;:-IDf~BR~w;i3~iiMwsmWEfRW'iNBi1~NB~NBR;'"";SBi:li}::SBJ1?IJSBR Lane Configurations 4> 4> 4> 4> Sign Control", Yield Yield Yield Yield Volume (veh/h) 3 21 0 0 13 9 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 now rate (veh/h) 3 23 0 0 14 10 0 0 0 9 0 1 ~orML1iJj~?#Km~E~W~~MJ;1~SJ~lk1;·~;P.1{~.~~~Fr.~¥~.~~PW:~,;::1:;;::~;7!~'f;lg~;:l Volume Total (vph) 26 24 0 10 Volu,me @ft(vph) 3 0 0 9 Volume Right (vph) 0 10 0 1 Hadi (5)' -, 0.1 -0.2 0.0 ' 0:1 Departure Headway (5) 4.0 3.8 4,0 4.1 Degree Utilization, x 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.01 Capacity (veh/h) 891 653 900 859 Control.tielaY (5) 7.1 6.9 ',7.0 7.2 Approach Delay (5) 7.1 6.9 0.0 7.2 Approach {OS; , A ' , A A A' I"t· "·t'""IS" 'Iii' """IQf"i!ilW iii Uij'I,,,,,,,,,,'!1 " ''''~l"''''·i&'i,· Jl'''''''I''~''''''''''''':"l1r''''''''7''''''' -_, "'I" "r;::;,:~r'~ n ~ r.s.e.q ,Ion, Jj m _n_. ,ar.y;!i);! !1I':1i:n~'liiW~\~, ~ljlfl;;l.t~~~{t;f#,~Ii,f"i!:ldl~~'S4'l!;j(1l'iim! .. -:U;I,~.;!'l,iI~r:!11~~.l:,~~ij.!~J~'11;il~ID,!!J; 'ir.i.'e,·t.;f;;'ij;i:\.'i';:ri.4.M~Fl;,·<;~:'-'l!lil!"JI'>· "LI~ ~:~;;;I ~,~.:. fl. ,_" ~Y: ... ,· ~ I 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: SE 172nd St & 127th Ave SE iVrv;(cf" 1.110 1'/(.0.. (Z.00'5.) 4/25/2003 fWQY.®iMl'li~.~~liE~TE~1EB"!:~\1w.13~B.ifriFi;w,I\I~lmfNBL!l1:;'NBJii"'ii!Ni3Bi~T::~sB[IT,1;SBt\,;;.·isBR Lane Configurations 4> 4> 4> 4> Sign Control. . 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 mlf~.cti.9'i\"i!~'i\~J.#l.~ll!m:~"i1!T!J]i;~WJi1!:~WJlq;;JfS1il\1l:;:liJ!mnit(l&§IM!lliil!llilii!I,1:i!l!iiii!!lZl~iF,':lJLq;~jih},i.1JI!~W,i~:,~;f;;Wt,'f,,4,~:Uh!':id::::;';;J Volume Total (vph) 27 26 0 10 Volume Left (vph) 3 0 0 9 Volume Right (vph) 0 11 0 1 Hadj (8) 0.1 -0.2 0.0 0.1 Departure Headway (s) 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.2 Degree Utilization, x 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 Capacity (veh/h) 890 654 889 857 Control Delay (5) 7.1 6.9 7.0 7.2 Approach Delay (5) 7.1 6.9 0.0 7.2 Appio~cti,~o~ ...., A A A A I' r,a,wot'B'S ' . wo, • "P.'l"'IiiiW·t;.'1iI!l 1<1J.IIWMr' 11"'[["""1' ··mN,,·!IJ!'l!JI~ni:\l, j'''''''''' ,,:"W" "" cr,l' ·,",,","'1' rid"" p'" ". I'iii ~" '$ "1 ,n. .. ~[S~_9.. J.. , QJk ... yrrH:n.a.r;.y,d~ ill,lfnlrlbfik/,"lIjtJ li'!tI~,~;.iill:nh~~.'.~I~Jl!1 ;(r.:Uk1 .. ~;ir 1!;ill,,,~:.t.gfH~;~'6jf.~~ 1lUl.lQ1!.l~u 1¥J:~~('ib:!!;f!iy~ . .J~:~I'~ ~f'...\ ,~!&!.d1~'~{~,~~\,'.!~~1J<'". ,ri"_,1.'·,l!fl:'::;~/ 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 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 &~ wi ('.eo:>\......,-(ZOus) 4/25/2003 M::QYem~n~q?ul~lffilgJl:mEB8~"f:inEBii\!ifi~EB8lWf;\wiBi1W;i'!\W~ifffli!i,WB ~NBT[i,®lNBT;I,liN.BR~?iSBU~rSBJl;:j'r;SEiR Lane Configurations 4> 4> 4> 4> SigriConlfol. . Yield . YirM 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) 3 24 2.13 15 11 1 0 7 9 1 1 m~I9ii~~~rIeril1]11~li~irE~~~~~~ill~1]E[s_~1~1.~FiJh'l:!rfb]i~t3;11!i)§~!EIFlf.3,~~,~[:~~';i~.~l~~~~:~~:r:~'~):F:,.-:n Volume Total (vph) 29 39 8 11 il6iume Left (vph) 3 13 19 Volume Right (vph) 2 11 7 1 Hadj (s) 0.0 -0.1 -0.5 0.1 Departure Headway (s) 4.0 4.0 3.6 4.2 Degree Utilization, x· 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.01 Capacity (veh/h) 892 634 970 851 Control. belay (s) 7T 7.1 6.6 7.2 Approach Delay (s) 7.1 7.1 6.6 7.2 Approach LOS A A A A Delay HCM Level of Service Interseciion CapaCity Utilization Baseline TMNSPBELL-ST51 7.1 A 13.3% 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 Accident li"'ng 01/01/1\199. 12/ZIl/2001 QUADRANT CASE II) )),\'J"F: Tl~m MX SEVICHITY PICD ,\GI; WI\flT1IJ\It LlGl1T1N(; ROAD COI.I.ISIOl" .TYI'I\ D1STA:-J ~'r ItF""\' I 99-76561.3 W!I.l!I9'J'J 1<);211 l'ropc.tr I)"m:.t:" II UI·170()<)S 10/2(./2001 20;15 1'''lf'CI!)' Ddrndgc 0 '!..Iin'''): Ddrk auect light nry \"eh,rrikc'I;~C\I"I,j \) 121I\'LJ;\\'ESE SIC 172:-11)::'1' ()1)·993301 OIl!2'vZ(H)I) IO:2? Injury Ace () (1]·310010 11/15/2001 11:.~~ Injury Ace Slluwing n"i"ing Snm>'ing Il~rk !trcct 1;I;h, \\,,"! :>'I,wing \'eh sujkl'~ p,uknl (\ 122:-<1) ,\YIO.s1': ~E InND $"1' n,'yligi1r We'! 1Iighr,"'0:1<' (l 1211T11,\\'I.',SF; .~E 1721'>:(')5'1" D.)"ligh, Wet lti(;hr;o"r,lc (I I~Hnl 1\\"1051, $1-: In!'<.'I)S'!' 127th Ave. SE -south of SE 172nd St. SE to north of SE 164th Street .. \,-,';,1"1\1 I;,'inf~ lI'/(\l/l'~)'J· 12/2l1nl~lL I..1U.\DIt,\NT C,\:-;Ii ID DA"I'I': '1'1.\11: .\ec ~;!"'E1U I'Y PEL> ,\CI, WliXntlm l.lt:lITlNC 111 MI) CUI.LI:'le Jf\: '1'\"1'[.: PISr,\:-I snWI,T I :;-1 U!;I' r 2 ~ V').lI6L~~.r; U~! 15/1'1'1') 3: 15 I'rol'crt~ 1 J.ln'"l~e n CIl·", or Cloud)" n.,,~ ~Ifu't 1,);111 nry ,\10' ;Il!'. ,,·h ""ih-'p"rked Hl) l.'!TI'I I ,\\'1'. :>1·: :,F If,b"11 S I ~ 1l1l·r,7(,IUO 11(,/I.I/20IXI :!"S ... Pro!'c.,)' n"m.I~~ Il Ck", Of Clul"l)' I),lr~ ~trt'rl l;gll1 Dry ,\I',,',n!; I'ch "'nk,:~ p ... ked 1::0 1::TI'II ,\\'1'. 51-: S" !inTI I 1'1. 128th Ave. SE -SE 176th to SE 164th Streets .\c(i,krH n~.ing 01/01/1')<)'). 12/2H/2f~)1 QUADRANT C,\SI> ID I)J\'I'I'~ 'l"1.\m ,\CC ~1i\'EItITY PED ,\GE WE:\T1IEIt UGI1T1NG ROi\l) COl.l.lsror-: TYI'E l)!STA:-.I STIIEE'!' I STlIlml'.'! 99'('76lJ9 01/23/199'11:.\0 Injury Ike 0 5,,,,,,,,,,& J)~rk meet ligtll Wrr lti/-11r angle 0 12lI'I'1I/\\'I\:'i': SI\ 167'1'11 sr ,),)·('1I3U10 02/19/19')') 1~,.\5 Injury ,\cc 0 5""",i1\/; Da)"lir,hl \\'CI nighl ~nr.lc 12R'fl 1 .\ \'f!:'E SE l'E'I'tt{)\'[T~KY ItD- <)<).(lbl022 03/12/199') (,:~~ Property 1),1ITr,lge If ~n"",in!\ n,,)'li}',h! Dry ~D holl, ~lr,ligh, one w'f' ItE n I~H'J'I[ ,\\'[, SE ~E PET[tt)\'II'~K\' RI)- ')'),(,II~S[(, 12/1~/1<),)') 2m P"'P""Y l)"n>ar;c n Sno"'in[: 1).IrK ~I'~<'I "p,hl WeI Moving nh >!Iikc~ l'",kcd ·12tt 11!1TII ,\VE ~I': SE 1(,7 1"11 ST 01/·(,7(,;7<) OJ/29/2<U0211,2·11'lOpCfly f).'n~,gc 0 Ck", ,or Cl'Hl<ty D.,k .. " .. ,I 1i1~11! Dr)' ~[) 1.,,110 ~1f'\'l:hl hUlh "~,,,ng III-: H"I 1211'1 It .\\'1\ ~F. ~J, j(,lTll ST {~I R?077(, (l2nIl/2(~~1 H"llt) J',,,,,,,II)' DOl""'",' liCk·." '" Clu"dy f)")"I\h, Dr)' J.t:'''''nl~ d,',.~·,,".), II~(I 1211'111 ,\ \'1, SI'. SE 171-"';1) ST OO·1lJl977(, n3/03/21~)O J4'2(llnju,y ,ke \) Snowing J)Jy],t;hl W,'I SI) ['(,Ih ""d'l~hl t""llo "'i)"our. RJ, HJI! 12~TII ,\\,E.'iE SE 1l>~'11l '-:'1 1\11·8')0'),1/1 1l7/23/21111l) 1');30 ['rope"I)' 1)"m"l:c neb" Of Cloud)' 1).')'''I\hl I)ry ~D .,11 "Ilrer~ n 1211'1'11 .\\'1': .~I' SI,: [(,H'111 ~'I tI().1)93~OI 01l/23/2()(l(1 W:21) Injur)' '\1:(: 0 R;,ini"l1 1)0)'1\/;101 We! l1,ighl ~ngl" 12A'I'I! .. \VI, S!': SI': 17~r-.:1) S'I 1)rJ.')'H3(!~ 1~)/I)(,/2I~lCl (,:2.~ I'ropwy Dam.lr.c 0 ll~in;nl; DArJigJ,{ We{ (1) une It Wrn ""'. "r,'ir,hl n 12A"I'II ,\n~SE SE I'ETUt)\'ITSJ..:Y It)) _ nl·I~2U6·,(l1/17/;!(kn 11;~.il'rop~rtyl)"m"b""O (k-~rorCioody n.'ylighl f),y SD~lluth"r! 190 12B'III,\\'[,::I, SEI(o( .. nl~T (t1.1456~1 (t2/03j2(1()1 .1:.\0 I'roP"'{)' Damage (l R,lininll Da,~ ~IIC('I lil\hl \\.'('t \-\'h Jl,ikcs ' • .cd "hj n 1211'1'11 I\\,E ~m SE I'ETRO\"ITSJ..:Y RD_ 1I1·'),).lIl') 102/ IS/liMit 14:1-1 I''''pert)" )).U1\.');" II () I)"yli);hl ') Sl) hOlh .I"""hl ho,h ,n""nll IlY ,n~ 12!f1'l1 ,\ \'1:: SE S[; 1(, ITII .;;'[' (I].I-IS82I1I~I/(!.>/2IW)I.2UH ['1<>1" It)' DAm:lgt:' II S",,,,·inr. DA,k 'I«'cl lip.hl \\'~I ::n hOlh .tmighl Ioolh """inl\ Itl, n 1211') II .\ \"1' ~)\ .'iE Pin I\O\Tr~h: \. II\) 01·89072-1 \)-I/2i>/2IlCll II :20 [nj",)" .\(( I) Ciu, 0< O<'utir n~yl;gh, D,), SIl "",h m·.iy,h! nne m,' RE II 1211"1'1 I ,\\'1'; SF, SF. 110'1111 ST il! ·!(,')512 OIl/02}2()()) 2.1 :36 I'rol";<!Y D.trl\','gc (1 O",'f or Cioudy DMk ~lrt'C! lighl Dry Sl) I'olh m"igln one ~!"I' ItI\ 1211111 ,\ \'1' SI, ~I, 1'1':'1'll{ 1\'1'1 ~K Y Ill) - 111·171\0')2 (18/u,,/2!KII 2:1;11) 1""1""'1)" l)'''''"gr I) Ibillil1/\ U")'lil;hl D,y ()l) ""e It n"" """ ",,'ighl (I IlliT11 ,\\"1': 51'. SI,: I'E'['nn\'n~KY Itl) - (lJ.3JOI"(,lO/1')/2011l12;WI''''perlJ'D~'1\.'g~O 0 D~}'Ii.~hl ') Veh~lrik~~lhcd()hj II 1211'JIJA\'I,::I; SE1(,')l'tI~'1 (ll·3102J~ 11/07/200111:22 Inju,y'\.:c 0 Ck'l1r or ChHldy DJyJight I)ry SI)1>"lh "r~;gh{ one .h'fl RE II 128TI r I\n·: ~E. SIC 1'F:I'lIU\'ITSKY nil (Jl.]IO(K)<) 11/14/200J 11:40 Injur)' ,\ce 0 Sno"'ing D.,)'Ii~hr \\,,'1 Hight ;lI\glc \l 11KI'I! ,\VE 51': Sol', 1(,1'111 S-r OI·.1111t}JO 1J/l.'i/20()1 11:.i;lnj"ry A(c n 511()"';"g D.t)'lir)u \\'('1 Highl anl\lc 12H"I'II .\\'[;:'1': ~I', 1nK!) ~'I Page 1 of 1 4/22/03 -_. - - - - - - - -.. --------liliiii King County Transportation Concurrency Pipeline Projects in the Vicinity of 128th Ave SE SE 176th .= Single Family Residential, , .--------"-----,-,-.--.. -,-_._,,---------.---_. --'---"----.-<..-.-------.----i inale Familv Residential: 0; 2823059027, -------+----------1 , 01 3423059008i ---.--------,---·---'------nr---n7~C)nnnnA·~ -______ ._.-""-______ ,--____________________ .. ". ___ ~::.'_'~~~ _____ 2 _____ -_. ____ .. __ ~ __ . .'::'_:._::::::.::.~~ ....... _. _ ,~.". ~~ ". ". ""~ .. 8 Ave SE i 1, 0 Single Family Residential i 0' 6196600280; t ----------.-+ ___ . ___ -'--J _________ ----.--------.. ------~-------!-... -------:--~-' .. ---------------." ------------t-.---------... --.;-----.---- :APPROVE j98-04-15-01 !Petrovitsky Rd & 134 Ave SE . 0, 30 Multifamily ! 0; 2723059049; L~PPROVE -;99-03-15-03 i122XX sE£,e~o.v~is.k2'.=_=~___ .. _! .. _____ (L ___ .. ~7~:Mult~~r11!~)'___ .' ~==~· __ .~. ___ ~~=:=~'O]~~~0:c39O'O~~~§! 4/25/03 7:07 AM Pipeline Projects ® King County Department of Development and Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale /\ venue Southwest Renton, WA 98055-1219 Commercial Site Development Permit (CSDP) Report and Decision Application: Project Location: Applicant/Owner: Applicant Representatives: B03DCOOI 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 DOES 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 fo(a 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 (NOAl 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 (SEPAl 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 28 th , 2003. Regulation sign boards with notice materials were posted at the South side of 12th Avenue SE and SE 172 nd Street. The sign was posted at the Southern terminus end of 12th 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 12th 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 128th 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: ~1. A4i2. qo .. hLgT¢r,if1~.diVT~~T;fzg7j~-.. ~fiLif·Wary~':yVhena7oiprSite is ~ivided I by:.a.f,orfi!,.'20l.flld~,ry" fhl1.tg llQ,"Ylpg. aPl?I!~s;. I i' ...., ...... , . }'<\:'·,.,,~,,3T\" ',:r,' (,:'J'·\';:'·"'::,'>Ji i,':"I.,:>.o,." '>", " ",;::: '.,', ,: 'I',", " .' ',,' , . , ' ", B;Jfa IQt.or.site.cof,ltains residential. zones of varying density: '.. .. ;;, ':(," ':" 'Y'" ";II;r;;::I::":;';;':;);;~':' :,;~';~:(' ': :.:",1';,';::" ~":;j ~:'". '::~:'j,!, !I::" . "',:j':"', ,;~~\j, !';::'!:1r"~',\,', 'I'::':j''"'::'' ';, ' ;,;~): , .. ',', ",j. ',. _'. 1" J, -. ' Ih!~~~:i1~~~~:::~~~~~(&.~nJ~~d4c~n.i~w~~~~oi~~eo.1~~fb~~~~;~~r(:~t~~thinl S!~sJ1JI.;g.r:.:f!lg!Jl.§§.6.Q[!§Jine§.J'tithina singlelo/,dges 'lQt expeed one hundred rift;] B03DC001 La Fortuna CSDP La Fortuna, LLC, B03dc001 09/22/03 Page 5 !percent of,the. basedensltiof). anyo! the,1o.ts ofPo(jion:s 01 a iottC;:wfiich fhe"-""] l?~nsityis,transferred:"'.,, .. 'i ;". \ . " ... 1 J/:':I ,." ,< ,.,t, '<,I;J ", "',". _"," \,1: ",(,<1 ",.1;,\,,,,-'I \1;"" " :,' ';'1, -"'. ; "I. ,;' , , .{. I 8: tfJ~tdinsfi!Jr ~olisilnotreduce th~f11inimUln density achievable 'on tlie lot or site;,.!' Ge·'me trilmsfe.r'i:mhances fheefficii!1hl use'of'needed infrastructure;: .. ' .... :':t:~,::":F~'!I':'::'::'" .,1. '1';';;;«:;" :;~':~",' :,;",~,;,;,,:,:'~~0;,':: 1?_'. I 'J~'"" ':::::i\,:'_ j;;:-::::.,": <:-", ';:,':, "', J: ::.: 7 ,1:;.","_, .' j -" " ,'., '" , ',i' _.~, '". I,' , ',' . :, ", " " . ct,.tIj.e~lr:<!n~f,~rF!8~·~;;~gr~~~8/~,.in.··~Lgn.ifi,ca.~( ~c;fyersf3/,!,ljac(Srli:>.·rh~ lo~·.~ensity··· P9,rtlon;pfthttJo/()t;,slte;;,.":,,. '. ..' , ... "".,;' '.", .. J.. .• , .•.• ',' . ',j.',. I,\;d "" "\i' J 0,,',,': e;the'transfer contributes· to preservation of e~~jron;nent~lIy sensiti~~ areas; wildlife' corridors/·or·other naturaMeatures;· and . ., '. i,... . ,,,-.,' ,I,.," I" 'Jr;N";"\' _,."',1 ,,>:, , ' '1";""j,:,'",i't":,I,r", , ,,'" 11'''.'1<\"" ,'\ i ", I' f.·th~i/a.i?~f~r.4oes .. not /esult ihsig~ifi~atli ;ild..,erse impacts to adjoining lower ~ dehsi" (6 'antes'.:.,:r . .." . .•...•... . .'. ;.... .... •.. •.... ... .' "'\'~'/';li),ly:jP""l Ah]"""""Y',' ,', ",' ,j.,J, ,,-• " ,-"" \ " ' • "":i \\ ":":;;~"'" A' 1>{'-t,: :,: ", ,ih'; • 'I;' '~f';" ',: \:: 't: . < ::<, 'i' j";1 ;,,1, ,:;t ' ,),1,. "),, 'I H" ::,' " :,:':" .: :: i:: " '-1." " " :', ,: : ',~,:; ":, , , 3 •• r:1Resic;le~tialcjf;rl{J.lty,.tr:W!$f~r~J:sha/l.~Pt'l~,e.al£ovv.e.dt0,.8 Ipt orp~.rt.'9n of a,lot· . J z,one",F?'7.'1,,~.J!,ji 1.,\,',':,' -/-'\,' . .'!.';;' ": cI :'" , I; " 'i , '":,"(.1 ,t/""';':"I,"I!;~l\:J!",,:;Ll:";' " '\'I,~: ;lh':'.''<,''~;, ~,"" ',:" ," 'i, , y,,' ""'" ,\.1,."", ,_,,, 'I 4;eoir1pli~ncewitMhecriteriainihissi.Jbsectiof) B.shall beeva/uated during .' review' ofany,'develol2mentRroRosalsin ,which such_a transfer is,.RroJ20sed; and,. I 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. f2;c .. G~~Sider~iion:of:the:roco"!men7i~J~nnr;CQij(r;r§rrrOf'ffl.t~I:~$t~d.ea.rlie~a~d. l!l19.s,eClge,flC!~sbavmgexperl,seorJunsd,ct,on,.cons(stent. w,th. the reqUlr€!me'lts "o'th','s" 't,'tle"" "".i ", ."" ·"c·'· , .. ". "'. 1 . ,........ '''''' .'. '.' , • • • • '. ~!J_,:""""".ji.;;';"'""",'':''''''ll':',J~ .. j",~_ ... ...."",_.,~.;....k._,,,---,',_'' -, ", ' .. ,"",,' ) '1 ," '·1 ,', , 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). /3;'ISi.JQs~qt'Ji'lntperl7Jits fo':thesl.!bject:site~shall 'jjfi:rssued onlyTrrcompi7aQce'" Withtfll:l apPl;oved.cdmmercial,site .deveI6pmentplan. Additional site. " '. '. " deveJopmen'i,cbndiii2);:;s?ndsite.~~:vi~.w'i;y)jlr1otBrlr,e(rui;eci fofsdbsequ€!nt' '. pet:mitSproyidedthe approved'plan is'notaltered... .1 " .j •• <;:).'::/::, ~::,,': ':~:I':l):,:')"I",,:},,~:J~, ::"::,: ,.;.':''':'.'. ,~"" .. \:",~, ,:\:,.;:', ~:~,' '<'" \ "'" ',:':1, ::: "'):'~' "', :~' ,i ,',:,', ,,',". /,' , 'I'': ',' ','" , c: Approlialo(theproP9sedcornm~~9ia,Is.M.cI€!ye(opment ~halPn?tprovidethe' applicant with a vested right to b/Jild.without subs.equent chang€!s, in the building ?nr:J..,'f1t;sL~g1L~~2jstej:f"iit..lSJ;;'C,16:·04"and 17:04"r~gulating construction. . " 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 su bmittal. 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 21A':4.1 1.06cp ii." Appfication<ofdevelopmentstaniJard "i:·Ai;i.·aiip7iCation7[)r.~ ..... ' cpif!m~i:~i~I.M~.a.ftyeI9Rrnent'p~rlJ1i,rSha!lb;'~viewedpursuant t? chapter 43.21 C RCW, SERA.,aslmpleme(]t~dby W),)G t97~.11 ;K.c,.C.". 9.04; SUrfaceWater '. . M ...•.. a.·.l .. ~. a.' .. ~e .. ,m. e./,~. t.: .. ~~ ... C ... ;.C. '.1 ... 4., .. l~ ..... 2. 'R. ,0ad.S.t.an.d .... a .. rdS;!(C.C,. WB2,Gr~dif)g;,I<.;C:C. Trtle ! 1lJu:ec;ode, K.Cd!; .. 20.44, (Jounty EnvIronmental Procedures, K.C.C .. Tltle.21A, zonihfiK.t.q.·:rIti~:2i5,~h9mfif)~Mtri~§eriJenr:;admjtiiNrative(UIe's adopted' IRufsuanNoK(J. C.2.98 to .implemehtlanY suc;/;I. GO(Je 'oT:.ordiri~rice provision; 'King CduhtY"bOar(ji'6fheafth iJ rules i:mci'regulations;, county dpproved. utility... .' '.' ••. . d'ii'Ji'."l"'TY,),-""'f,,,.c',i\,·"",':""I' "' .. ,,' ,,', ' ",-, " compreh~n.stv~ pJcm~; 9qt!!q®~y .~ithf!l?e!!~~~/e·f'.~~,~f!ix c;o~~iti?ns. ", . I I,' '" ,~",,!,;,1,\ ", _,' .:;1 ,,:,j":'l' _ 'j".'",:'. ',\,," \:<i., ,j;_, ."''<':<'.)'''' ,'I" ,.,,' i"'" , ",,' "'. I rt.ot-ba,seo·stan.dards;suchas internal· circulation, landscapingsignage af)d ... I r~. e .. ·.t .. .b.ac~,.~~qu.:I:if!.'€Jrrf:} .. n.t~,.~fe,J'IP~i:; . .aily. a.PfJ.'ied ..... ito ... ,~.ac ...... ~ ... in .. d.i.viduallot W .. ifhin. the site ... 11 Howeveflpthe diractor may. approve an application' f9J: r;omriiercial slte . . .... aevelopmerit ""hete'suchstandards have, been.appliedtothe site:as/f it . .' consistiiCi"Otd'niipatceJ.·t.ot"baSed regulations shall"notbe waived altogether:. '·1 r;,~i;::;'.~· :::,~"\::, d ;, :": ''''':' ,::.' '.'" "":''1. ~ e,:: .,: '1:;,:,. .,:::~ ,j::: :,':':::'::\:';::j;, :f l "}' ,:::_,:!,;';~,::;/ ~ ',,:::,l,' >; ",,' i' : ,::~, ~,', ',:, ~ ',:: 't.,~,," ,:':,,,:,, ,,',' ~ -,,: " , ,. , .' " , IThedirector'maymodifylot"based,or lot IineIeqUirefT)ents.c0f!taif)~d Withiti the' , Ibuilciitifj; fir~\and' otherSimilar:'uf)iformcodes adopted by the county, provided the IsiteJs)i~iag'f(i~(e~~d:~o.ti.c:~(,,~dtlj/'~it6 a.~inqi?9,.~ite,planap'plication: (Orer.· , .. 1302Z:§. 31,\1998 .. OrC/ .. ,.1. 1621;~§"1.2.§,J-1J!JHJ.::; ..... ,,"...._\.,"_ . .:..._ Comment: Code and regulatory modifications to any lot-based standard are not part 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 21A.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 CountyComprehensive 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 21 A.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 B01L0618 and B01L0467. 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.41.110. 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 Department ofTraURportation 201 Southjack .. .,on Street Seattle, WA 98104-3856 TYPE OF CERTIFICATE 1:8:1 ORIGINAL o CONDITIONAL , February 19, 2002 Certificate # 01375 File Number: 02-02-05-01 EXDires: Februarv 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. I. . Applicant Name and Address: Karl Best, K-Best CDnstruction 4801 Storm Lake Road, Snohomish, WA 98290 [FJ~©~~W~~ FEB 1 3 2003 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 Pennit To Be Requested: Multifamily Permit 4. Proposed Land Use: Multifamily Residential 5. Zone Location and Reserved Units: ". a. Concurrency Zone: 336 Community Planning Area: Soos Creek i. Commercial 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: FebruarJ 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 Services (ODES), bring this Certificate of Transportation Concurrency as part of the development application package. If you have any questions, please cull (206) 263-4722. Linda Dougherty, Manager, Road Services Dh';';''''- Department of Transportal ion King COWlty, Washington V ,r , . ! • '; ' .. ~ r , • .. .. .' . '" ..... Conceptual Mitigation Plan for the La Fortuna Townhouses in King County, Washington Pre-Application #A01 PM115 Prepared For: Best Construction Karl Best 10117 _158th 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 .' "" ,." 4r.epared By: ti.."" '\ . 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 . ," -..!} N \ • • ~ \ 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 Plan Best Construction King County The Jay Group, LLC January, 2003 Job # 202095 · , INTRODUCTION The subject property is located at the south end of 127'h Avenue SEat 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 pts Flood/ A... size < 5 acres -size 5~ I 0 acres -riverine or lakeshore wetland -mid·sloped wetland Storm Water Control -< 10% forested cover -10-30% forested cover _ unconstrained outlet 2i semi-constrained outlet 2L located in lower 113 of drainage -located in middle 113 of Points ~ drainage (max 15) Base Flow/ lL size < 5 acres -size 5-10 acres -riverine or lakeshore wetland _ mid-sloped wetland Groundwater Support 2L located in lower 1/3 of drainage -localt!d in middle 1/3 of drninnge _ temporarily Hooded or satunlled .2L sensonally or semi-pennanently fluoded or saturated lL no flow-sensitive fish low now-sensitive !ish -populations on-site or populations on-sile or Points _8_ downstretll11 downstream (max 15) Erosion/ _ sparse grass I herbs or no _ sparse wood or vegetation along vegetation along OHWM OHWM Shoreline -weiland extends < 30 m from -wetland t:xtends 30 -60m from Protection OHWM OHWM _ highly developed shoreline or _ moderately developed shoreline subcatchment or subcatchment Points l1/a (max 9) Water Quality _ rapid flow through site ~ moderate !low through site _ < 50% vegetative cover _ 50 -80% vegetntive cover Improvement _ upstream in basin from wetland _ ,::::SO%ofbasin upstream from is undeveloped wetland is developed -holds < 25% overlnnd mnon' -holds 25 -50% overland runoff Points -.ll (max 12) N/A = Not Applicable, Nil = No Information Available La ForlunB Detailed Mitigation Plan Best Construction King County 2 Group 3 3 pts size> 10 acres -~ depressions. headwaters. bogs. flats -X > 30% to{ested cover culvert I benned Dullet -_ located in tipper 113 of drainage size> 10 acres - ~ depressions. headwaters. bogs. flats _ located in upper 1/3 of drainage _ pemlonently nooded or saturated. or intermittently exposed -high flow-sensitive fish populations contiguous with site in highly permeable straHl. -dense wood or vegetation along OHWM wetland extends> 200 III from -OHWM _ undeveloped shoreline or SUbCUlchment _ slow now through site ~ > 80% vegetative cover .A > 50% of basin upstream from wetland is developed -.X holds"> 50% overland runotT The Jay Group, LLC January, 2003 Job # 202095 'Figure 1 Cont.: Wetland A (forested) and Associated quantitative Performance Assessment Buffer Functions and Semi- Function Group I I pt Group 2 2pt Group 3 3pts Natural Biological Support Points 27 (max 36) Overall Habitat Functions Points -.2. (max 9) Specific Habitat Functions Points J.l (max 15) Cultural/ Socio- economic Points 10 (max 21) Noise and Visual Screening Points ..1- (max 9) x.. size < 5 acres _ ag land. row vegetative structure £t.. seasonal surl~1ce waler _ one hnbilllt type PAS POW PEM PSS PFO EST _ low plnn! diversity « 6 species) _ > 50% invasive species _ low primary productivity _ low organic accumulation _ low organic export rew habitat features _ bulTer very disturbed _ isolated from upland habitats x.. size < 5 acres _ low habitat diversity _ low sanctunry or refuge _ low invertebmte habitnt _ low alnphibian habitat --X low fish Imbitat low mammal habitat _ low bird habitat _ low educational opportunities low nesthetic value X lacks commercial fisheries, agriculture, renewable resources 2L lacks historical or archeological resources _ lacks passive and active . recreational opportunities A_ privately oWlled 2L not near open space ....x butler < required width _ no shrub layer _ one vegetative layer _ size 5 r 0 acres _ 2 vegetative levels permanent surt~'lce water ....x t\Vo hahitat types PAS POW PEM PSS ffQ EST _ moderate plant diversity ( 7 • 15 species) _ J 0 -50% invasive species 2 modemle primary productivity -.X lllotierme organic accumulation .....x modernte organic export some hahitat features .-X huffers slightly disturbed _ partially connected 10 upland habitats _ size 5 I 0 acres .-X moderate habilat diversity _ moderate sanctuary or refllge moderate invertebrate habitat .A modernte amphibian habitat _ moderate fish habitat ....x moderate mammal habitat moderate bird habitat --X moderate educational opportunities ....x moderate aesthetic value _ moderate commercial fisherit:s, agriculture, renewable resources _ historical or archeological site ~ some passive and active recreational opportunities _ privately owned, some public access _ not near open space _ bulTer -required width _ sparse shrub layer _ two vegetative l[lyers N/A -Not Applicable, Nil -No Information Available La Fortuna Detailed Mitigation Plan Best Construction King County 3 _ size> 1 0 [leres ~ high vegetative Structure _ open water pools through summer _ .:: 3 habitat types PAS POW PEM PSS PFO EST ~ high plant diversity ( > 15 species) ~ < 10% invasive species _ high primary productivity _ high organic accumulation _ high organic export ~ many habitat leatures _ bulTers not distlirbed ~ well connected to upland habitats _ size> I 0 acres _ high habitat diversity ~ high sanctuary or refuge .....x high invertebrate habitat _ high amphibian habitat _ high tish habitnt _ high mammal habitat ~ high bird habitat _ high educational opportunities _ high aesthetic value _ high commercial tisheries, agriculture. renewable resources _ important historical or a~cheological site _ many passive and at:tive recrentional opportunities _ unrestricted public access _ directly connected to open spnce _ bufier> required width A_ nmple shrub layer 2L 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 I Ipt Group 2 2 pts Floodl lL size < 5 acres -size 5-10 ncres -riverine or lakeshore wetland -mid-sloped wetland Storm Water Control 2L < 10% forested cover -10 -30% Inrested cover -unconstrained outlet ~ semi-constrained outlet 2L located in lower 1/3 of drainage -located in middle J/3 of Points .J. drainage (max 15) Base Flowl lL size < 5 acres -size 5-1 0 acres -riverine or lakeshore weiland -mid-sloped wetland Groundwater Support "-located in lower 113 of dminage -located in middle 1/3 of drainage _ temporarily Hooded or satumted X-seasonally or semi·permanently flooded or saturated -A. no flow-sensitive fish -low flow-sensitive· fish populations on-site or populations on·site or Points .J. 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 subcatehment or subcatchment Points N/A (max 9) Water Quality _ rapid Ilow through site _ moderate tlow through sile Improvement -< 50% vegetative cover .-X 50 -80% vegetative cover _ upstream in basin Hom wetland _ ::: 50% of basin upstream tram is undeveloped wetland is developed Points 9 "-holds < 25% overland runoff -holds 25 -50% overland funoff (max 12) N/A = Not Applicable, Nil -No Information Available l.a Fortuna Detailed Mitigation Plan Best Construction King County 4 Group 3 3 pts size> 10 acres -....x depressions, headwaters. bogs. Ilats > 30% lbrested cover -culvert / bemled outlet -_ located in upper 1/3 of drainage size> 10 acres -X depressions, headwaters, bogs, flats _ located in upper 113 of drainage -permanently flooded or saturated. or intenniltently exposed -high flow-sensitive fish populations contiguous with site in highly permeable strata -dense wood or vegetation along OHWM wetland extends> 200 III from - OHWM _ undeveloped shorel ine or subcatchment ....x slow flow through site _ > &0% vegetative cover 2 > 50% orbasin upstream from - wetlnnd is developed holds > 50% overland runoff The Jay Group, LLC January, 2003 Job # 202095 Figure 2 Cont.: Wetland B (scrub-shrub) and Associated Buffer based on Functions and Semi-quantitative Performance Assessment Function Group I I pt Group 2 2pt Group 3 3pts Natural Biological Support Points 20 (max 36) Overall Habitat Functions Points ..1 (max 9) Specific Habitat Functions Points ..Q (max 15) Cultural I Socio- economic Points ...2 (max 21) Noise and Visual Screening Points -.1 (max 9) X size < :\ acres __ ag land. low vegetative structure _ seasonal surface water _ one hnbitallype PAS POW PEM PSS PFO EST 2L low plant diversity « 6 species) _ > 50 oio invasive species 2L low primal)' productivity 2L low organic accumulation 2L low organic export 2L few habitnt features _ butler very disturbed _ isolnted from upl.md habitats X-size < 5 acres .2L low habitat diversity .2L low sanctuary or refuge low invertebmte habitut X low amphibian habitat 2L low fish habitut 2L low mamillal habitet .2L low bird habitat L low educational opportunities X low nesthetic value 1L lacks commercial fisheries. ngriculture. renewable resources L lucks historical or archeological resollrces .2L lacks passive and uctive recreational opportunities .2L privately owned _ not near open space _ buller < required width _ no shrub layer _ one vegetative layer _ size 5 -10 acres -1i 2 vegetative levels X permanent surface water ~ two habitat types PAB POW PEM 5!i PFO EST _ modemle plant diversity ( 7 -15 species) _ 10-50% invasive species _ moderate primary productivity _ moderate organic accumulation _ Illodernte organic export _ some habitat features ....x bulTers slightly disturbed _ partially connected to upland habitats _ size 5 -10 acres _ moderate habitat diversity _ moderate sanctunry Or refuge ....2i modemte invertebmte habitat _ moderate amphibian habitat moderate fish habitat _ moderate mammal habitat _ moderate bird habitul _ moderate educational opportunities _ moderate aesthetic value _ moderate cOlllmercial fisheries. agriculture. renewable resources _ historical or archeological sile _ some passive and active recreational opportunities _ privately owned. some public access _ "not near open space X bulTer-required width _ sparse shrub layer ....2i two vegetative layers NIA = Not Applicable. NIl = No Information Available La Fortuna Detailed Mitigation Plan Best Construction King County 5 _ size> 10 acres _ high veget.1tive structure _ open water pools through summer _ 2:. 3 habitat types PAS POW PEM PSS PFO EST _ high plant diversity (> 15 species) ~ < 10% invasive species _ high prinmry productivity _ high orgunic acculllulation _ high organic export _ many habitat features _ buflers not disturbed ....2i well connected to upland habitats _ size> 10 acres _ high habitat diversity _ high sanctuary or refuge _ high invertebrate habitat _ high amphibian habitat _ high fish habitat _ high mammal habitat _ high bird habitat _ high educational opportunities _ high nesthetic value _ high commercial fisheries, agriculture. renewable resources _ important historical or " archeological site _ many passive and active recreational opportunities _ unrestricted public access .....x direclly connected to open space _ butTer> required width ~ ample shrub layer _ three vegetative layers The Jay Group, LLC January, 2003 Job # 202095 Figure 3: Wetland C (emergent) and Associated Buffer based on Functions and Semi- quantitative Performance Assessment, Cooke (1996) Criteria Function Group 1 1 pt Group 2 2 pts Flood/ 2L size < 5 acres -size 5·10 acres -riverine or lakeshore wetland -mid-sloped wetland Storm Water Control "-< I 0% forested cover [0 -30% forested cover -unconstrained outlet ~ semi-constrained outlet 2L locnted in lower r /3 of drainage -located in middle 1/3 of Points 8 drainage (max 15) Base Flow/ 2L size, <.) acres -size 5-10 m:res -riverine or lakeshore wetland -mid-sloped wetland Groundwater Support 2L located in lower 1/3 of drainage -located in middle 1/3 of drainage X-temporarily flooded or saturated _ seasonally or semi-pemlanently nooded or saturated x.. no flow-sensitive lish -low Ilow-sensitive fish Points -.l populations on-site or populations on-site or downstream downstremn (max 15) Erosion/ _ sparse grass I herbs or ItO -sparse wood or vegetation along vegetation along OHWM OHWM Shoreline -wetland extends < 30 111 tram -wetland extends 30 -60m rrom Protection OHWM OHWM _ highly developed shoreline or _ moderately developed shoreline stlhcatchment or subcatchrncnt Points n/a (max 9) Water Quality _ rapid Ilow through site ...x moderate flow through site _ < 50% vegetative cover -X 50 -80% vegetative cover Improvement -upstream in basin Irom wetland _ ~ 50% of basin upstream tram is undeveloped wetland is developed Points ~ ...x holds < 25% overland runol1" -holds 25 -50% overland TunotT (max 12) N/A = Not Applicable, N/I -No Information Available' La Fortuna Detailed Mitigation Plan Best Construction King County 6 Group 3 3 pts 'size> 10 (leTeS --A depressions. headwaters. bogs. nuts > 30% forested cover -culvert I berllled outlet -_ located in upper 1/3 of drainage size> 10 acres -...x depressions. headwaters. bogs, flats _ located in upper 1/3 of drainnge _ permanentty tlooded or saturated. or intermittently exposed _ high flow-sensitive fish popUlations contiguous with site in highly permeable stmla -dense wood or vegetation along OHWM wetland extends> 200 111 froill -OHWM _ undeveloped shoreline or subcatchl11ent -slow now through site _ > 80% vegetative Cover ....x> 50% of basin upstream from - wetland is developed holds> 50% overland runolT 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 1 1 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 J1 (max 21) Noise and Visual Screening Points 6 (max 9) X-size < 5 acres _ ag land. low vegetative structure X seasonal surface waler L one habitat type PAS POW rEM pss PFO EST 2L low plant diversity « 6 species) _ > 50% invasive species 2L low primary productivity L low organic accumulation _ low organic export 2L thv habitat features L butTer very disturbed _ isolated from upland habitats x.. size < 5 acres· L low habitat diversity 2L low sanctuary or refuge low invertebrate habitat L low amphibian habitat L low lish habitat .JL low Illamlllal habitat ~ low bird habitat 2L low educational opportunities 2L low aesthetic value -2i lacks commercial tisheries. agriculture, renewable resources 2L lncks historical or archeological resources 2L lacks passive and active recreational opportunities 2L privately owned _ not near open space K.. bulTer < required width _ no shrub layer _ one vegetative layer _ size 5 -10 m;res .-X 2 vegetative levels _ permanent surface water _ two habitat Iypes PAS POW PEM PSS PFO EST _ illoderate plant diversity ( 7 -15 species) ...2;; to -50% invasive species _ moderate primary prouuclivity _ moderate orgnnic accumulation ~ moderate organic export _ some habitat features _ butTers slightly distllToed _ partially connected to upland habitats size 5 10 acres _ moderate habitat diversity _ moderate sanctunry or refuge -.X moderate invertebrate habitat _ moderate amphibian hnbilat moderate lish habitat _ moderate mammal hahitat _ moderate bird habiWI _ moderate educntionul opportunities moderate aesthetic value _ modemte commercial lisheries, agriculture. renewable resources _ historical or mcheoJogicnl site _ some passive and active . recreational opportunities _ privately owned. sOllle public access _ nol near open space _ buffer -required widlh _ sparse shrub IDyer ~ two vegetative layers NIA -Not Applicable, Nil -No Information Available La Fortuna Detailed Mitigation Plan Best Construction King County 7 _ sizl! > 10 acres _ high vegetative structure _ open water pools through summer .....x 2: 3 habitat types PAS POW PEM PSS PFO EST .A high plant diversity ( > 15 species) _ < 10% invasive species _ high primary productivity _ high organic accumulation _ high organic export _ many habitat lentures buffers not disturbed ....A well connected to upland habitats _ size> 10 acres _ high habitat diversity _ high sanchmry or refuge _ high invertebrate habitat _ high amphibian habitat _ high tish habitat _ high mammal habitat _ high bird habitat _ high educational opportunities _ high aesthetic value _ high commercial lisht:ries. agriculture. renewable resources _ important historical or archeological site _ many passive and active recreational opportunities _ unrestricted public access .....x directly connected to open space _ builer> required width -.X nmple shrub layer _ three vegetative lnyers 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 shrub 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, ,'~~~ctio~f::" •• , )V~tl~~d .. " ,', "::A 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 ,Wetland' • 'AB~ffer Moderate N/A N/A Moderate Moderate Moderate High Moderate Moderate " Wetland ,', Wetland _. --'" B ' B Buffer, Moderate Moderate Moderate N/A N/A N/A Moderate/ Moderate High Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Moderate / Moderate / High High Moderate / Moderate Low Moderate Moderate 10 I,Wetland,', ,W,etland "'C';;: 'C Briffer Moderate Moderate Low/ N/A Moderate N/A N/A Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Low Moderate Moderate Moderate / Low Low Moderate I 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 (ft\ The filling of these wetlands would allow for construction of the roads and site development. Buffer impacts from these developments would total 8,784 fe. No impacts are proposed to Wetland A, and only 30 ft2 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 ft2. 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 / 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 11 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 ft2 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 ft2 of Wetland B. The proposed mitigation includes creation of approximately 396 ft2 along the southern boundary of Wetland B. Associated buffer impacts to Wetland B amounts to approximately 8,784 ft2, and will be mitigated for by the enhancement of 17,853 ft2 and the creation of 9,062 ft2 additional buffer around the buffer to Wetland A and Wetland B. T bl 1 I a e t d mpace vs. M't' t d 1:lqa 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 corn uta 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 ',' {,.1·h.",.,:'; ",~.r,,\.. ',.' .... !j)\j~;.9~t,~gg~ti.~ n :!':'!;:(i~;' .,1;;;:.',', s;,~~~.~ ~~p.ns,~r.~~~\i:r7;f~",i:. : ,';" F:unction'~'\ ····Wetland B, "'< ' Buffer::,""',,;; ·'.···Wetlaiid B '.~. :i··Y~;Buffef\·:::' .:> f.~:")_'!<'~j:j/:~;\:t::·,~;~::::,~:~::·" ':::. ~ ~ t·," ~:?> co<' :. I;': -:\";.:.:.',.:. B ;.:,:-.;/:;~L;~~ :~f:(·; :';:.+~~;~'::;~+:'~j~:} ';:~ '::'~\W~t~~~y: 8 :;"'!.'~':~'j';'::? ~. 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 Culturall Socio- economic Overall Functions and Values Moderate N/A Moderate/Hig h 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 ft> of scrub-shrub wetland adjacent to impacted wetland. 2. Enhance 17,853 ft> of buffer to compensate for the loss of 8,784 ff existing buffer. 3. Create approximately 9,062 ft' 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'es of approximately 393 ft' 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 ft' of wetland buffer impacted by road construction and site development, by removal of stockpiled debris in wetland buffers and planting of 17,853 ft' 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 Mitigation 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 ft2 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 ft2 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 obnupfa). 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 menziesil), 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 cornuta), 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 menziesil), western red cedar (Thuja plicata) 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 cornuta), 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 techniques 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 correspond 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 (northwest/southeast) in the buffer. The permanent transects in the wetland creation area shall be approximately 30 feet La Fortuna Detailed Mitigation Plan 16 The Jay Group, LLC Best Construction January, 2003 King County Job # 202095 long and run laterally (northeasUsouthwest) 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 arid 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 relevarit 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 Q,v..~ ""I ~ 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 -A 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 arid 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 Detai/ed 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. ~ iM'~ In general a performance bond or other Cancial 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 Forluna 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, AJ., 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. Castelle, AJ" 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, CL, 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. Biofiltration 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 21A24. Marble, AD. 1990. A Guide to Wetland Functional Design, AD. 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 Wet/and 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 Wet/and 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. Thft 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 May 25,2002 Mr. ~carnail .Ioha! clo Mr. Luay R. Joudeh, P.E. D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers. Inc. 10604 N.E. 38th Piace, SUite 101 t(irkland, W A 98033 Re: Weiland Investigation lor La Fortuna Townhouses, King County: PreApplicalion 1111.01 PM115. Dear fv1r. Johal: Per l'our request. weiland investigation was conducted on the subject property located jusl east of Renlon in unincorporated King County (Section 10, Township 23 N., Range 7 E. W.M.). The project site is Situated on two parcels its Iota I size is approximalely 4.51 acres. A Boundary Une Adjustment will be included in the project proposal. The subjecl property is iocated at 12632 Petrovitsky Roael on the north side of the existing homes thai lronl on the Road (see atlached 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 aastern parcel inCludes a house, lawn, old pasture. and manmade pond. The pond and house a.reas, and the plant nursery are not included In this project. Both hom9s and the plant nursery will remain and are adjacent to the proposed La Fortuna Townhouse residential project. Purpose/Method The purpose of this leiter report is to identify Ihe extent of the wetland area on the project property and the regulatory implications of wetland management currently administered by King County. The County's sensitive areas regulations are found in KCC Chapter 21A.24. A pre- application meeting was conducted with King County on 1/8/02 to present the project and gather relatad information lor detailed planning. Wetlands exist on the site, and this letter describes Ihose conditions for Counly verification. In accordance with current State requirements, the Washington State Wetlands Identilication and Delineation Manual (Ecology Pub. #96-94) was used for wetland determination. The State Manual is 9. revisEid varsion 10 the 1987 US Army Corps 01 Engineers WEitlends Delir.ealion Manual (FICWD 1987). The intent of the State Manual is to reflect regional conditions but resuit in ths same de!arminatian and delineation as the 1967 Corps Manual. WetlandS are determined where vegetation, soils, and hydrology all reflect. that hydric corlditions are present on a site. Six, wetland date; plClts w-sre installed throughout the site and marked with pink pl~stic flegging. The snciosBd site map shows loc2110ns of weiland dala pIOIS, and the data plO! forms are attached to this lener. I ' J .. 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 sile (Soos Creek #104). The King County Area Soil Survey (US Soil Conservation Service 1973) has mapped two soil series on the site -Arems. Alderwood material. 6 10 15 percenl slopes (AmC). and Seattle mucl( (Sk). The Arents. Alderwood soil Iype 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 malerial primarily derived from sedges. The Seattle muck soil mapping is directly associated with the Soos Creek # 104 weiland area. Wetland InvestIgatIon The site araa was initially investigated on 6/25/01 to delineate wetlands on Ihe western parcel. Additional site visit work occurred on 1/25102 to assess conditions on the eastern parcel. In addition 10 weiland descriptions. a brief overview of the property is included. Three wetlands were identified on the project site. Two of 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 Craek #104. This forested wetland exists on the western side of the project site. ObselVed soils within the wetland include organic muck and hydric mineral soil similar to Norma sandy loam. Tree cover includes red alder (Alnus rubra). Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifotia). black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera). and Pacific willow (Salix lasisndra). Western red cedar (Thuja plica/a). weGtern crabapple (Malus fusca). and western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) trees were observed on the wetland edge. The shrub component has salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis). red osier dogwood (Comus sto/anifera). black !winberry (Lanicera involucra/a). and spirea (Spiraea doug/asH) with western hazelnut (Cory/us comula) and vine maple (Acer circinafum) occurring mostly on the wetland/upland edge. Emergent vegetation Includes slough sadge (Carex abnupta). creeping buttercup (Ranuncu/us repens). lady tern (Athyrium felix-femina). and mannagrass (G/reena sp.) with some skunk cabbage (Lysichilon americanum) and yellow iris (/ris pS9udocorus). The wetland area appears 10 be isolated but past ohannelization activities. within the wetland. direct surface water flows south into the Pertrovitsky Road storm drainage system. 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 receivas piped stormwater from residential development jusl north of the sile. The pond area is a designated drainage easement. As reported in the La Fortuna Townhouses Laval Ona Downstream Analysis (D.R. Strong Engineers 11/01). the on-site portion of wetland is approximately 54.000 square feel. l · " . Mr, Luay Joudeh May 25,2002 Page 3 Using the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) classification system (Cowardin et al 1979), the wetland is palustrine, forested, scrub/shrub, persistent and non-persistent emergent, with seasonally flooded conditions, According to the County'S wetland rating criteria (KGG 21A.06.1415), the wetland would be a Class 2 because it is greater than 1 aCle but less than 10 acres in size, and has three wetland' classes of vegetation including a forested class. The standard buffer setback distance is 50 feel and has been provided as pari of the project. Wetland B Wetland B is a very small depression (1,636 square leet) of scrub/shrub habitat localed near the center of Ihe project site, The welland 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, fern. H\,dric 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 criteria, it appears the wetland is exempt from regulation because it is less than 2,500 square feet in size, WetfandC Wetland G is a very disturbed area adjacent to the eastern boundary of the project site, Like Wetland S, the area is very small (1,047 square feet) but active hydrology was observed as groundwater discharging at the north point 01 the wetland. Due to the amount of past filling and grading in this area, a natural source of hydrology was not determined. Because the surrounding areas have been developed, the water flows could be related to piped or other arlificial conditions, The adjacent pasture/field area appears to also have been 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 waler IIows around an old concrete foundation towards the off-sile rnanmade pond. However, most at the flows from this wetland drain to the west through a concrete culvert. These surface water flows 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 portion around the old foundation is dominated Hirnalayan blackberry and creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens). Using Ihe USFWSsystem, the wetland is palustrine, scrub/sl1rub. emergent, with seasonal hydrology. According 10 Ihe County's wetland raling criteria, it appears the weiland is exempt from regulallon because It Is less than 2,500 square feet In size. l ' \ .. ' .., Mr. Luay Joudeh May 25, 2002 Page 4 ' .. " In summary, this letter report is provided to identify the wetlands on the site and allow the County staff to verify the areas and related wetland ratings for application submittal. If there are any questions or concerns regarding this wetland report or you require additional site specific data, please feellree to contact me. Sincerely, C. Gary Schulz Weiland/Forest Ecologist Bear4all@yahoo.com 7700 S. Lakeridge Dr. Seattle, WA 9B17B (206) 772-6514 . . CONDITIONS OF PERMIT/APPROVAL Activity Number: B03DCOOI Type: building Date: 9-4-03 SENSITIVE AREAS: WETLAND CONDITIONS OF PERMIT/APPRO V 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 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.